Kant ascribes two radically different kinds of language—symbolic or pictorial (qua intuitive) and discursive languages—to the ‘Oriental’ and ‘Occidental’ peoples, respectively. By his analysis, having a merely symbolic language suggests that the Orientals lack understanding – and hence the ability to form concepts and think in abstracto – as well as genius and spirit. Meanwhile, he establishes discursive language as a sine qua non of the continued progress of humanity. These points add up to an exclusionary view of progress according to which the Occidental whites alone are equipped with the requisite discursive skills and other talents (including genius and spirit) to accomplish advanced culture and pursue humanity’s (moral) destiny. The Orient, with its supposedly “childish language,” is consigned to the childhood of humanity. In holding this view, Kant has departed from some of his predecessors – such as Leibniz, whose vision of the future of humanity includes an East-West harmony facilitated by a “universal symbolism,” and Rousseau, who exalts a livelier connection with the world mediated by a pictorial language.