Founder of a Metaphysics of Morals 319of the spirit without reason, deaden the love of true learning, draw the attention away
from the concerns of human life as well as from the works of art and nature which warm
the heart and heighten the imagination. Finally, they unsettle the powers of the under¬
standing, spoil good principles, and poison the source of human happiness.^199
It could not be denied that there were signs this was true. Thus in Jena two
students fought a duel because one had accused the other of not under¬
standing the Critique, claiming that he needed to study it for thirty years
before he could hope to understand it and then for another thirty years
before being allowed to comment on it.^200
Kant himself was almost as passionate. He still was not the picture of
predictability and regularity that his surviving friends would later present.
In April 1786, just after Mendelssohn died, Kant was present at a dinner
party at which Mendelssohn's philosophical talents were impugned. Kant
had always thought highly of Mendelssohn, and he rose to his defense. He
spoke of his "original genius (Originalgenie) and his Jerusalem almost to
the point of enthusiasm. The first he is reported to have seen in the skill
with which Mendelssohn was able to make every circumstance useful to
himself, and to put every hypothesis into the best possible light." Things
seem to have gotten out of hand, and the verbal exchange became so
heated "that Kant left full of ill will, and behaved almost rudely and un¬
civilly against the bank director Ruffman." Even Hippel, Kant's good
friend, "was amazed and not very satisfied."^201 Hippel had a right to be un¬
happy, as he was the host of the party. Hamann took this occasion to char¬
acterize Kant, saying:
Kant is a man whose talents are just as great as his intentions (Gesinnungen) are good
and honorable. So he gets very much fired up by prejudices, but he is not ashamed to
deny them, to abolish them, and to swear them off. He only has to be given some time
to reflect for himself. He likes talking better than listening. Inpuncto of his system and
the fame he has acquired through it, he is at the moment rather sensitive and more pre¬
sumptuous, as you can imagine yourself. But that is not entirely his fault, but for the
most part the fault of the dear public.^202
The incident reveals Kant's loyalty to a dead friend's memory. It also
shows Kant was not the cold fish, the well-regulated machine that he would
later gain the reputation of having been. He did not live his life mechani¬
cally. Hamann, who should know, reports that by nature he was passionate
and impulsive - both in the way in which he lived his life and in the way
in which he philosophized. The regularity with which he lived his life did
not come easy to him. It was a difficult achievement. The same may be said
of his philosophy.