Kant's Legacy When It Matters: On Karl Ameriks' <i>Kantian Dignity and Its Difficulties</i>

In his latest book which has – to the deepest sadness of so many both inside and outside the profession – turned out to be his last, at least the last seen through the publication process by himself, Karl Ameriks (2024) takes us on a fascinating journey from one of the core topics of Kant's moral theory to what, with two important exceptions, have so far largely been the fringes of Kant scholarship. This includes the reception and relevance of an undisputed classic of philosophy – as Kant surely is – at sometimes in turn quite unexpectedly interrelated key moments of German and US intellectual and cultural history. Ameriks utilizes this grand arch to highlight crucial elements of strength and weakness in Kant's overall project in moral philosophy. The book consists of an exceptionally useful introduction, eight chapters, and a postscript. The introduction contains detailed information about the immediate background of this project, including a sometimes quite moving brief autobiographical account of his own roots in the Baltic region to the east of Kant's hometown Königsberg (13–15) – an important detail which chimes with the overall message of the book. It closes with an afterthought, which is officially concerned with an issue concerning the German novelist and public intellectual Thomas Mann's (“TM” in the following) stance towards morality and the value of discursive thought and argument in general. However, this section touches upon the much larger problem of the widespread dismissive attitude to morality in the educated public on account of an overly narrow, ‘Victorian’ conception of it with a focus on erotic matters. Indeed, morality is often overly drawn on in practice, but dismissed in theory – an awkward paradox. In Chapter 1, Ameriks defends what he calls the “mainline interpretation” (16) of Kant's doctrine of dignity against recent challenges. Chapter 2 revisits the differences between Herder and Kant with regard to their takes on history and culture in the light of a text usually badly neglected in the literature, namely Kant's very brief postscript to a Lithuanian-German dictionary (AA 8, 445) in which he endorses a much more pluralist variant of cosmopolitanism than he previously did. Ameriks discusses the continuing relevance of the complementary nature of Herder's and Kant's approaches and singles out developments in post-Kantian philosophy, in particular Early Romanticism which, to some extent, attempted a fruitful combination of elements of both when initiating what Ameriks has, in one of his earlier books, termed a “historical turn” (Ameriks 2006) in philosophy. This fundamental change led to reflection on the relation to philosophical thought of the past and the contingencies of the philosopher's own historical situation as integral moments of doing philosophy itself. Chapter 3 is dedicated to two interconnected topics which have recently attracted considerable attention, i.e., signs of racism and antisemitism in Kant's œuvre. With regard to the first issue, Ameriks discusses the radical charges levelled against Kant by Charles Mills (e.g., Mills 2017) and Michael Lackey (2012: ch. 6), while with regard to the second, Paul Franks' (2009) important investigations serve as a point of reference. It is in the context of these charges that Houston Stewart Chamberlain and his hugely influential and pernicious writings (e.g., Chamberlain 1899 and Chamberlain 1905) come into focus. They will play an important role in the subsequent discussion of the prevalence of what Ameriks calls “shocking misinterpretations” (7) of Kant's project and the damage wrought by them at key junctions of German history, e.g., in the time leading up to WWI. For Ameriks, Kant is indeed guilty of blatant racism in parts of his œuvre, a point which has sometimes been contested. In Ameriks' opinion, though, this racism, however deplorable it is, is not a systemic issue, as we might wish to put it, i.e., it is not an integral or constitutive feature of Kant's approach in moral philosophy. Ameriks also dismisses suggestions that there could be any affinity between Kant's thought and fascist or Nazi ideology and identifies a number of crude misreadings to this effect. Moreover, for Ameriks, the racist elements are at odds with the core principles of Kant's very own moral thought, with dignity and its universal scope being a case in point. It is indeed a challenge to explain how it was possible that Kant veered off the course which his own key principles should have set him on. To be sure, though, in Ameriks' opinion, Kant's embarrassing claims are really dangerous and harmful since they may seem to lend credibility to the misreading of his project by chauvinist authors, e.g., in the very time leading up to the start of WWI, as again the case of Chamberlain indicates. As to the problem of anti-semitism, its presence in Kant's works is also conceded by Ameriks, and he agrees with Franks that Kant in this regard stands in an unfortunate line with some of the major representatives of German Idealism. Ameriks attributes this defect largely to lack of knowledge about the finer points of Jewish philosophy and theology – manifest, for example, in the persistent critical stance towards a supposedly merely statutory account of morality – on the one hand, an insensitivity to