Karim Akerma is a weak and inadequate man. He doesn't have the stones to own his failures, he’ll throw anyone under the bus to forge a victimhood narrative, and he treats us all with contempt by lying to our faces without missing a beat.
FYI, Kant indeed asks the question "Why must human beings exist?" in his Critique of the Power of Judgment, in a note at the end of §84 (On the final end of existence of a world, i.e., of creation itself). You can find the passage in question on p. 303 of the Cambridge edition of Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment (https://www.google.com/books?id=JEXHIcDbBDcC&pg=PA303) or on p. 436 of the German academic standard edition (https://www.korpora.org/kant/aa05/436.html).
Akerma also quotes Kant's exact words – "Wozu haben Menschen existieren müssen?" – in the chapter on Kant that you cited, just a little later (p. 116 in the printed edition, p. 79 in the unauthorised ebook).
It is, therefore, entirely possible that this quote was brought up by his supervisor. This is an oversight on your end, so this part of your article needs to be revised.
Summary of my thoughts. (Pretend everything begins with "I think..." Or "It seems...")
Akerma's inferred question isn't the same as Kant's actual question:
- Akerma's inferred question:
Sollen Menschen dasein?
Google Translate (GT): Should people exist?
My Understanding (MU): Is it (morally?) correct that people exist?
- Kant's actual question:
Wozu haben Menschen existieren müssen?
P436 footnote: Why must human beings exist?
MU: What's the reason humans exist?
Akerma smuggles in the presumption that Kant says "Humans should exist because...". By doing this he presumes that which is yet to be proven, the question he seeks to answer in his thesis:
(p78 pdf) "In der Bestimmung Kants sollen Menschen dasein, weil sie als teleologische jene Brückenwesen sind, mittels welcher allein Übersinnliches im Sinnlichen zu wirken vermag."
(GT) "According to Kant, humans should exist because, as teleological beings, they are the bridge beings through which the supersensory can alone work in the sensory world."
Kant isn't saying "Humans should exist because...". He's saying something closer to "Humans exist because...".
FYI, Kant indeed asks the question "Why must human beings exist?" in his Critique of the Power of Judgment, in a note at the end of §84 (On the final end of existence of a world, i.e., of creation itself). You can find the passage in question on p. 303 of the Cambridge edition of Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment (https://www.google.com/books?id=JEXHIcDbBDcC&pg=PA303) or on p. 436 of the German academic standard edition (https://www.korpora.org/kant/aa05/436.html).
Akerma also quotes Kant's exact words – "Wozu haben Menschen existieren müssen?" – in the chapter on Kant that you cited, just a little later (p. 116 in the printed edition, p. 79 in the unauthorised ebook).
It is, therefore, entirely possible that this quote was brought up by his supervisor. This is an oversight on your end, so this part of your article needs to be revised.
Summary of my thoughts. (Pretend everything begins with "I think..." Or "It seems...")
Akerma's inferred question isn't the same as Kant's actual question:
- Akerma's inferred question:
Sollen Menschen dasein?
Google Translate (GT): Should people exist?
My Understanding (MU): Is it (morally?) correct that people exist?
- Kant's actual question:
Wozu haben Menschen existieren müssen?
P436 footnote: Why must human beings exist?
MU: What's the reason humans exist?
Akerma smuggles in the presumption that Kant says "Humans should exist because...". By doing this he presumes that which is yet to be proven, the question he seeks to answer in his thesis:
(p78 pdf) "In der Bestimmung Kants sollen Menschen dasein, weil sie als teleologische jene Brückenwesen sind, mittels welcher allein Übersinnliches im Sinnlichen zu wirken vermag."
(GT) "According to Kant, humans should exist because, as teleological beings, they are the bridge beings through which the supersensory can alone work in the sensory world."
Kant isn't saying "Humans should exist because...". He's saying something closer to "Humans exist because...".
Your thoughts?
Thank you for your comment. Much appreciated. I'll check it tomorrow.