In theoretical regard Kant dismisses the idealism that declares the world to be a mere illusion. Practically, however, we should act as if it was true: We should consider the brevity and vanity of life, treat the world as a children's game and not take anything as important except our moral duty. This is the path to a constantly cheerful heart.

Quote: 0:08

Nothing in life has value except our morality: 0:22

Life is short and fleeting: 27:54

Mere life, measured by its pleasure, is worthless: 34:43

Practical idealism: 54:18

The power of imagination as condition of the possibility of practical idealism: 1:21:41

The constantly cheerful heart: 1:51:44

Abstraction as means to a happy life: 2:01:00

Thanks: 2:22:23

The posture of practical idealism and the constantly cheerful heart Kant discusses mainly in his works on anthropology, so in his Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view: http://korpora.org/kant/aa07/230.html, his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 and his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/234.html. (I could not find any free English translations online) But also his lectures on logic deal with art at times, that is with the difference between the aesthetical and the logical: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes241imma/page/n5/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes242imma/page/n7/mode/2up (English translations exist, but unfortunately I couldn't find them for free on the internet.) You may also gain an impression of Kant's attitude towards life with its brevity and towards death through his Thoughts on the Occasion of Mr. Johann Friedrich von Funk’s Untimely Death https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/84129/excerpt/9780521884129_excerpt.pdf

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Each inclination is a chain. It binds us to the objects which we need for satisfying it. And the more we satisfy it the more we become dependent on it through habit and also get numb towards the pleasure. Whoever wants to be happy therefore should not chase after satisfaction of his needs but strive for having as little needs as possible. Kant recommends along with Epicurus a modest life: Don’t deny yourself delights, don’t live in complete asceticism, but be content with little and simple delights, enjoy other pleasures from time to time when there is an opportunity, but don’t make yourself dependent on them.

Quote: 0:08

The positive path towards happiness: Get what you require: 0:38

The negative path towards happiness: Require little: 19:10

Modesty instead of wantoness: 26:21

People should be able to do without, but not actually do without everything: 38:36

Whoever is dependent on things is immoral and unhappy: 1:04:14

Kant's advices: 1:35:26

- Abstain from futile desires: 1:36:13

- Think how many live without whatever is a need to you: 1:39:54

- Don’t let habits turn into inclinations through habit: 1:46:31

- Always keep some pleasures in prospect for later: 2:08:18

- Don’t sacrifice the whole for a part: 2:22:20

- Keep in mind that every gain is a loss and the other way around: 2:30:54

Conclusion: 2:41:24

Thanks: 2:45:16

The posture of modesty Kant discusses mostly in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up and in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa19/ (I am not aware of any English translations).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

People's misery mostly doesn't come from outside difficulties or blows of fate but from them letting things affect their mood too much and being too sensitive. Against this Kant advises a stoic equanimity: Allowing no thing an influence on one's psyche, not being sad about anything except one's own bad behaviour. This however doesn't mean indifference: A person should be sentimental and should take things to heart, that is let himself be moved, but they should not rob him of his peace of mind.

Quote: 0:08

People aren't victims of their affections and passions: 1:29

The wise person does not need to overcome himself but isn't at war with himself in the first place: 13:25

People ought to be equanimous, not indifferent: 22:39

People ought to take things to heart, not let them affect their mood: 31:46

People ought to be sentimental, not sensitive: 51:55

True equanimity comes from character: 1:02:40

The oversensitivness of the present is an issue of civilization: 1:20:09

Equanimity does not go together with hedonism: 1:38:07

Thanks: 1:48:37

The posture of equanimity Kant discusses mainly in his works on anthropology, so in his Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view: http://korpora.org/kant/aa07/230.html, his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 and his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/234.html. (I could not find any free English translations online) But also his lectures on logic deal with art at times, that is with the difference between the aesthetical and the logical: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes241imma/page/n5/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes242imma/page/n7/mode/2up (English translations exist, but unfortunately I couldn't find them for free on the internet.)

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

A person should tame their affections and passions. This is a moral duty, for through them you harm others but also lose your own reason and through this your freedom and your human dignity. It however is also advised pragmatically, for the affections and passions bring all kinds of misery upon people, an equanimous life which is free of them therefore is a more happy life.

Quote: 0:08

Happiness we attain through independence: 0:58

Affections: 8:57

Passions: 33:36

The similarities between affections and passions: 49:48

The differences of affections and passions: 54:40

Passions are always directed at people: 58:58

Classification of passions: 1:12:37

1. Material passions: 1:22:35

2. Formal passions: 1:33:01

- The passion for freedom: 1:33:35

- The passions for honour, power and money: 2:08:25

The purpose of affections and passions: 2:27:09

Passions come about through the power of imagination: 2:47:24

Kant is the apologist of sensuality: 3:06:25

Thanks: 3:09:29

Overview over the faculties of the mind according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/faculties-of-the-mind-and-critiques-according-to-Kant.jpg

Affections and passions Kant discusses mainly in his works on anthropology, so in his Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view: http://korpora.org/kant/aa07/230.html, his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 and his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/234.html. (I could not find any free English translations online) But also his lectures on logic deal with art at times, that is with the difference between the aesthetical and the logical: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes241imma/page/n5/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes242imma/page/n7/mode/2up (English translations exist, but unfortunately I couldn't find them for free on the internet.)

