What do you think?
Rate this book
Le droit de mentir
Über ein vermeintes Recht, aus Menschenliebe zu lügen,” in Berlinische Blätter 10. Blatt (6 Sept. 1797), pp.301-14. [Ak. 8:425-30] “On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy.” Trans. by Mary J. Gregor in Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy, edited by Mary J. Gregor ( Cambridge Univ. Press, '96), pp.611-15. The Berlinische Blätter was a periodical published by Johann Erich Biester bridging a two-year gap between his Berlinische Monatsschrift, which ceased publication with a Dec. 1796 issue & Biester’s Neuen Berlinischen Monatsschrift, which began in Jan. 1799.
96 pages, Pocket Book
First published January 1, 1797
1 person is currently reading
21 people want to read
About the author
Immanuel Kant
3,035 books4,370 followersImmanuel Kant was an 18th-century philosopher from Königsberg, Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He's regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe & of the late Enlightenment. His most important work is The Critique of Pure Reason, an investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics & epistemology, & highlights his own contribution to these areas. Other main works of his maturity are The Critique of Practical Reason, which is about ethics, & The Critique of Judgment, about esthetics & teleology.
Pursuing metaphysics involves asking questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Kant suggested that metaphysics can be reformed thru epistemology. He suggested that by understanding the sources & limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions. He asked if an object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality–which he concluded that it does–then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this that it's possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, & so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. So the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind. Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists & the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired thru experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason. Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists & empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding Kant's system, thus bringing about various forms of German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental philosophy.
Pursuing metaphysics involves asking questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Kant suggested that metaphysics can be reformed thru epistemology. He suggested that by understanding the sources & limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions. He asked if an object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality–which he concluded that it does–then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this that it's possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, & so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. So the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind. Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists & the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired thru experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason. Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists & empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding Kant's system, thus bringing about various forms of German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
August 10, 2025
the girls are fighting
October 1, 2018
À quoi pense Constant lorsqu'il a décidé de répondre à Kant ?
cette question m’a préoccupé tout au long de la lecture de ce petit livre. Bien qu’il soit petit de taille, il amène son lecteur vers des univers beaucoup plus vastes. Kant, toujours dans son optique très éthique refuse toute forme de mensonges, il limite la capacité humaine face aux circonstances du quotidien. Il pense que mentir ne peut que mener vers les problèmes et ne peut en aucun cas aider où sauver. Ces pensées sont très logiques venant de Kant qui très imprégné de la logique religieuse, qu’il va même l’utiliser comme référence dans son explication.
Constant, un peu à la manière de “ rap clash” de nos jours, il répond aux idées Kantienne d’une manière plus ou moins pragmatique. À travers sa réponse, provocante en quelques parties, il montre une compréhension profonde à l’oeuvre kantienne “Fondements de la métaphysique des mœurs” . Mais le résultat est tout à fait le contraire. Il donne plus de confiance à l’intelligence humaine qu’il la considère capable de distinguer entre mentir pour une bonne cause, mentir pour une mauvaise cause. il légitime le premier cas de mensonges, il considère que même les principes sont mis à la logique des priorités, Par exemple mentir pour sauver une vie humaine est tout à fait légitime , il va même à dénoncer la sincérité lorsqu'elle mène à la perte d’une vie humaine.
"tout ce que j’ai voulu prouver, c’est l’exagération des principes, étant le moyen le plus infaillible de les rendre inapplicables, serai toujours une des armes les plus dangereuses que puissent employer les partisans des préjugés”.
Je le conseille vivement, il enrichit la culture personnelle, mais aussi il enrichit notre logique morale, il permet aussi de voir une querelle philosophique : classe, noble et enrichissante.
cette question m’a préoccupé tout au long de la lecture de ce petit livre. Bien qu’il soit petit de taille, il amène son lecteur vers des univers beaucoup plus vastes. Kant, toujours dans son optique très éthique refuse toute forme de mensonges, il limite la capacité humaine face aux circonstances du quotidien. Il pense que mentir ne peut que mener vers les problèmes et ne peut en aucun cas aider où sauver. Ces pensées sont très logiques venant de Kant qui très imprégné de la logique religieuse, qu’il va même l’utiliser comme référence dans son explication.
Constant, un peu à la manière de “ rap clash” de nos jours, il répond aux idées Kantienne d’une manière plus ou moins pragmatique. À travers sa réponse, provocante en quelques parties, il montre une compréhension profonde à l’oeuvre kantienne “Fondements de la métaphysique des mœurs” . Mais le résultat est tout à fait le contraire. Il donne plus de confiance à l’intelligence humaine qu’il la considère capable de distinguer entre mentir pour une bonne cause, mentir pour une mauvaise cause. il légitime le premier cas de mensonges, il considère que même les principes sont mis à la logique des priorités, Par exemple mentir pour sauver une vie humaine est tout à fait légitime , il va même à dénoncer la sincérité lorsqu'elle mène à la perte d’une vie humaine.
"tout ce que j’ai voulu prouver, c’est l’exagération des principes, étant le moyen le plus infaillible de les rendre inapplicables, serai toujours une des armes les plus dangereuses que puissent employer les partisans des préjugés”.
Je le conseille vivement, il enrichit la culture personnelle, mais aussi il enrichit notre logique morale, il permet aussi de voir une querelle philosophique : classe, noble et enrichissante.
February 4, 2024
18th century clash of the titans
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews