406 Kant: A Biographywords, philosophers, not politicians and ecclesiastics, should be in charge
of education.^83
This is indeed an interesting essay, but whether it amounts to a discus¬
sion of the relation between the faculty of philosophy and the faculty of
law may be doubted. The third essay, which is conceived as a letter to
Hufeland about his book On the Art of Prolonging Human Life, a topic
always dear to Kant's heart, is even more tenuously connected to the pre¬
sumed topic of the book. Still, it is highly interesting for understanding
Kant's own view of life and death.^84 Kant agreed with Hufeland that the
physical element in a human being needs to be treated morally, that we must
adopt a regimen, that is, "the art of preventing illness, as distinguished
from the art of therapeutics or curing it."^85 Kant argues that this is identi¬
cal to Hufeland's "art of prolonging life." For Kant, such a regimen cannot
prescribe a life of ease. In indulging ourselves, we would spoil ourselves -
or so he believes. Stoicism's "endure and abstain (sustine et abstine)" is
better guidance. It is important not just as "the doctrine of virtue, but also
as the science of medicine." The two really complement each other. Kant
thinks that "warmth, sleep, and pampering ourselves when we are not ill
are some of these bad habits of a life of ease" that are incompatible with
the general Stoic principle.^86 Hypochondria or pathological feelings of
despondency can also be mastered in this way.^87 In fact, Kant claims that
he himself has accomplished this very task.^88 Indeed, he had mastered the
"art of prolonging life" early on, and he was successful - perhaps far too
successful, for his life went on long after he himself wanted to live.
In the Anthropology, which also appeared in 1798, Kant tied up one of
the most important and popular lecture courses of his years as a professor.
He had regularly lectured on this subject beginning in the fall semester of
1772-73. He probably worked on putting it together during most of 1797.
Kant thought moral philosophy proper should be concerned exclu¬
sively with pure principles of morals. His famous rhetorical question
whether "it is not of the utmost necessity to construct a pure moral phi¬
losophy which is completely freed from everything which may be only em¬
pirical and thus belong to anthropology" has galled many a reader. One
might wish that he had not simply gone on to claim, without further ar¬
gument, that it "is evident from the common idea of duty and moral laws
that there must be such a philosophy."^89 Many a philosopher had disagreed
even before Kant wrote this. It is difficult to believe he did not know this,
but however that may be, it is clear that he believed that in "ethics ... the
empirical part may be called more specifically practical anthropology; the