Is there a Kantian faculty for politics? Judgment and Publicity in Political and Moral Philosophy in 20th Century
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/sk.v19i1.90218Palavras-chave:
Practical Reason, Judgment, Antagonism, Universalization, sensus communisResumo
The aims of this paper are two: on one hand I try to define the possibility of indicating in Kant´s works a political faculty; on the other hand, I try to define the relationship between politics and morals in his political theory. The first question of this paper seems to be a neglected aspect by Kantian researchers, who simply limit themselves to identify the political faculty either with practical reason (Hoffe) or with judgment (Düsing, Pries). For this reason I will compare some interpretations about the faculty of politics of authors from the 20th century such as Adorno, Arendt, Lyotard and Habermas, who discussed, from different prospectives, the reasons why the faculty of politics should be individualized in practical reason (Adorno and Habermas) -first section- or in judgment (Arendt and Lyotard) -second section. After a comparison of sensus communis with the principle of Publizität at the end of second section, I try to discuss why we need both Kantian faculties for politics. The answer to this question seems to be linked to the problematic of disagreement between the principle of politics with the that of morals, because the causes of the disagreement are not objective but subjective, meaning, they depend of the special status of mankind as sensitive and rational being.
Referências
ADORNO, Th. W. Problems of Moral Philosophy. Trans.: R. Livingstone, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.
ARENDT, H. Lectures on Kant´s Political Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
BENHABIB, S. The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt. New York: Sage, 1996.
CUBO UGARTE, O. „Offentlichkeit und Politik. Kants Publizitatsprinzip“, in: HUNING, D., KLINGNER, I. S. (ed.), …jenen sußen Traum träumen. Kants Friedensschrift zwischen objektiver Geltung und Utopie, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2018.
DÜSING, K. “Beauty as the Transition from Nature to Freedom in Kant’s Critique of Judgment”, In: Nous 24, 1990; pp. 79-92.
FERRARA, I. „La dimensione estetica della politica kantiana: note alla Kritik der Urteilskraft.“, In: Politics. Rivista di Studi Politici, 9. 1, 2018; pp. 99-116.
FLIKSCHUH K. “Kant’s kingdom of ends: metaphysical, not political”, in: TIMMERMANN, J. (ed.), Kant's 'Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals' A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010; pp. 119-139.
GERHARDT, V. Öffentlichkeit. Die politische Form des Bewusstseins. München: Beck, 2012.
HABERMAS, J. „Hannah Arendts Begriff der Macht“, in: Merkur, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Denken, 341, 1976; pp. 946-960.
HABERMAS, J. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Actions. Trans.: Ch. Lenhardt and S. Weber Nicholson. Cambridge/Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1990.
HÖFFE, O. Kants Kritik der praktischen Vernunft. Eine Philosophie der Freiheit. München: Beck, 2012.
HUSEYINZADEGAN, D. „Kant’s Political Zweckmässigkeit“, Kantian Review, 20, 3,2015; pp. 421-444.
KANT, I. Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Prussian Academy of Sciences and successors, Berlin, later Berlin/New York, Reimer, later De Gruyter, 1900–.
KANT, I. “Idea for a universal history with a cosmopolitan aim.”, In: Anthropology, History, and Education. Ed. R. Louden & G. Zöller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007; pp. 107-120.
KANT, I. “On the common saying: That may be correct in theory, but it is of no use in practice (1793)”, In: Practical Philosophy, Ed. M. J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012; pp. 273-310.
KANT, I. “Toward perpetual peace (1795)”, In: Practical Philosophy, Ed. M. J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012; pp. 311-352.
LYOTARD, J. F. The Differend. Phrases in Dispute. Trans.: G. Van Den Abbeele. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988.
PRIES, C. Übergang ohne Brücken: Kants Erhabene zwischen Kritik und Metaphysik. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1995.
SCHNEEWIND, J. B. “Good out of evil: Kant and the idea of unsocial sociability”, in: Kant’s Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim: A Critical Guide. Ed. A. Oksenberg Rorty and J. Schmidt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009; pp. 94-111.
TRWANY, P. „Verstehen und Urteilen. Hannah Arendts Interpretation der Kantischen "Urteilskraft" als politisch-ethische Hermeneutik“, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 60, 2, 2006; pp. 269-289.
WOOD, A. ”Kant's Fourth Proposition: the unsociable sociability of human nature”, in: Kant’s Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim: A Critical Guide. Ed. A. Oksenberg Rorty and J. Schmidt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009; pp. 112-128.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Autores mantém os direitos de republicação, sob condição de indicação de primeira publicação na Studia Kantiana.
Autores cedem o direito aos editores de vincular seus artigos em futuras bases de dados.
A Studia Kantiana utiliza a licença Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Você tem o direito de:
Compartilhar — copiar e redistribuir o material em qualquer suporte ou formato.
De acordo com os termos seguintes:
Atribuição — Você deve dar o crédito apropriado, prover um link para a licença e indicar se mudanças foram feitas. Você deve fazê-lo em qualquer circunstância razoável, mas de nenhuma maneira que sugira que o licenciante apoia você ou o seu uso.
Não Comercial — Você não pode usar o material para fins comerciais.
Sem Derivações — Se você remixar, transformar ou criar a partir do material, você não pode distribuir o material modificado.
