I Kant Decide What To Believe!

[Peikoff's Mullet]

Why do Objectivists hold Kant as the root of all evil in today's world? I very rarely hear Kant mentioned, even in my college Philosophy classes.  Kant, in many ways, expanded on what Plato had already posited. Why not say Plato is the root of all evil?

[StrictlyLogical]

Obviously because he is the soil of all evil.

[Peikoff's Mullet]

1 minute ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Obviously because he is the soil of all evil.

Hehehehehehehehe

[Ninth Doctor]

You can listen to Peikoff's lectures on Kant for free here:

https://campus.aynrand.org/campus-courses/history-of-philosophy

[New Buddha]

You have to remember that Rand left the Soviet Union in 1925.  Marxism (and Nazism) did not just pop into existence out of nothing -- and 100 million plus people dying last century at the hands of these philosophies wasn't just a fluke of history.

Marxism and Nazism are directly descended from Luther/Kant/Hegel German mysticism/transcendentalism.

[Repairman]

In my self-studied quest for better understanding of modern philosophy, Kant, through his philosophy, developed the most important body of work on German Idealism. While Kant was careful to avoid support for atheism outright, his morality did support the belief of selflessness, similar in ways to Christianity, but not necessarily requiring any acceptance in deity. This selfless morality remains the accepted morality of many in modern societies. Having introduced his ideals at a time when others, such as Hobbes and Hume, had provided "Godless" or nearly Godless philosophies, Kant provided a more expanded philosophy suitable for an age of science and reason. As for the finer pointed of German Idealism, I will leave that to the philosophy majors, whom I would expect to know more about Kant, Hegel, and others influenced by their works, such as 19th century Americans, William James and Charles Sanders Pierce. I'm still working on getting a better understanding of modern philosophy, so I'll accept any criticisms if I am in error. 

[New Buddha]

I can't put it any better than Jacob Bronowski.  From The Western Intellectual Tradition.

In it's final form, Luther's doctrine was well calculated to appeal to the existing political authorities.  In essence, Luther advocated the doctrine of passive obedience.  "Neither oppression nor injustice excuses revolt," he declared.  He advised the serfs that "the only liberty for which you should care is spiritual liberty; the only rights you can legitimately demand are those that pertain to your spiritual life."

Luther believed that the faith of a Christian had nothing to do with politics; the duty of a Christian was simply to obey constituted authority.

Turning completely to the princes, Luther confirmed them in the righteousness of their power.  The result was an alliance of church and state in which the former was subservient to the latter.  In effect, therefore, Lutheranism made a total surrender of the practical life of the individual to state control.

For Germany [and the Soviet Union - my add] the result of Luther's thought was a division between the inner life of the spirit, which was free, and the outer life of the person, which was subjugated to unattackable authority.  This dualism in German though has lingered from Luther's day to this."

The above very much influenced Kant's ethics and Hegel's veneration of the Prussian State.  This ultimately translated into Nazism's Nationalism and Marx's Collectivism.

 

Note:  William James was as anti-Kant and German Rationalism/Idealism as Rand (if not more so).  Peirce, not so much, but for technical reasons that would require another post.

Edited April 5, 2016 by New Buddha