the impact those remarks are likely to have on marginalized communities on the other. Moreover, Ameriks sees what he calls an “establishment attitude” (e.g., 111–114) or, perhaps, a stance of cultural elitism, and also provincialism (e.g., 10, 113n57) which he explicitly does not direct at Kant's hometown in general, as has sometimes been suggested, at work in Kant. Chapter 4 deals with a very different, much more rarely discussed type of flaw in Kant's texts, namely a glaring omission: Unlike in the case of the French Revolution he failed to discuss – even mention, let alone endorse – the events and the masterminds or intellectual forces behind the American Declaration of Independence of 1776, which – for all the shortcomings in the political reality of this newly founded political entity – should have elicited his interest as a political project. Implicitly at least, it put core principles of Kant's moral philosophy into political practice (and thereby indicated how Europe's republican future might look). The ban of aristocratic privilege and the separation of church and state are cases in point. This topic gains even more poignancy by the contrast of Kant's eerie silence to the enthusiastic reception of and comprehensive commenting on these events by Kant's contemporary, the Welsh is Kant does not even between and at any is the topic of Chapter on for and is that not a it is for Kant as namely a lack of to the contingencies of historical in the light of Ameriks not a account of but also the of Kant's comprehensive and philosophy of history which on and a for the of Ameriks also to cultural history, and it is indeed an important which in this have Kant his for the of the US it really have a the German intellectual when it as Ameriks to that a more in this there may have been towards the US of the cultural and political in in the to though, Kant's own of by of a in this regard his reception history even more and to this point in more detail the of many of the of German cultural history for chauvinist and deplorable was on a approach to the in Kant's for the French Revolution could not this in any could Kant's on being the political The of a and so widespread in the first of the have its in a for intellectual Ameriks sees as a misreading by – and was not alone this regard – is a case in point. the in of the of the of was thought to to the it not the “shocking Ameriks and are dedicated to Ameriks on his from and in his of the German to one of the key intellectual of the and his US of the and against or, as Ameriks usually it, (e.g., Ameriks points out that misreading of Kant is in with stance as that the to the and to was by his of some of the Early of the on the one and on the which, in Ameriks' opinion, in line with Kant's when it to dignity and its Ameriks does not that these through a and with Kant's texts, the role to the Early is to Ameriks' from earlier that they are the of Kant's The Early put much on the role of intellectual and more than Kant about the of the in of a of and moral In what focus on Ameriks' on Kant on dignity as as on his account of the role of Kant's for the from to as we might wish to This is by to the of the They are exceptionally in philosophical which at even seem to in for when the of which, for example, the to principles of the US the of all being the between Kant and Herder and the discussion of the racism and the antisemitism with regard to Kant are topics of that of them an in its own which in turn is of the of what Ameriks is a on of it to challenge the of the for an Chapter is the point of for the project, and in it, Ameriks' of the of Kant on dignity is by what one could the universal scope i.e., the that dignity is universal and to all Ameriks also that this universal scope is on the of for with being in and and not in of to which moral are by it in the first Ameriks this conception of dignity to and of it and that his approach is with a of moral Ameriks' a of the of or which is to be in a This approach is, by and in line or a of a account of one of the of Kant's on not as in in the it, that in his theory of Kant's doctrine of The of theory against this have in is With regard to conception of morality in of a of nature in one or in moral theory for many one of the key has been the of this to Kant's and of moral in an of the as and his This not any of about what to as the moral of is with an to which, in its is by the as the of theory thought also that its with the of the to this of a will is to it when it to Kant's account of his in of the an of the will of the being than of is for The be termed an very or an of Kant's an of will might be is, of all the more since Kant's of the of a will in section of the (AA is again to very It be as merely a how we we a of the of being of the and the which is the for us on the one or to a feature or of and its role in the of a on the other. by of Kant's of will and and by the problem of a possible of Kant's in the and its doctrine of a of or of since the German is (AA which at least up the that Kant a more constitutive role of in is from i.e., to or to In any Ameriks does not of Kant's in the and takes Kant's overall to be the line this on the of the the to in line with the moral and in line with not the moral itself. any Ameriks that in the of the are and this the of for morality as as as the to the moral the line of thought, is to be in a comprehensive not as an