Categories of the Faculty of Understanding See also: Category (Kant) Kant statue in Belo Horizonte, Brazil In studying the work of Kant one must realize that there is a distinction between understanding as the general concept (in German, das Verstehen) and the understanding as a faculty of the human mind (in German, der Verstand, the intellect). In much English language scholarship, the word understanding is used in both senses. Kant deemed it obvious that we have some objective knowledge of the world, such as, say, Newtonian physics. But this knowledge relies on synthetic, a priori laws of nature, like causality and substance. The problem, then, is how this is possible. Kants solution was to reason that the subject must supply laws that make experience of objects possible, and that these laws are the synthetic, a priori laws of nature that we know apply to all objects before we experience them. So, to deduce all these laws, Kant examined experience in general, dissecting in it what is supplied by the mind from what is supplied by the given intuitions. What has just been explicated is commonly called a transcendental reduction.[42] To begin with, Kants distinction between the a posteriori being contingent and particular knowledge, and the a priori being universal and necessary knowledge, must be kept in mind. For if we merely connect two intuitions together in a perceiving subject, the knowledge is always subjective because it is derived a posteriori, when what is desired is for the knowledge to be objective, that is, for the two intuitions to refer to the object and hold good of it necessarily universally for anyone at anytime, not just the perceiving subject in its current condition. What else is equivalent to objective knowledge besides the a priori, that is to say, universal and necessary knowledge? Nothing else, and hence before knowledge can be objective, it must be incorporated under an a priori category of the understanding.[42][43] For example, say a subject says, The sun shines on the stone; the stone grows warm, which is all he perceives in perception. His judgment is contingent and holds no necessity. But if he says, The sunshine causes the stone to warm, he subsumes the perception under the category of causality, which is not found in the perception, and necessarily synthesizes the concept sunshine with the concept heat, producing a necessarily universally true judgment.[42] To explain the categories in more detail, they are the preconditions of the construction of objects in the mind. Indeed, to even think of the sun and stone presupposes the category of subsistence, that is, substance. For the categories synthesize the random data of the sensory manifold into intelligible objects. This means that the categories are also the most abstract things one can say of any object whatsoever, and hence one can have an a priori cognition of the totality of all objects of experience if one can list all of them. To do so, Kant formulates another transcendental deduction.[42] Judgments are, for Kant, the preconditions of any thought. Man thinks via judgments, so all possible judgments must be listed and the perceptions connected within them put aside, so as to make it possible to examine the moments when the understanding is engaged in constructing judgments. For the categories are equivalent to these moments, in that they are concepts of intuitions in general, so far as they are determined by these moments universally and necessarily. Thus by listing all the moments, one can deduce from them all of the categories.[42] One may now ask: How many possible judgments are there? Kant believed that all the possible propositions within Aristotles syllogistic logic are equivalent to all possible judgments, and that all the logical operators within the propositions are equivalent to the moments of the understanding within judgments. Thus he listed Aristotles system in four groups of three: quantity (universal, particular, singular), quality (affirmative, negative, infinite), relation (categorical, hypothetical, disjunctive) and modality (problematic, assertoric, apodeictic). The parallelism with Kants categories is obvious: quantity (unity, plurality, totality), quality (reality, negation, limitation), relation (substance, cause, community) and modality (possibility, existence, necessity).[42] The fundamental building blocks of experience, i.e. objective knowledge, are now in place. First there is the sensibility, which supplies the mind with intuitions, and then there is the understanding, which produces judgments of these intuitions and can subsume them under categories. These categories lift the intuitions up out of the subjects current state of consciousness and place them within consciousness in general, producing universally necessary knowledge. For the categories are innate in any rational being, so any intuition thought within a category in one mind is necessarily subsumed and understood identically in any mind. In other words we filter what we see and hear.[42] Schema See also: Schema (Kant) Kant ran into a problem with his theory that the mind plays a part in producing objective knowledge. Intuitions and categories are entirely disparate, so how can they interact? Kants solution is the schema: a priori principles by which the transcendental imagination connects concepts with intuitions through time. All the principles are temporally bound, for if a concept is purely a priori, as the categories are, then they must apply for all times. Hence there are principles such as substance is that which endures through time, and the cause must always be prior to the effect.