The „All-Crusher“ Myth and the Grand Illusion of Immanuel Kant

Deconstructing the Mandarin of Königsberg #9 Over the past eight weeks, we have undertaken an uncompromising, evidence-based expedition through the intellectual fortress of Immanuel Kant. We dismantled the myth of the scientific genius, exposing his physical and cosmological errors. We revealed that his „awakening from dogmatic slumber“ was a strategic retreat to protect Lutheran morality from empirical skepticism. We showed how his „Copernican Revolution“ was, in fact, a solipsistic Ptolemaic relapse that trapped human cognition inside its own subjective simulation. We put the Categorical Imperative on trial, uncovering its anti-empathetic, authoritarian nature, and exposed the theological „God-Bias“ that…

Deconstructing the Mandarin of Königsberg #9

Over the past eight weeks, we have undertaken an uncompromising, evidence-based expedition through the intellectual fortress of Immanuel Kant. We dismantled the myth of the scientific genius, exposing his physical and cosmological errors. We revealed that his „awakening from dogmatic slumber“ was a strategic retreat to protect Lutheran morality from empirical skepticism. We showed how his „Copernican Revolution“ was, in fact, a solipsistic Ptolemaic relapse that trapped human cognition inside its own subjective simulation. We put the Categorical Imperative on trial, uncovering its anti-empathetic, authoritarian nature, and exposed the theological „God-Bias“ that led Kant to formulate an explicit hierarchy of intellectual racism. Finally, we introduced Mario Bunge’s Agathonism as a secular, scientifically grounded compass for the 21st century.

Yet, as we conclude the core of this series and look back at the sheer volume of memes and myths that have insulated Kant’s legacy—especially within the German-speaking cultural sphere—one overarching myth still demands a definitive deconstruction. It is the ultimate title bestowed upon Kant by academia: Kant, the „All-Crusher“ (Der Alleszermalmer).

The Legend of the „All-Crusher“

In university lectures and standard histories of philosophy, Kant is routinely celebrated as the Alleszermalmer—the relentless intellectual giant who decisively crushed the outdated, dogmatic metaphysics of his predecessors. This intimidating title suggests an unparalleled philosophical brilliance, a thinker who single-handedly demolished the old world to build a new era of critical reason.

The origin of this legendary epithet is invariably traced back to Moses Mendelssohn, one of the most prominent Jewish Enlightenment philosophers of the 18th century. The standard narrative claims that Mendelssohn, in awe of Kant’s devastating critique of traditional metaphysics, respectfully bowed to Kant’s destructive genius, christening him the „all-crushing Kant.“

There is only one problem with this narrative: It is a complete historical distortion.

When we examine the actual letters and texts of Moses Mendelssohn, we discover that the title „All-Crusher“ was not a professional assessment of Kant’s philosophical superiority. It was an expression of deep medical frustration and intellectual exhaustion.

The Medical Reality Behind the Myth

To understand the true context, we must look at the correspondence between Kant and Mendelssohn, and Mendelssohn’s final work, Morgenstunden (1785).

When Kant published the Critique of Pure Reason in 1781, it was met with total public silence. Desperate to generate academic discourse, Kant specifically targeted Mendelssohn, sending him a dedicated copy and hoping the famous Berliner would champion the work. But Mendelssohn laid the book aside.

In a letter to Kant in April 1783, Mendelssohn finally explained why: he was suffering from a severe „nervous weakness“ (Nervenschwäche). This neurological and psychological exhaustion made rigorous mental exertion impossible for him. He confessed to Kant that he had been „dead to metaphysics“ for years, noting that reading the complex thoughts of others had become even more difficult for him than generating his own. He referred to Kant’s Critique not as a brilliant revelation, but as a „work that consumes the nervous fluid“ (Nervensaft verzehrendes Werk).

Two years later, in the introduction to Morgenstunden, Mendelssohn publicly confirmed his condition, stating that his nervous weakness forbade him from any mental exertion. He explicitly admitted that he had not kept up with the science of metaphysics since 1775—long before Kant’s Critique was even published.

It is in this exact context of admitting his own cognitive limitations that Mendelssohn writes:

„I therefore know the writings of the great men who have in the meantime distinguished themselves in metaphysics—the works of Lambert, Tetens, Platner, and even of the all-crushing Kant—only through the inadequate reports of my friends or through learned notices…“

 

A Crushing of Concentration, Not Philosophy

When Mendelssohn called Kant the Alleszermalmer, he was not praising Kant’s philosophical success in destroying dogmatic metaphysics. He was expressing his own personal overwhelm. Kant’s convoluted, impenetrable prose—what Heinrich Heine later mocked as a „gray, dry, brown-paper style“—simply crushed Mendelssohn’s fragile capacity for concentration.

The „crushing“ referred to the sheer, exhausting cognitive burden of reading the text, an experience shared by almost everyone who attempted to read the Critique upon its release. To derive the heroic title „All-Crusher of previous philosophy“ from an ailing man’s admission of reading fatigue is not just absurd; it is completely contrary to the historical facts.

Furthermore, as we established in Chapter 3 of The Long Farewell to Immanuel Kant, Kant did not actually crush traditional metaphysics. Through the subsequent PR-campaign led by Karl Leonhard Reinhold, Kant’s work was explicitly popularized as a conservative defense of religion, designed to protect traditional Lutheran values and the concept of God from the radical, materialist Enlightenment thinkers of France. Kant was not the destroyer of dogma; he was its most sophisticated restorer.