to all of and more in the of the of an of Ameriks' on the the and the this the to a of this the moral to work towards of a and which to least their in and time the of what is Ameriks sees a in that moral are to and of to into In the context of his account of Ameriks his of in an of attempted of into the of as while major role in Kant's thought to the of philosophy. The approach to as Ameriks points of and time This line of is in a detailed of of dignity in of on the one and in of on the he that there are in Kant's work which seem to an For Ameriks, these are with his even with it, as they as it a of value when it to and on of the dignity of the As to they are when is in a and as dignity to the of an being (e.g., the of dignity upon their in in general, or a particular in the of an as a of a which is from it as a in this very be by In it be in detail Ameriks' takes Kant's doctrine of dignity to be with the doctrine of or In this which has recently been again to be the crucial context for Kant in this the key at issue was and in this regard of the being is as for the of from of the is in turn for of an to this Moreover, to this of is of the or of the in an of a it to an account of the may be to with regard to the of and the of for morality in the in line with the with regard to it is what, in should be as on the or of the of of an being is the of a The of Kant's to the doctrine of may also be of or the of thought behind Kant's racism and of to or them in the As not discuss this topic With this in we on to the case of and it may be an to a of his since key moments of it are crucial for the points Ameriks is was the of a of the German of and his with the and the German which to the with his of turned into the The in both a German and an by in The key in this regard are the in and the the the of a In his the German the and this is and in quite to a political In as as i.e., to his republican his The was and in he the in officially not for this is a in and to what the change of his political stance on the of this key a of on in 2 was into was as or as far as the as a was not the least on the and of For is to as the of the French and Moreover, he takes to be of universal while at the time to and an of German and to what in his earlier account of to The of 2 dismisses at in and a point to which him to to and to the first in and with in of the it him a time to out against the political in 2 to a of which is sometimes to as on the with both to the as as the and since as and many also in the he in 2 not and a number of important works as the in and often as his key to and the with an important account of the of this book in also turned into a – by the German – of the of German in the US for a in 2 there is German culture in In his against and for a US to the he a of to to through the to was a to the an American in he on a of between and and the in key and as the of was as a to the and by he his more as the of US of writings against are to the point and of and and which and this on account of its of and of and are for in German history and In in the of the political in the US in the of the a and 2 to not to of the two German but to he in 2 is not usually for his philosophical but the on even more the one on on which Ameriks a often have some philosophical often in of their and in The and some of the may have been with philosophical as a The behind the of and the of the Nazi of also feature in some of will to this with regard to two of his again The and Ameriks about them in The in is, as This the of a to his in a into a with the and intellectual forces of – in its of the The of the and him to the republican the work on the the of which, as as far as to and an intellectual of this the overall conception of this but as he he to it a and overall though, that it was a not to put the at the of the In this his a in the region – a dangerous situation – from and a of which includes elements of the in which a is being by at which point and to that should not his with and the political stance to it, has a in German at least to In a in the have been to the overly of in the of a of the many the on in particular has much to Ameriks, one of the for on his book project was a with was the for the in turn of the in in in In this has a a of the of his the In the a many the in while the is in the of the of when the and its own in on this in one so to how both the of to with the of a and the of an seen as in of the of a with the the of an overall and educated – a educated in the the of the of a with from the of an including those on events of historical from the novelist and his The key of this book is the of a through which two very have in the and on the one and – in turn the of the – the autobiographical of a on the other. The has the two elements and in a quite and even in the own and and in a fruitful Kant has also an on a what he could him it to as the which seen from one is a for and but which from the is a of has been in a intellectual as the German up as against the of the against and and and as it been Kant in the German up against he through all the of value In the in has been out in the and has been – more embarrassing be in the two of this not with to Kant. It be though, that there have been at the by very for example, the of the of the of Mann's works in not a it many of in parts of and role and with them (e.g., in have that the text and in that it or even