Student and Private Teacher 73What was Kant's course of study? Like most students, he most likely
took philosophy courses until the event Heilsberg describes. These courses
included logic and metaphysics, which were given every year in alternate
semesters by the professor of logic and metaphysics, and ethics and natural
law, which were given in the same fashion by the professor of moral phi¬
losophy. The professor of physics lectured on theoretical and experimental
physics every year, taking either one or two semesters, and the poetry pro¬
fessor gave lectures in rhetoric and history.^51 Apart from these lectures by
the full professors, which did not have to be paid for, there were several
lectures and courses that required payment and were given by the full pro¬
fessors, the associate professors, and the lecturers. Kant probably attended,
sooner or later, all of the free public lectures, and he also must have taken
a number of the courses offered for payment.
When Kant was a student, the philosophical faculty had eight full and
a number of associate professors and lecturers.^52 They taught everything
from Greek, Hebrew, rhetoric, poetry, and history, to logic and meta¬
physics, practical philosophy, mathematics, and physics. Since the philo¬
sophical course (cursus philosophicus) was mainly designed to prepare the stu¬
dents for one of the higher faculties, relatively few of the students sought
a degree in that discipline. Yet visitors to Königsberg marveled at how many
metaphysicians there were at this university compared to most others in
Germany.
Given the history of the schools of theology and philosophy between
171 o and 1740, it should not be surprising that the members of the faculty
had varied philosophical backgrounds and outlooks. First of all, there was
Johann Adam Gregorovius (1681—1749), an Aristotelian, who was prima¬
rily interested in defending the moral philosophy of Aristotle against more
modern attempts at ethics. In the Wöchentliche Nachrichten of 1741, he said,
among other things:
I cannot make a secret of the fact that the philosophy of Aristotle has been so maligned
and ridiculed since so many new systems have appeared after the beginning of this cen¬
tury. .. that no dog would take a piece of bread from an Aristotelian, even if it had not
been fed for five days.... This public disregard of antiquity led me entirely to abandon
Aristotle from honest conviction. Subsequently, I had to learn every new system as
soon as it appeared in order to teach it to the youthful students who were only inter¬
ested in the newest (splitterneue) philosophers.... I had ... as great an attendance and
applause as any. Yet after I got tired of the constant change ... I began to compare all
the new doctrines with the ancient one. Yet I had to learn that the hate and disregard
which those inexperienced in these matters have against Aristotle also met me.^53