Conclusion: Breaking the Spell

The myth of the Alleszermalmer perfectly encapsulates the broader phenomenon of the Kant-Mythos. It demonstrates how the German cultural sphere—desperate for an intellectual „National Saint“—has consistently stripped Kant’s history of its context, transforming mundane realities, poor writing styles, and theological rescue missions into legendary philosophical triumphs.

The memes we have deconstructed over these nine parts are not harmless academic traditions. They act as „cognitive prostheses“ that prevent us from thinking critically and scientifically about the world. By shedding these illusions, we open the door to a genuine, evidence-based Enlightenment.

 

Where to Obtain the Book, eBook & AI-Audiobook

The full, uncompromised investigation is available now across international formats:

 

Ähnliche Beiträge

  • Mario Bunge im Interview – Die ganz großen Fragen

    21. September 2019 – der Philosoph und Physiker Mario Bunge wird 100 Rückschau – mein Interview mit Mario im Sommer 2013 Im Sommer des Jahres 2013 hatte ich Gelegenheit, Mario Bunge anhand eines umfangreichen Fragenpakets zu seiner realistischen Philosophie und zu dessen Hintergründen zu interviewen. Bevor es gleich in die Aufzeichnung dieses Interviews geht, ist der Augenblick gekommen, die Person des Philosophen zumindest in wesentlichen Zügen vorzustellen. Wer ist dieser Mario Augusto Bunge, über dessen Persönlichkeit wir bisher nicht viel mehr erfahren haben, als dass er im Jahr 1919 – genauer am 21. September 1919 – in Buenos…

  • The Cognitive Prosthesis: Why We Turn Immanuel Kant into an Intellectual Crutch

    For over two centuries, Western intellectual culture has revered Immanuel Kant as the ultimate lighthouse of the Enlightenment, the undisputed architect of modern reason, and the intellectual father of human autonomy. In academic lecture halls, philosophical treatises, and public commemorations, we are repeatedly taught to recite his three cardinal questions as if they were holy scripture: What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope? To the modern educated reader, these three questions sound like a noble, liberating blueprint for human self-determination. But if we dismantle this hagiography through the lens of modern cognitive…

  • Vorurteile überwinden? – Wenn Argumente scheitern …

    Verlorene Mitte – feindselige Zustände Die Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung hat Ende April 2019 eine Studie zur Verbreitung von rechtsextremen, menschenfeindlichen und weiteren antidemokratischen Meinungen in der deutschen Gesellschaft vorgelegt. Insgesamt macht die Studie, die unter dem Titel „Verlorene Mitte – feindselige Zustände: Rechtsextreme Einstellungen in Deutschland 2018/19“ veröffentlicht wurde deutlich: Zwar lassen die telefonisch geführte Befragung hoffen, dass in der Bevölkerung eine hohe Zustimmung zur Demokratie besteht. Nicht zu überhören sind Äußerungen, die auf antidemokratische sowie menschenfeindliche Haltungen gegenüber Angehörigen diverser Bevölkerungsgruppen hindeuten. „Arbeit gegen Vorurteile“ fordern die Studienautoren deshalb in ihrer Ergebniszusammenfassung. Beim Nachdenken über diese „Vorurteils-Arbeit“ schließen sie…

  • Pressematerial

    Über das Buch Immanuel Kant – vermeintlicher Leuchtturm der Aufklärung, angeblicher Architekt der modernen Vernunft, mutmaßlicher Vordenker der Menschenrechte. Zum 300. Geburtstag im Jahr 2024 wurde das deutsche Nationaldenkmal aufwendig gefeiert. Doch was, wenn dieses Bild eine Illusion ist?Heinz W. Droste wagt den frontalen Angriff auf die Mythen, die das Werk des Königsberger Philosophen umgeben. Mit der Präzision des Wissenschaftstheoretikers und dem scharfen Blick des Soziologen demontiert er das Denkgebäude Kants Stück für Stück. Er zeigt: Kants wahres Projekt war nicht die Befreiung des Denkens, sondern die Rettung des lutherischen Glaubens vor der radikalen, materialistischen Aufklärung. Seine Philosophie…

  • Was die Trump-Harris-Debatte über den Verstand der Disputanten verrät!

    Debatte im amerikanischen Wahlkampf 2024:Psychologische Deutungen und die Unterscheidung von Rationalität und Intelligenz Die TV-Debatte zwischen Donald Trump und Kamala Harris am 10. September 2024 im National Constitution Center in Philadelphia bot einen faszinierenden Einblick in die psychologischen Dynamiken, die im politischen Diskurs eine zentrale Rolle spielen. Diese Debatte, die etwa zwei Monate vor dem eigentlichen Wahltag stattfand, war nicht nur ein wichtiger Moment im Rennen um das Weiße Haus, sondern auch ein Beispiel dafür, wie Intelligenz und Rationalität in herausfordernden Situationen unterschiedlich wirken können. Berichterstattung und erste Eindrücke Die Berichterstattung über die Debatte war intensiv und vielfältig….

  • In die Irre geführt: Solide und gefälschte Quellenangaben unterscheiden lernen

    Wir werden laufend mit wichtigen, entscheidungsrelevanten Informationen konfrontiert – häufig im Rahmen der Nutzung des Internets und von Social Media.

    Dabei können wir uns nicht immer auf das verlassen, was als angebliche Tatsachen präsentiert wurde: Unterschiedliche Quellen können einander widersprechen, und manchmal gibt es trotz anderslautender Behauptungen der Absender keine dahinterliegende Wahrheit

Schreibe einen Kommentar