its as it In line with it has been that in the is in a while a of to and the explicitly to it, the political as to be radical (e.g., this even that his in the is not far from his of a of which a stance on the with a more or stance on of of the have sometimes but this is not the for into any detail with regard to this However, it is that even the very on Kant indeed the be a of Kant. As what Ameriks is is that 2 not or in line with Kant's on dignity (and also on in the of the “mainline interpretation” Ameriks but the which out in Kant in the US as at least in an for some of his deepest moral this turned out to be a of for As also indicated chauvinist of key of German cultural history by in the to and WWI, and of course in the Nazi as have the case of which Mann's to to as for a time been seen as to for even the for political by of the of his at that time he for the case of as himself, not least of the more of his earlier in contrast to been and in the to and the of the sometimes German with a chauvinist as a himself, though, was much more even about the of a German state in the first it to his for and his should have been to in this a very of his writings in his case in at quite and his on of was and at The misreading of which Ameriks is and of the history of the German about which for a been by the of not a state – one was for a time an in – and the of the of the German of the in this was – and in this regard the case of be – is to be in even a towards or in of a focus on or in to and one could the first a the – in line with of the political philosophy in in the time leading up to and including – a conception of and the conception the This a or misreading of its cultural as Kant being one of the of one might – from let us as – that in was more a of than Kant. This be an about stance all It is a on the of Ameriks that it was a of the Early in with been into German which the It to the Kant failed to and to – as a of – at a of Kant on dignity with its a for the and this to the of the US The of the at any are and in a to his of and 2 in Chapter 8, in Chapter Ameriks a of the Early and with of their of which, in case of was guilty the of the it to is Ameriks' of the Early For Ameriks, and to be as pluralist on the line of or as the and not as about the as some of the representatives of the of the Moreover, he sees the Early as as they not important for be to be by let alone a philosophical to Ameriks, the that not all the are through let alone the is even the issue in post-Kantian philosophy might have been out more in opinion, is how this to the of in Kant In a the philosophical of morality from the undisputed of is, of some of in its own it does not an argument to that Chapter is for a very of some of the developments of post-Kantian thought of which to Ameriks, The termed section is in this his on in to of the of namely the the and the and in particular his of the to be to Ameriks, one of points of his on the of and in and is that situation is to that of the is at odds with the of his in the of this the is not on a into a to even the moral of the case at is the issue, and in this may indeed be In any Ameriks' when it is that it is the or culture which has it in of moral as the German into the of In and is a book of the not for Kant but also for German even in this it is of a more scope and not to be as comprehensive as the takes on in the by and and by The charges of a Kant of Ameriks' a of cultural or privilege as as provincialism to Kant be off It has sometimes been that the of was its combination of provincialism and the two being to other. In the case of the of this provincialism come in focus even more through Ameriks' of the of the book is and one of in has to with the historical of Kant's own Ameriks points out that this been the of in the – Kant to in the of the of the the of which with a of the In the course of these which at the of the of Baltic of the a and which into this This history in a not the public and It is indeed to project the political of of the German into but in while an integral and sometimes even as as of of the was in a or of the of the German Kant's not with those of the often but more and often which in i.e., two Kant's own The of Königsberg in the of has recently again been but the of its history to be are an important context of Kant's own stance on which, as the has it, an important turn and in his and as as it may in at least one important it is that Kant set on German it of course be to regard the as a German political entity This of may turn out to be important for example, Kant's of the (e.g., 8, as a of a on a and This may have been by to To come to a have its in the nature it its an of one of the topics in Kant's moral philosophy it the of some of the major in Kant – his not by his own key so to and how this his thought – to even of a outside the of philosophy and the role play in the and of these to the public at crucial junctions in history – an in and by the Early which on an important role in Ameriks' – is of For all the in though, the in be a philosophical for a of with regard to – a that is, for a in the and of is of 10, in the US and German This is when it to on German philosophy which us to Ameriks' own the of US reality – to its – his of Baltic to there the and him to one of the and Kant of to Kant's are by and number of the (and The of The of the of Kant Paul and are for into For the of have from