The roots of Kaptian individualism are in his epistemology, metaphysics and ethics. Vant sees the essence of individuality in the mind of the individual. Mind to systematize the material provided by experience, to create a picture of the world, with the help of your laws, your categories. The link in the causal connection of phenomena, the empirical individual, is subject to the law of necessity. But we understand the personality as “Vosho raeposhepop” not to cover its innermost essence, as a thing in itself, as “Posho poptepop”, as a member of the intelligible (shiNesoTe) 2) world. Freedom is the essence of the individual, as an agent of such a thing, where you must dominate life. This must (categorical imperative) lies in the primacy of practical reason (the area of morality in the broad sense of the word) over the theoretical (the area of the banner of nature). Hence: freedom and duty - the essence and boundaries of human behavior. Hence, therefore, the norms of this behavior are the norms of free will-
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
— 379 laziness of the individual. Here we have reached the culminating point of the development of the idea of moral and legal personality, which began in the era of humanism and was continued by the methodological philosophers of Descartes and Bacon. The dogmatism of these philosophers longed for the liberation of the epistemological individual, and mapped out the path for this liberation in ethics. After two centuries, before us, the same individual is outlined, limited within the limits of his knowledge, but at the same time, in legal and moral conduct, declared autonomous. The limitations of reason are contrasted with the unlimited aspirations of the moral will, which overcomes nature. Kant's ethical formula is not at all what Naulsen imagines it to be: you can, therefore you must. This is the formula for positive morality. Kant stoically asserts: you are false, therefore you can. But should you? After all, this, in essence, means that something is forcing you. Kant's individualism, in its truest form, lies precisely in the fact that it is something, Kant believes, within the individual, conscious of duty. And from yourself comes that maxim that should become a universal law of behavior. This starting point is the strength of Kant’s individualism, which he contrasted with the thousand-year tutelage of the environment over the individual, which ended in the era of the Könisberg professor with a paternal administration and a police state. Rearrange the terms of Kant's formula: your maxim must become a universal law. If your maxim cannot become a universal law, then it cannot be a moral law. Consequently, the universal law should be your maxim.
From here the social character of Kant’s ethos becomes clear, but it remains somehow in the shadows. And in the foreground appears before us the free personality, its autonomous law, spontaneous moral disposition and action, the individual as an end in itself, independent of the will of others. These morals
| in in we OVY yy
These moments, especially the last ones, convey their sentiment to Kant’s theory of law and his political teaching, although they are not connected with them by a consistently drawn theoretical connection. However, for the doctrine of rights, the view of the moral person expressed by Kant in his ethical theory is also important. A person can never be a means for another person, but a purpose. For every person is covered with the freedom of a rational being. She is the reason for her actions. Therefore, it is self-sufficient, like any other. This is a characteristic feature. Kant recognized the dignity and dignity of every person, who had, in general, a low opinion of people as an anthropological species and material 1). The glimpse of some anthropological misanthropism was overcome in Kant only by the strong willpower that characterizes his dualistic system. Its dualism is in the idea of man as an amphibian, living in two worlds, the noumenal and the phenomenal. The founder of criticism came to the conclusion that man is subject to the law of causality, which operates throughout nature. But he did not put up with the utilitarian and materialistic foundation of morality, common to the French enlightenment with the exception of Rousseau, who was predominantly influenced by Kant.
He was looking for the basis of autonomous morality and found it in the freedom of man, in the idea of man as a member of an intelligible ra, creating for himself an autonomous norm.
1) Kant says, among other things, that the crooked tree from which a person is made does not allow him to make anything straight. (G\. 149).