system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why did Bulgakov in "The Master and Margarita" write: "No wonder Schiller said that only slaves could be satisfied with Kant's arguments on this subject, while Strauss simply laughed at his proof."?

The subject at hand is the proof of God. The characters of the first chapter of the aforementioned novel are discussing the five proofs of God. Berlioz straight up rejects these claims:  ‘Alas!’ Berlioz said with regret. ‘Not one of these proofs is worth anything, and mankind shelved them long ago. You must agree that in the realm of reason there can be no proof of God’s existence.’ 

But then the foreigner replies:  ‘Bravo!’ cried the foreigner. ‘Bravo! You have perfectly repeated restless old Immanuel’s thought in this regard. But here’s the hitch: he roundly demolished all five proofs, and then, as if mocking himself, constructed a sixth of his own.’ 

To which he hears back:  ‘Kant’s proof,’ the learned editor objected with a subtle smile, ‘is equally unconvincing. Not for nothing did Schiller say that the Kantian reasoning on this question can satisfy only slaves and Strauss simply laughed at this proof.’ 

So, could you elaborate on why did Schiller say that the Kantian reasoning on this question could satisfy only slaves? And on why Strauss would simply laugh at this proof.

 The Schiller in question is  Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805) and the Strauss in question is David Strauss (1808-74) .

Thank you.
gpt
The expression by Berlioz: "Schiller say that the Kantian reasoning on this question can satisfy only slaves" was probably an almost verbatim quote from the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, from the article "God".

Which could have been a subtle way for Bulgakov to mock Berlioz's superficial knowledge of this complicated subject, as Berlioz sort of mindlessly uses a cliche, that he just memorized, possibly without putting much thought into it.

The reason why that was phrased this way in the article is because Schiller was an aesthete and to him Kant's morality was too dry and mechanic, it almost required following strict and austere monastic rules, while suppressing any sensuality, which Schiller valued. So it was like an algorithm created by a pure mind that a human must robotically follow in the pursuit of a higher good, which for Schiller, who valued feelings and beauty might have looked as as a life of a slave, automatically following master's orders.

That could have been loosely the train of thought of the author(s) of the article.

As for the Strauss line, it's also a reference to the same dictionary, which has this phrase in it: "Strauss mockingly points out, that Kant to his system (which opposes theism in spirit) attached a little room and put God into it".

The reason why there is such a phrase in the article is probably due to a quote from Strauss, who wrote that (loose translation) this Kantian moral proof is a kind of a janitor room, where God, after the resignation from Kantian system, could still receive maintenance and still had things to do.