WWI and WWII brought an end to interest in German Idealism.
As a matter of fact it was mainly WWI but WWII finished the job. And in place of Kant and Hegel you got a host of vacuous philosophies of the twentieth century.
The reason was that the connection between philosophy and politics is non trivial.
On the other hand, I think this is somewhat tragic since Kant was the best thing that happened in philosophy ever since Aristotle and Plotinus. But in fact when it comes to politics, philosophy is weak.
Starting from Plato, philosophers have come up with one ridiculous scheme after the other when it comes to politics and in understanding human nature.
What makes this confusing is that in some cases Hegel and Communism seem still to be functioning like in China. And even in Czarist Russia, the simple implementation of some kind of Parliament system [the Duma] did not help any of the problems of WWI nor the civil war.
The best idea in political thought to me still seems to be the Constitution of the USA. Politics and Philosophy seem best to be divided. To come up with a political system based on the best philosophy ends up with the worst system in politics.
The Constitution was based in part on John Locke, but mainly on the English system that had evolved in the 1700's along with a great deal of understanding of ancient systems like Athens and Rome. The Natural Law ideas of Aquinas certainly played a role. But the philosophical element was weak.
And the great effect and force of philosophy in the USA seems to constantly to be directed at undermining the Constitution-- starting from the Frankfurter School at Colombia,- but also including just about every other stream of philosophy. It is like a great hobby -to throw darts at Christianity and at the Constitution. It is almost as if people get up the morning and wonder: "What can we do today to undermine the Constitution and/or faith."
Appendix: (1) Dr. Michael does not think any state is legitimate. He also favors open borders along with Dr Bryan Caplan. The Frankfurt School is well known to have been plotting the downfall of the USA since its inception.
Socialists on one hand, anarchists on the other. All brilliant philosophers. Where has common sense disappeared to?
(2) To some degree you can see that the Constitution based on a WASP population simply would not have worked in Czarst Russia. But the problem seems to be that people expert in their own field often get so caught u in their own worlds that they cannot see the limits of their ideas when applied elsewhere. A good example is the war in Vietnam when the presidents of the USA were taking advice of economist on how to wage the war. That was to make it non cost effective for the North Vietnamese. But what works in economics does not necessarily work in governments and politics.
(3) I think getting philosophy right is important. And Kant, and the Kant Friesian School of Dr Ross go a long way. But Philosophy still seems to have some kind of stumbling block in it when it comes to politics or common sense. [My impression is that Kant, Schopenhauer and Leonard Nelson are somewhat better than Hegel, even though I do not share their complete dismissal of him.]
I am thinking that as much as getting philosophy right, it is just as important to get politics right, and for that I think learning the Federalist Papers should be first priority.
Or perhaps to be more accurate in terms of political theory the best thing is to learn the background of the Constitution which is England in starting from Elizabeth plus John Locke and DeFoe. For starting to learn about the USA Constitution at the time it was written is losing the entire perspective.
On the other hand, I think this is somewhat tragic since Kant was the best thing that happened in philosophy ever since Aristotle and Plotinus. But in fact when it comes to politics, philosophy is weak.
Starting from Plato, philosophers have come up with one ridiculous scheme after the other when it comes to politics and in understanding human nature.
What makes this confusing is that in some cases Hegel and Communism seem still to be functioning like in China. And even in Czarist Russia, the simple implementation of some kind of Parliament system [the Duma] did not help any of the problems of WWI nor the civil war.
The best idea in political thought to me still seems to be the Constitution of the USA. Politics and Philosophy seem best to be divided. To come up with a political system based on the best philosophy ends up with the worst system in politics.
The Constitution was based in part on John Locke, but mainly on the English system that had evolved in the 1700's along with a great deal of understanding of ancient systems like Athens and Rome. The Natural Law ideas of Aquinas certainly played a role. But the philosophical element was weak.
And the great effect and force of philosophy in the USA seems to constantly to be directed at undermining the Constitution-- starting from the Frankfurter School at Colombia,- but also including just about every other stream of philosophy. It is like a great hobby -to throw darts at Christianity and at the Constitution. It is almost as if people get up the morning and wonder: "What can we do today to undermine the Constitution and/or faith."
Appendix: (1) Dr. Michael does not think any state is legitimate. He also favors open borders along with Dr Bryan Caplan. The Frankfurt School is well known to have been plotting the downfall of the USA since its inception.
Socialists on one hand, anarchists on the other. All brilliant philosophers. Where has common sense disappeared to?
(2) To some degree you can see that the Constitution based on a WASP population simply would not have worked in Czarst Russia. But the problem seems to be that people expert in their own field often get so caught u in their own worlds that they cannot see the limits of their ideas when applied elsewhere. A good example is the war in Vietnam when the presidents of the USA were taking advice of economist on how to wage the war. That was to make it non cost effective for the North Vietnamese. But what works in economics does not necessarily work in governments and politics.
(3) I think getting philosophy right is important. And Kant, and the Kant Friesian School of Dr Ross go a long way. But Philosophy still seems to have some kind of stumbling block in it when it comes to politics or common sense. [My impression is that Kant, Schopenhauer and Leonard Nelson are somewhat better than Hegel, even though I do not share their complete dismissal of him.]
I am thinking that as much as getting philosophy right, it is just as important to get politics right, and for that I think learning the Federalist Papers should be first priority.
Or perhaps to be more accurate in terms of political theory the best thing is to learn the background of the Constitution which is England in starting from Elizabeth plus John Locke and DeFoe. For starting to learn about the USA Constitution at the time it was written is losing the entire perspective.