[44][45] Moral philosophy Immanuel Kant Kant developed his moral philosophy in three works: Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785),[46] Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and Metaphysics of Morals (1797). In the Groundwork, Kants method involves trying to convert our everyday, obvious, rational[47] knowledge of morality into philosophical knowledge. The latter two works followed a method of using practical reason, which is based only upon things about which reason can tell us, and not deriving any principles from experience, to reach conclusions which are able to be applied to the world of experience (in the second part of The Metaphysic of Morals). Kant is known for his theory that there is a single moral obligation, which he called the Categorical Imperative, and is derived from the concept of duty. Kant defines the demands of the moral law as categorical imperatives. Categorical imperatives are principles that are intrinsically valid; they are good in and of themselves; they must be obeyed by all, in all situations and circumstances, if our behavior is to observe the moral law. It is from the Categorical Imperative that all other moral obligations are generated, and by which all moral obligations can be tested. Kant also stated that the moral means and ends can be applied to the categorical imperative, that rational beings can pursue certain ends using the appropriate means. Ends that are based on physical needs or wants always give merely hypothetical imperatives. The categorical imperative, however, may be based only on something that is an end in itself. That is, an end that is a means only to itself and not to some other need, desire, or purpose.[48] He believed that the moral law is a principle of reason itself, and is not based on contingent facts about the world, such as what would make us happy, but to act upon the moral law which has no other motive than worthiness of being happy.[49] Accordingly, he believed that moral obligation applies only to rational agents.[50] A categorical imperative is an unconditional obligation; that is, it has the force of an obligation regardless of our will or desires (Contrast this with hypothetical imperative)[51] In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785) Kant enumerated three formulations of the categorical imperative that he believed to be roughly equivalent.[52] Kant believed that if an action is not done with the motive of duty, then it is without moral value. He thought that every action should have pure intention behind it; otherwise it was meaningless. He did not necessarily believe that the final result was the most important aspect of an action, but that how the person felt while carrying out the action was the time at which value was set to the result. In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant also posited the counter-utilitarian idea that there is a difference between preferences and values and that considerations of individual rights temper calculations of aggregate utility, a concept that is an axiom in economics:[53] Everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no equivalent, has a dignity. But that which constitutes the condition under which alone something can be an end in itself does not have mere relative worth, i.e., price, but an intrinsic worth, i.e., a dignity. (p. 53, italics in original). A phrase quoted by Kant, which is used to summarize the counter-utilitarian nature of his moral philosophy, is Fiat justitia, pereat mundus, (Let justice be done, though the world perish), which he translates loosely as Let justice reign even if all the rascals in the world should perish from it. This appears in his 1795 Perpetual Peace (Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf.), Appendix 1.[54][55][56] The first formulation The first formulation (Formula of Universal Law) of the moral imperative requires that the maxims be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature .[52] This formulation in principle has as its supreme law the creed Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will and is the only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....][57] One interpretation of the first formulation is called the universalizability test.[58] An agents maxim, according to Kant, is his subjective principle of human actions: that is, what the agent believes is his reason to act.[59] The universalisability test has five steps: Find the agents maxim (i.e., an action paired with its motivation). Take for example the declaration I will lie for personal benefit. Lying is the action; the motivation is to fulfill some sort of desire. Paired together, they form the maxim. Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim. With no exception of ones self. This is in order for you to hold people to the same principle required of yourself. Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim. If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world. If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and is sometimes required. (For a modern parallel, see John Rawls hypothetical situation, the original position.) The second formulation The second formulation (or Formula of the End in Itself) holds that the rational being, as by its nature an end and thus as an end in itself, must serve in every maxim as the condition restricting all merely relative and arbitrary ends.