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

For a long time practical philosophy was considered the doctrine of the good life and of happiness. Morality was often considered a part of this or also a means to reach happiness. Kant's accomplishment lies in having strictly distinguished both. The proper or pure practical philosophy only deals with moral duty in his system, unconcerned with our personal adventage or happiness. Nevertheless Kant also in many places made remarks about what a good life consists of. And the cliché of Kant only preaching and himself living cold, joyless dutifulness is not true: Sensuality and our desires according to him should be governed by reason, but not supressed, rather they should get their due.

Quote: 0:08

The place of the doctrine of good life in the architectonic of Kant's system: 0:35

A universally valid doctrine of happiness is not possible: 13:48

Kant's remarks on happiness are less original than other parts of his thinking: 24:17

Kant did not reject sensuality and pleasure in the name of morality: 28:13

Morality and prudence mostly align: 57:33

Kant stands for moral rigorism but not moral purism: 1:09:06

Virtue is strength and courage and therefore not grumpy but cheerful: 1:25:40

Kant himself enjoyed his life: 1:43:23

Moral duty should be done for its own sake, not because it is adventagous to us: 2:01:34

Thanks: 2:09:11

Overiew over philosophy according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Philosophy-according-to-Kant.jpg

Overiew over metaphysics according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Metaphysics-according-to-Kant-scaled.jpg

The relationship of reason and sensuality, moral duty and prudent joy of life and his rejection of grumpy ethics and the virtue of monks Kant discusses most extensively in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translation).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Kant's position towards animals is often attacked but usually completely misunderstood. According to him we don't have duties towards animals but still duties in regards to animals. From the standpoint of right they are items, meaning they can be possessed and and used and have no rights just as they have no duties. Still we ought to treat them with care. Not for their but for our own sake: Because it would not befit our own human dignity to not behave like rational beings and not act in a purposeful manner. Kant's moral philosophy therefore is one that not only forbids treating animals disregardingly but even to treat lifeless objects disregardingly.

Quote: 0:08

Kant's position towards animals: 1:55

The nature of animals: 10:41

- The faculty of cognition of animals: 21:51

- The feelings of animals: 45:17

- The faculty of desiring of animals: 1:03:50

- The souls of animals and their life after death: 1:13:09

The criticism of Kant's position: 1:16:37

Animals are items without rights: 1:34:54

Kant rejects animal abuse: 1:54:19

Kant is not anthropocentric but ratiocentric: 2:06:36

We mustn't abuse animals because otherwise we become numb: 2:21:11

We mustn't abuse animals out of reverence for ourselves: 2:26:39

Reverence for ourselves indeed is the reason people treat animals regardingly, even if they aren't aware of it: 2:36:35

Why people really reject Kant's moral philosophy in regards to animals: 2:52:52

A person ought to not be possessed by the spirit of destruction: 3:00:01

The duties in regards to animals are wide duties and left to our own discretion: 3:24:33

Everything ought to be a matter of conscience to us: 3:32:57

Thanks: 3:38:38

Overview over the faculties of the mind according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/faculties-of-the-mind-and-critiques-according-to-Kant.jpg

Overiew of sensuality according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sensuality-according-to-Kant.jpg

The moral relationship with animals and how we should treat them is a topic in the Metaphysics of Morals: https://debatewikiarchive.github.io/circuitdebater/file/view/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf as well as in the lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translation).

Whoever is interested in Kant's own relationship with animals should read the descriptions of his life by his acquaintances, especially Ehregott Andreas Christoph Wasianski's Immanuel Kant in his final years of life: https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10064190?page=1 (I am not aware of any free English translation).

The nature of animals in distinction from human nature Kant addresses in various places of his lectures on metaphysics: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant_d7g2/mode/2up as well as his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 (I am not aware of any free English translation).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

The state of nature is a war of all against all. Only public right can create perpetual peace. There must be laws which secure for each his own, and these laws must be binding and enforced. States right is supposed to create peace between individuals, the right of nations is supposed to bring peace between states. But for such a states right and right of nations to be able to be established there first needs to be a global cosmopolitan right: There mustn't be total war of all against all after all, rather every human being must have a universal right of visitation. For only if someone who does not belong to a legal community und is not protected through the laws governing it, has the opportunity to at least offer joining it, can a legal community ever come into being in the first place.

Quote: 0:08

Public right and cosmopolitanism: 1:45

There must be a cosmopolitan right to hospitality: 10:44

Refugees: 27:27

Colonialism: 55:16

The significance of cosmopolitan right in the face of totalitarianism: 1:16:39

Thanks: 1:30:09

Cosmopolitan right Kant discusses in his text On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm as well as in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Perpetual peace between states is possible if these enter into a federation of nations and submit to binding international law. For this to be possible two conditions should be met inside the states: There should be freedom of thought so that criticism and proposals for reaching perpetual peace are possible, and the sate should have a republican consitution so that wars are only possible with the approval of the people that has to wage them.

Quote: 0:08

Peace through right: 2:54

There ought to be freedom of thought: 13:23

The state ought to be a republic: 17:00

Perpetual peace is possible, even if humans are evil: 45:24

Thanks: 59:23

The significance of the freedom of thought and of a republican constitution for peace Kant discusses in his essay On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai