|
Ayn Rand was notorious for her absolute rejection of Immanuel Kant, and the branding of him as the most evil man in history. I consider this to be false, and I believe Rand is morally executing the wrong man. I believe that if one wants a philosophical super-villain, one needs to look at Kant's successor, Fichte.
As for Rand's interpretation of Kant, I believe Rand makes two mistakes. First, she accuses Kant of equating the phenomenal with the illusiory, and second, she declares Kant's morality to be both consequentially and motivationally altruistic (Kant's morality was altruistic in the motivational, but not the consequential sense).
The first point: Kant spent much ink refuting any equation between 'phenomenal' and 'illusiory.' He did not see noumenal truth as superior to phenomenal truth: he saw phenomenal truth as THE ONLY truth. At no time did he declare phenomena to be total distortions. However, his successors, the German Idealists, DID allege phenomena to be totally subjective in nature. Rand is correct that Kant opened the gates for the seperation of perception from reality, but he did not make this allegation himself. Secondly, Kant's morality is accused of being one of consequential altruism (i.e. an action must not result in personal gain and ideally it results in personal loss) as well as motivational altruism (the reason one does X cannot be self-interested, it must be a duty worth doing for its own sake). The latter is true of Kant but the former is not.
So who DID turn Kant's phenomena into subjective, illusiory, arbitrary whim? Johann Gottlieb Fichte! THIS is the true monster, not Immanuel Kant. It should also be known that he was the father of German Nationalism, and eventually, National Socialism. I would contend that Objectivists should not be fighting Kant, rather his successors. Kant may have opened the gates of hell, set the wheels in motion, but its Fichte that completed the seperation of perception from reality.
|