[52] The principle dictates that you [a]ct with reference to every rational being (whether yourself or another) so that it is an end in itself in your maxim, meaning that the rational being is the basis of all maxims of action and must be treated never as a mere means but as the supreme limiting condition in the use of all means, i.e., as an end at the same time.[60] The third formulation The third formulation (Formula of Autonomy) is a synthesis of the first two and is the basis for the complete determination of all maxims. It says that all maxims which stem from autonomous legislation ought to harmonize with a possible realm of ends as with a realm of nature.[52] In principle, So act as if your maxims should serve at the same time as the universal law (of all rational beings), meaning that we should so act that we may think of ourselves as a member in the universal realm of ends, legislating universal laws through our maxims (that is, a code of conduct), in a possible realm of ends.[61] None may elevate themselves above the universal law, therefore it is ones duty to follow the maxim(s). Religion Within the Limits of Reason Kant articulates his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of religious organizations to those that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God.[62] Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of ones actions. The severity of Kants criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967). Nevertheless, other interpreters consider that Kant was trying to mark off a defensible rational core of Christian belief.[63] Kant sees in Jesus Christ the affirmation of a pure moral disposition of the heart that can make man well-pleasing to God.[62] Idea of freedom In the Critique of Pure Reason,[64] Kant distinguishes between the transcendental idea of freedom, which as a psychological concept is mainly empirical and refers to the question whether we must admit a power of spontaneously beginning a series of successive things or states as a real ground of necessity in regard to causality,[65] and the practical concept of freedom as the independence of our will from the coercion or necessitation through sensuous impulses. Kant finds it a source of difficulty that the practical concept of freedom is founded on the transcendental idea of freedom,[66] but for the sake of practical interests uses the practical meaning, taking no account of... its transcendental meaning, which he feels was properly disposed of in the Third Antinomy, and as an element in the question of the freedom of the will is for philosophy a real stumbling-block that has embarrassed speculative reason.[65] Kant calls practical everything that is possible through freedom, and the pure practical laws that are never given through sensuous conditions but are held analogously with the universal law of causality are moral laws. Reason can give us only the pragmatic laws of free action through the senses, but pure practical laws given by reason a priori[67] dictate what ought to be done.[68][69] The categories of freedom In the Critique of Practical Reason, at the end of the second Main Part of the Analytics,[70] Kant introduces, in analogy with the categories of understanding their practical counterparts, the categories of freedom. Kants categories of freedom appear to have primarily three functions: as conditions of the possibility for actions (i) to be free, (ii) to be comprehensible as free and (iii) to be morally evaluated. For Kant actions, although qua theoretical objects they are always already constituted by means of the theoretical categories, qua practical objects (objects of reason in its practical use, i.e. objects qua possibly good or bad) they are constituted by means of the categories of freedom; and it is only in this way that actions, qua phenomena, can be a consequence of freedom, and can be understood and evaluated as such.[71] Aesthetic philosophy Kant discusses the subjective nature of aesthetic qualities and experiences in Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime, (1764). Kants contribution to aesthetic theory is developed in the Critique of Judgment (1790) where he investigates the possibility and logical status of judgments of taste. In the Critique of Aesthetic Judgment, the first major division of the Critique of Judgment, Kant used the term aesthetic in a manner that, according to Kant scholar W.H. Walsh, differs from its modern sense.[72] Prior to this, in the Critique of Pure Reason, to note essential differences between judgments of taste, moral judgments, and scientific judgments, Kant abandoned the term aesthetic as designating the critique of taste, noting that judgments of taste could never be directed by laws a priori.[73] After A. G. Baumgarten, who wrote Aesthetica (1750–58),[74] Kant was one of the first philosophers to develop and integrate aesthetic theory into a unified and comprehensive philosophical system, utilizing ideas that played an integral role throughout his philosophy.