Kant is evil because his epistemology divorced man's mind from an objective reality. Kant could have said anything at all on ethics and politics, the damage was already done. Since man had no 'real' objective apprehension of reality, it was laughable to proceed to prescriptive aspects of philosophy. His disciples, and those influenced by him, certainly fleshed this out into the destructive subjectivism and relativism that were and are the supports of collectivism. Kant's fairly juvenile reformulations of the ubiquitous golden rule are quite harmless and quite forgotten to the modern collectivist because they floated away, weightless, when Kant's metaphysics and epistemology severed man's mind from an objective assessment of 'what is', and therefore from any rational force in prescribing what man 'ought do.'
If you conceive of freedom as somehow the *right* to do anything you want , or the *right* to do anything you want with no ill consequences, then the entire reasoned structure of rights disintegrates into just another philosophy of might makes right. Take the example even of a desert island. Even there, a single person can not 'do anything they want' - not in the context of: *and continue living* or *continue living with comfort or security.* Reality itself dictates that the human being must spend of his/her life time acting based on reason to secure values necessary to continue living and live with any kind of comfort or security. How a human persists in conscious existence - what is necessary for that to occur - is dictated by the real nature of a human - his physiology - his physical needs - and the means (reason) - by which he must secure values in the existence in which he finds himself. Here are some conclusions from the example: ...
Comments