Q&A: Kant, Nietzsche, and Judaism
Kant, Nietzsche, and Judaism
Question
Good afternoon!
I read a bit of Kant’s criticism of Judaism, and I understood it in three ways. I would be happy to know which is correct:
Either Kant understood religion as mystical, and therefore criticized the fact that Judaism is also social and the like, and relates to elements that are not religious (in his view).
Or Kant identified religion with morality, and therefore criticized Judaism because in his opinion it is not moral (but only law and nothing more), and therefore it is not a religion. (I know that the Rabbi follows Leibowitz, according to whom Judaism really is like that.)
If the second claim is the correct one, then this is basically somewhat like Nietzsche’s claim, who argued about religion that it enslaves a person to arbitrary laws and drains his authentic life, no? (Though there is a slight difference: Kant’s claim is about the very fact that religion makes a person artificial in relation to morality and uproots from him any relation to good and evil, whereas Nietzsche argued this in relation to the fact that God’s law subordinates a person to the life of another.)
Thank you very much!
Answer
As I understand it, his criticism was based on a view that religion is morality and religious feeling, not a system of laws. And he saw Judaism as a kind of code of regulations, a system of laws. In his view, that is not a religion.
Discussion on Answer
According to the Rabbi’s words, it turns out that my two explanations are really one conception—that Kant understood the concept of religion as a mystical experience, a moral experience.
But if so, he should דווקא have embraced Judaism, which is based on reason, no?
Unless he saw in Judaism a moral neutralization, and that it is only a code of regulations?
He argued that it is not a religion, not that it is incorrect or that he does not identify with it. Beyond that, the fact that there is a system of laws does not mean that it is reasonable or that I identify with it.
Thank you!
But if so, it is difficult for me, since Kant himself held that morality is rational and not emotional, so what prevented him from understanding that religious laws are like that as well?