[75] In the chapter Analytic of the Beautiful of the Critique of Judgment, Kant states that beauty is not a property of an artwork or natural phenomenon, but is instead a consciousness of the pleasure that attends the free play of the imagination and the understanding. Even though it appears that we are using reason to decide what is beautiful, the judgment is not a cognitive judgment,[76] and is consequently not logical, but aesthetical (§ 1). A pure judgement of taste is in fact subjective insofar as it refers to the emotional response of the subject and is based upon nothing but esteem for an object itself: it is a disinterested pleasure, and we feel that pure judgements of taste, i.e. judgements of beauty, lay claim to universal validity (§§20–22). It is important to note that this universal validity is not derived from a determinate concept of beauty but from common sense [source?]. Kant also believed that a judgement of taste shares characteristics engaged in a moral judgement: both are disinterested, and we hold them to be universal. In the chapter Analytic of the Sublime Kant identifies the sublime as an aesthetic quality that, like beauty, is subjective, but unlike beauty refers to an indeterminate relationship between the faculties of the imagination and of reason, and shares the character of moral judgments in the use of reason. The feeling of the sublime, itself officially divided into two distinct modes (the mathematical and the dynamical sublime), describes two subjective moments, both of which concern the relationship of the faculty of the imagination to reason. Some commentators,[77] however, argue that Kants critical philosophy contains a third kind of the sublime, the moral sublime, which is the aesthetic response to the moral law or a representation thereof, and a development of the noble sublime in Kants theory of 1764. The mathematical sublime is situated in the failure of the imagination to comprehend natural objects that appear boundless and formless, or appear absolutely great (§ 23–25). This imaginative failure is then recuperated through the pleasure taken in reasons assertion of the concept of infinity. In this move the faculty of reason proves itself superior to our fallible sensible self (§§ 25–26). In the dynamical sublime there is the sense of annihilation of the sensible self as the imagination tries to comprehend a vast might. This power of nature threatens us but through the resistance of reason to such sensible annihilation, the subject feels a pleasure and a sense of the human moral vocation. This appreciation of moral feeling through exposure to the sublime helps to develop moral character. Kant had developed the distinction between an object of art as a material value subject to the conventions of society and the transcendental condition of the judgment of taste as a refined value in the propositions of his Idea of A Universal History (1784). In the Fourth and Fifth Theses of that work he identified all art as the fruits of unsociableness due to mens antagonism in society,[78] and in the Seventh Thesis asserted that while such material property is indicative of a civilized state, only the ideal of morality and the universalization of refined value through the improvement of the mind of man belongs to culture.[79] Political philosophy Main article: Political philosophy of Immanuel Kant In Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch[80] Kant listed several conditions that he thought necessary for ending wars and creating a lasting peace. They included a world of constitutional republics.[81] His classical republican theory was extended in the Science of Right, the first part of the Metaphysics of Morals (1797).[82] Kants political teaching may be summarized in a phrase: republican government and international organization. In more characteristically Kantian terms, it is doctrine of the state based upon the law (Rechtsstaat) and of eternal peace. Indeed, in each of these formulations, both terms express the same idea: that of legal constitution or of peace through law. Taken simply by itself, Kants political philosophy, being essentially a legal doctrine, rejects by definition the opposition between moral education and the play of passions as alternate foundations for social life. The state is defined as the union of men under law. The state rightly so called is constituted by laws which are necessary a priori because they flow from the very concept of law. A regime can be judged by no other criteria nor be assigned any other functions, than those proper to the lawful order as such. [83] He opposed democracy, which at his time meant direct democracy, believing that majority rule posed a threat to individual liberty. He stated, ...democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which all decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, all, who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom.[84] As with most writers at the time, he distinguished three forms of government i.e. democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy with mixed government as the most ideal form of it. Anthropology Kant lectured on anthropology for over 25 years. His Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View was published in 1798. (This was the subject of Michel Foucaults doctoral dissertation.) Kants Lectures on Anthropology were published for the first time in 1997 in German.[85] The former was translated into English and published by the Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy series in 2006.