I am often critical of the realm of professors, given the evidence of academic confusion over Darwinism, but beyond that I am simply baffled at what appears to be an ingrained and closed mindset.
Among others of Kant scholars. My thinking on what I call Kant’s Challenge in World History and the Eonic Effect, and then in a separate book as above, remains de facto censored (canceled) by academic circles. These books point to a clear answer, I would say more, ‘solution’ to the challenge he raised in his classic essay on history.
In the twenty-one years since this book was self-published via POD, not a single historian or Kant scholar has commented on this clearly outlined solution. Zero. That’s remarkable. It says something about Kant scholarship and historians in general, but finally on academic structures. It shows the way peer-reviewed publication as an academic monopoly backfires and keeps thinking enclosed in rigidly closed mindset. Apparently that’s even true of Kant scholars in Germany who seem to consider independent scholars as vermin apparently and wouldn’t descend to mention my work in any way, let alone comment. The result here is that professors closed in their system can’t think anymore, and that results in slow but steady distortion of general opinion. Here the grave dignity of the professors is mere Tom Sawyer to the yankee Huck Finn, making faces, and about to tend to his dead possum.
And it leaves the field in some ways to outsiders. Strangely, in many cases, professionals can’t compete with amateurs and can’t above all acknowledge that.
Let me say at once that I am not as such a Kantian, and have never taken a college course in Kant: I am self-taught in Kant’s thinking and find his Critique of Pure Reason needs a slow reading course in a university. The sections on the transcendental deduction are difficult, although a simple glimpse is possible: it is a distant relative of Advaita thinking. With that Kant is all the more remarkable. Let me note that a figure like Schopenhauer tries to simplify. But this is not our topic. None of this difficulty is needed for our discussion. But I have a rough outline understanding of his work find his work on the antinomies essential. And in any case not much Kant is required to read, and explicate his essay on history. The solution to what he is saying is to see he is asking a question. Unfortunately, Kant subtly blunders by suggesting his own answer, apparently, in the concept of ‘asocial sociability’. But the question Kant is asking requires a far broader range of thinking. And the eonic effect begins to answer that. It should be said that without a larger data set including the Neolithic, no solution can be considered final. But the eonic effect is a good start, and you will find slowly but surely that there is probably no other solution, granting that in such a vast subject that it is hard to even reference the whole data set, let alone explain it. But the solution to Kant’s question is actually rather simple, because it seems to succeed by default.
Here, by all means, disagree. But in this environment, since you can’t even mention certain people you can’t reference their work, and probably won’t ever hear about it, and cannot deign to comment in any way. A fatal trap in this case.
But there are reasons for all this, as I can only guess. The reign of professorial authority via peer review etc is not able to contradict reigning paradigms. For starters, no professor as far as I can see (as a Kant scholar) can disagree with Kant’s own view, which is almost incidental in any case, and wrong. He in fact is asking a question. Kant is pre-Darwin, and any comment is likely to challenge Darwin, not least for its teleological query. Kant of course had his own problems: he is harsh on Machiavelli and dislikes lying in politicians and ended in a debate over that, with Benjamin Constant. That’s a tough one and requires careful assessment of his classic ethics, but in the age of Trump, one has to wonder at Kant’s insistence or prescience here. But none of this pertains to his question which requires no Kant at all (although I have wondered in the eonic model if some macro mechanized evolutionary process doesn’t do something resembling the categorical imperative at the level of evolutionary directionality????) But one can cite this to acknowledge that challenging Kant is entirely possible, but mostly forgotten in the tide of Marx, Hegel, Darwin, Nietsche, Heidegger, etc…
Leave that aside and we see that the eonic effect shows a directional system, an evolutionary creativity, a clear outline of the transitional driver of civilizations in sequence and parallel, etc…
As an empirical demonstration, the result is on solid footing even if incomplete. An incomplete table puzzle often shows its overall pattern even if partially completed. The solution is too simple and too obvious to reject completely.
At this point, one needs to give up on professors if only to laugh instead of hate, and only contempt for academic structures remains. This is unkind but such people would kill critics if they could. This kind of confusion in the end is dangerous to society.
I think that as the Darwin paradigm starts to collapse the world will have to ask, how could so many experts be so idiotic? The social construct could collapse. Perhaps then the issue of Kant’s challenge might come to the surface. But it need not wait and takes a half hour of your time. In the classic saith-he of Patton, nuts! Oh well, try again, another email to the journal Kant-Studien.