>> Sam wrote:
>> >Kant's ethics make extraordinary demands on
>> >people. Kant's "kingdom of ends" is a utopia.
>>
>> Which is the reason why Kant had to believe in the immortality of soul.
>> Another remainder of Christianity in Kant.
>>
>> Yoshie
>
>It is beyond me that, after the experiences of the past,
>some in the left continue to hold on to this naive idea that they
>can root out all past religious history as "retrogressive". Religion will
>always be with us, because religion is not about some supernatural
>entity, but about what we hold to be sacred, of which the
>inviolabilty of the human being is such. And Christianity, in its own
>imaginary way, took a major step in this direction in its
>claim that *each* human being has an immortal soul, equal in the light
>of eternity.
In the case of Kant, faith in the immortality of soul is linked to his
anti-hedonist & anti-revolutionary doctrine (with regard to both 'internal'
freedom & 'external' right). Respect for the Law ("Do Your Duty!) at all
costs, even at the cost of having to silently endure a tyranny. Kant was
honest enough to admit that his doctrine comes with such high costs.
Kant wrote in "On the Common Saying: 'This May be True in Theory, but it
does not Apply in Practice'": "It thus follows [from the theory of the
original contract] that all resistance against the supreme legislative
power, all incitement of the subjects to violent expressions of discontent,
all defiance which breaks out into rebellion, is the greatest and most
punishable crime in a commonwealth, for it destroys its very foundations.
This prohibition is *absolute*. And even if the power of the state or its
agent, the head of state, has violated the original contract by authorizing
the government to act tyrannically, and has thereby, in the eyes of the
subject, forfeited the right to legislate, the subject is still not
entitled to offer counter-resistance. The reason for this is that the
people, under an existing civil constitution, has no longer any right to
judge how the constitution should be administered.... Nor can a right of
necessity...be invoked here as means of removing the barriers which
restrict the power of the people; for it is monstrous to suppose that we
can have a right to do wrong in the direst (physical) distress." Kant goes
on to condemn the "errors" of elevating the Happiness of the People over
the Principle of Right and thus of advocating the overthrow of the existing
state. For Kant, "It is obvious...that the principle of happiness...has ill
effects in political right just as in morality....[for] the people are
unwilling to give up their universal human desire to seek happiness in
their own way, and thus become rebels."
What would better sustain the subject's unconditional obedience to the law,
*even in the face of material deprivation, physical distress, and political
oppression*, than the intimations of his soul's divinity and immortality?
Kant wrote [in the same article]: "Admittedly, it [the principle of
happiness] does not contradict the experience which the *history* of maxims
derived from various principles provides. Such experience, alas, proves
that most of them are based on selfishness. But it does contradict our
(necessarily inward) experience that no idea can so greatly elevate the
human mind and inspire it with such enthusiasm as that of a pure moral
conviction, respecting duty above all else, struggling with countless evils
of existence and even with their most seductive temptations, and yet
overcoming them--for we may rightly assume that man can do so. The fact
that man is aware that he can do this just because he ought discloses
within him an ample store of divine capabilities and inspire him, so to
speak, with a holy awe at the greatness and sublimity of his true
vocation." Ah, the flesh is weak, but the spirit is willing!
In other words, Kant does not "hold sacred" the "inviolability of human
being as such." What is sacred for Kant is the Law (moral and political).
Kant wrote: "[The] preservation of the state from evil is an absolute duty,
while the preservation of the individual is merely a relative duty (i.e. it
applies only if he is not guilty of a crime against the state)." For Kant,
what is worthy of dignity is not the mind and body of an empirical,
actually existing, and historically constituted individual; his body and
welfare may be readily sacrificed for the sake of duty, for what is worth
respect is not the totality of an individual, but only his sublime ability
to do his moral and political duty. Kant's immortal soul is the Sublime
Subject of Ideology, whose spirit triumphs even or especially at the moment
his body is flayed alive.
Yoshie