[86] Kant was among the first people of his time to introduce anthropology as an intellectual area of study long before the field gained popularity. As a result, his texts are considered to have advanced the field. Kant’s point of view also influenced the works of philosophers after him such as Martin Heidegger, Paul Ricoeur, and Jean Greisch. Kant viewed anthropology in two broad categories. One category was the physiological approach which he referred to as “what nature makes of the human being”. The other category was the pragmatic approach which explored the things a human “can and should make of himself”.[87] Influence Kants influence on Western thought has been profound.[88] Over and above his influence on specific thinkers, Kant changed the framework within which philosophical inquiry has been carried out. He accomplished a paradigm shift: very little philosophy is now carried out in the style of pre-Kantian philosophy. This shift consists in several closely related innovations that have become axiomatic, in philosophy itself and in the social sciences and humanities generally: Kants Copernican revolution, that placed the role of the human subject or knower at the center of inquiry into our knowledge, such that it is impossible to philosophize about things as they are independently of us or of how they are for us;[89] His invention of critical philosophy, that is of the notion of being able to discover and systematically explore possible inherent limits to our ability to know through philosophical reasoning His creation of the concept of conditions of possibility, as in his notion of the conditions of possible experience – that is that things, knowledge, and forms of consciousness rest on prior conditions that make them possible, so that, to understand or to know them, we must first understand these conditions His theory that objective experience is actively constituted or constructed by the functioning of the human mind His notion of moral autonomy as central to humanity His assertion of the principle that human beings should be treated as ends rather than as means Some or all of these Kantian ideas can be seen in schools of thought as different from one another as German Idealism, Marxism, positivism, phenomenology, existentialism, critical theory, linguistic philosophy, structuralism, post-structuralism, and deconstructionism.[90][dubious – discuss] Historical influence Statue of Immanuel Kant in Kaliningrad (Königsberg), Russia. Replica by Harald Haacke (de) of the original by Christian Daniel Rauch lost in 1945. During his own life, there was much critical attention paid to his thought. He had an influence on Reinhold, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and Novalis during the 1780s and 1790s. The school of thinking known as German Idealism developed from his writings. The German Idealists Fichte and Schelling, for example, tried to bring traditional metaphysically laden notions like the Absolute, God, and Being into the scope of Kants critical thought.[91] In so doing, the German Idealists tried to reverse Kants view that we cannot know what we cannot observe. Hegel was one of Kants first major critics. In response to what he saw as Kants abstract and formal account, Hegel brought about an ethic focused on the ethical life of the community.[92] But Hegels notion of ethical life is meant to subsume, rather than replace, Kantian ethics. And Hegel can be seen as trying to defend Kants idea of freedom as going beyond finite desires, by means of reason. Thus, in contrast to later critics like Nietzsche or Russell, Hegel shares some of Kants most basic concerns.[93] Kants thinking on religion was used in Britain to challenge the decline in religious faith in the nineteenth century. British Catholic writers, notably G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, followed this approach. Ronald Englefield debated this movement, and Kants use of language. See Englefields article,[94] reprinted in Englefield.[95] Criticisms of Kant were common in the realist views of the new positivism at that time. Arthur Schopenhauer was strongly influenced by Kants transcendental idealism. He, like G. E. Schulze, Jacobi, and Fichte before him, was critical of Kants theory of the thing in itself. Things in themselves, they argued, are neither the cause of what we observe nor are they completely beyond our access. Ever since the first Critique of Pure Reason philosophers have been critical of Kants theory of the thing in itself. Many have argued, if such a thing exists beyond experience then one cannot posit that it affects us causally, since that would entail stretching the category causality beyond the realm of experience. For a review of this problem and the relevant literature see The Thing in Itself and the Problem of Affection in the revised edition of Henry Allisons Kants Transcendental Idealism. For Schopenhauer things in themselves do not exist outside the non-rational will. The world, as Schopenhauer would have it, is the striving and largely unconscious will. With the success and wide influence of Hegels writings, Kants influence began to wane, though there was in Germany a movement that hailed a return to Kant in the 1860s, beginning with the publication of Kant und die Epigonen in 1865 by Otto Liebmann. His motto was Back to Kant, and a re-examination of his ideas began (See Neo-Kantianism). During the turn of the 20th century there was an important revival of Kants theoretical philosophy, known as the Marburg School, represented in the work of Hermann Cohen, Paul Natorp, Ernst Cassirer,[96] and anti-Neo-Kantian Nicolai Hartmann.