I caught Kant plagiarizing.
The Book of Education on the Mitzvah of Recht – Not to Steal:
The root of the commandment is known, which is something that reason takes far away from and which should be taken away from, because the one who steals, who is weaker than him, knows that when someone stronger than him comes against him, he too will be stolen, etc., and it is a cause for the destruction of the settlement.
At first glance, his words are puzzling. It would seem that it is forbidden to rob simply because later the robber will also rob, and thus the settlement will be destroyed.
Does he mean the categorical imperative?
First, defining plagiarism is very complicated. In the history of ideas, you will always find ancient sources for every new idea. Whoever first came up with it and gave it a name is the owner of the idea and the creator’s right. After I took out the two carts, I received many responses along the lines of: Well, everything is in Rabbi Kook/Rabbi Nachman/Maharl/Rabbi Tzadok, etc. And they could all be right. But none of them understood or gave a name to the distinction between the analytical and the synthetic, and the same is true in the world of general thought (as far as I know).
Second, the flavors of education are flavors in vain. They should not be taken too seriously. He is trying to give his son a taste (the book is written for him).
Third, it may be just an attempt to convince the person not to steal and not the original purpose of the mitzvah. Many tell their son or student, if you steal, they will steal from you.
Even if he meant the categorical imperative (and it doesn’t seem so), there is no plagiarism here for the reasons above.
Mentioning things like "Al Datfat Atpukh…
There is really no prohibition on stealing from nature. After all, everything belongs to God.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
