I'm not sure how to respond to Joe Cronin's astounding claims about Kant
and Hegel. The first thing that comes to mind has to do with
scholarship. The quotes that Joe picked to corroborate his claim that
Kant and Hegelare in some way part of a tendency which culminated in
Hitler suffer from a gigantic argumentative gap. I'm not saying that
because of this gap, Joe's point is false, just that it isn't made. I in
fact think it totally false to make the conneciotn that Joe made, but I'm
at a loss at howe to proceed. In general, with respect to the issue of
responding to fascism, I'm not interested too much in debate. I have a
small amount of expereince in community responses to street level nazis
and white supremacists, and dialogue of any kind was never on the agenda,
never mind trying to create a space in which to describe the liberating
consequences of the categorical imperative.
However, inside the safety of the net, and in the context of a discussion
group such as this one, I wonder if Joe might be prepared to consider
broadening the kind of interpretative strategy he brings to intellectual
history. I'm not talking about the lame kind of eclecticism that would
forgive Kant hisa misogyny, or Hegel his racism, on the grounds that
those were not challenged posiitons in that historical context. I take
that to be a bullshit response. Kant and Hegel's views are to be
vigorously repudiated. On the other hand, there is surely some room to
distance some of the issues that Kant and Hegel first introduced, or
introduced in a helpful manner. Kant, for instance, is among the first
philosphers to insist on making practical reason come before theoretical
reason. I could go on forever.
My main point is that it seems to me that Kant and Hegel are more than
biograp[hical references in the history of philosophy, they are also
completly contemporary to us today.
Antoine Goulem
------------------
and Hegel. The first thing that comes to mind has to do with
scholarship. The quotes that Joe picked to corroborate his claim that
Kant and Hegelare in some way part of a tendency which culminated in
Hitler suffer from a gigantic argumentative gap. I'm not saying that
because of this gap, Joe's point is false, just that it isn't made. I in
fact think it totally false to make the conneciotn that Joe made, but I'm
at a loss at howe to proceed. In general, with respect to the issue of
responding to fascism, I'm not interested too much in debate. I have a
small amount of expereince in community responses to street level nazis
and white supremacists, and dialogue of any kind was never on the agenda,
never mind trying to create a space in which to describe the liberating
consequences of the categorical imperative.
However, inside the safety of the net, and in the context of a discussion
group such as this one, I wonder if Joe might be prepared to consider
broadening the kind of interpretative strategy he brings to intellectual
history. I'm not talking about the lame kind of eclecticism that would
forgive Kant hisa misogyny, or Hegel his racism, on the grounds that
those were not challenged posiitons in that historical context. I take
that to be a bullshit response. Kant and Hegel's views are to be
vigorously repudiated. On the other hand, there is surely some room to
distance some of the issues that Kant and Hegel first introduced, or
introduced in a helpful manner. Kant, for instance, is among the first
philosphers to insist on making practical reason come before theoretical
reason. I could go on forever.
My main point is that it seems to me that Kant and Hegel are more than
biograp[hical references in the history of philosophy, they are also
completly contemporary to us today.
Antoine Goulem
------------------