[97] Kants notion of Critique or criticism has been quite influential. The Early German Romantics, especially Friedrich Schlegel in his Athenaeum Fragments, used Kants self-reflexive conception of criticism in their Romantic theory of poetry.[98] Also in Aesthetics, Clement Greenberg, in his classic essay Modernist Painting, uses Kantian criticism, what Greenberg refers to as immanent criticism, to justify the aims of Abstract painting, a movement Greenberg saw as aware of the key limitiaton—flatness—that makes up the medium of painting.[99] French philosopher Michel Foucault was also greatly influenced by Kants notion of Critique and wrote several pieces on Kant for a re-thinking of the Enlightenment as a form of critical thought. He went so far as to classify his own philosophy as a critical history of modernity, rooted in Kant.[100] Kant believed that mathematical truths were forms of synthetic a priori knowledge, which means they are necessary and universal, yet known through intuition.[101] Kants often brief remarks about mathematics influenced the mathematical school known as intuitionism, a movement in philosophy of mathematics opposed to Hilberts formalism, and the logicism of Frege and Bertrand Russell.[102] Influence on modern thinkers West German postage stamp, 1974, commemorating the 250th anniversary of Kants birth With his Perpetual Peace, Kant is considered to have foreshadowed many of the ideas that have come to form the democratic peace theory, one of the main controversies in political science.[103] Prominent recent Kantians include the British philosopher P. F. Strawson,[104] the American philosophers Wilfrid Sellars[105] and Christine Korsgaard.[106] Due to the influence of Strawson and Sellars, among others, there has been a renewed interest in Kants view of the mind. Central to many debates in philosophy of psychology and cognitive science is Kants conception of the unity of consciousness.[107] Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls are two significant political and moral philosophers whose work is strongly influenced by Kants moral philosophy.[108] They have each argued against relativism,[109] supporting the Kantian view that universality is essential to any viable moral philosophy. Rawlss intellectual relationship with Kant is explored in A Theory of Justice: The Musical!, which premièred in Oxford in 2013 and which portrays Kant as Rawlss utilitarian fairy Gottmutter.[110] Kants influence also has extended to the social, behavioral, and physical sciences, as in the sociology of Max Weber, the psychology of Jean Piaget, and the linguistics of Noam Chomsky. Kants work on mathematics and synthetic a priori knowledge is also cited by theoretical physicist Albert Einstein as an early influence on his intellectual development.[111] Because of the thoroughness of the Kantian paradigm shift, his influence extends to thinkers who neither specifically refer to his work nor use his terminology. Scholars have shown that Kants critical ethos has also inspired nonwestern political thinkers, including the Muslim political reformer Tariq Ramadan.[112] Tomb and statue Kants tomb in Kaliningrad, 2007 5 DM 1974 D silver coin commemorating the 250th birthday of Immanuel Kant in Königsberg Kants tomb is today in a mausoleum adjoining the northeast corner of Königsberg Cathedral in what is now known as Kaliningrad, Russia. The mausoleum was constructed by the architect Friedrich Lahrs and was finished in 1924 in time for the bicentenary of Kants birth. Originally, Kant was buried inside the cathedral, but in 1880 his remains were moved outside and placed in a neo-Gothic chapel adjoining the northeast corner of the cathedral. Over the years, the chapel became dilapidated before it was demolished to make way for the mausoleum, which was built on the same spot, where it is today. The tomb and its mausoleum are among the few artifacts of German times preserved by the Soviets after they conquered and annexed the city. Today, many newlyweds bring flowers to the mausoleum. Artifacts previously owned by Kant, known as Kantiana, were included in the Königsberg City Museum. However, the museum was destroyed during World War II. A replica of the statue of Kant that stood in German times in front of the main University of Königsberg building was donated by a German entity in the early 1990s and placed in the same grounds. After the expulsion of Königsbergs German population at the end of World War II, the University of Königsberg where Kant taught was replaced by the Russian-language Kaliningrad State University, which took up the campus and surviving buildings of the historic German university. In 2005, the university was renamed Immanuel Kant State University of Russia. The change of name was announced at a ceremony attended by President Vladimir Putin of Russia and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany, and the university formed a Kant Society, dedicated to the study of Kantianism
Posted on: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 06:12:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015