2013-07-10 14:53:31 来自: 小知儿
Lectures on Kant's Political Philosophy的评论 4
谈论或探明康德的政治哲学是困难的。与其他哲学家不同，比如柏拉图、亚里士多德、奥古斯汀、阿奎那、斯宾诺莎、黑格尔，他从未写过政治哲学。讨论康德的著作非常多，但没几本是专门讨论他的政治哲学的，在其中，只有一本值得学习---hans saner的kants weg vom krieg zun frieden。在法国，最近有关康德政治哲学的研究丰富起来，但他们对康德的理解只关注在康德自己都认为是边角料的研究当中，无论是康德的on history还是他最近的合集kant`s political writings从深度和质量上都无法与其他作品相较。这些作品当然无法被冠以“第四批判”的美称。康德自己对这些作品也并不重视，从永久和评论力戏谑的笔风可窥视出他的玩票性质，在给友人的信中，康德说永久和评论只是一个幻想。。。法的形而上学原理同样乏味，在叔本华看来，很难看出这本书出自康德之手。除了这些著作，康德的其他作品大多关心历史，他似乎像很多他后学研究者一样，将政治哲学以历史哲学代替；尽管康德的历史概念对其权利观念来说非常重要，但并不是他整个哲学的核心，如果我们要考察历史，我们大可以转向维科、黑格尔、马克思等。在康德看来，历史是自然的一部分，历史的主体是人类被看做创作物的一部分，though as its final end and creation`s crown.在康德开来，历史并非由故事、历史性的个人、或人的善与恶组成，而是自然的神秘法则支配下，类群体不断进步不断发展其潜能以保存类群体的世代繁衍的过程。。。
After he had finished the critical business, there were, from his own viewpoint, two questions left, questions that had bothered him all his life and that he had interrupted work on in order first to clear up what he called the “scandal of reason”:the fact that “reason contradicts itself”14or that thinking transcends the limitations of what we can know and then gets caught in its own antinomies.
When kant finally turned to the third critique, he still called it , to begin with, the critique of taste. Thus two things happened: behind taste, a favorite topic of the whole eighteenth century, kant had discovered an entirely new human faculty, namely, judgment; but , at the same time, he withdrew moral propositions from the competence of this new faculty. In other words: it is now more than taste that will decide about the beautiful and the ugly; but the question of right and wrong is to be decided by neither taste nor judgment but by reason alone.
Two questions: 1.sociability of man, that is , the fact that no man can live alone, that men are interdependent not merely in their needs and cares but in their highest faculty, the human mind, which will not function outside human society.
2.why is it necessary that men should exist at all?
This question is related to other ones(what can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope? What is man?)asked by Leibniz, by schelling,by Heidegger:why should there be anyting and not rather nothing? Leibniz calls it “the first question we have a right to raise” and adds:”for nothing is simpler and easier than something.” In arendt`s view, the why actually does not ask for a cause(how),rather, it asks for what purpose did all this happen, and “the purpose, for instance of the existence of nature, must be sought beyond nature,”the purpose of life beyond life ,the purpose of the universe beyond the universe. The purpose are degraded into means for something higher than themselves, by this question.
Kant` answer to this question:because we ourselves are purposive beings who constantly design aims and ends and belong to nature.
Although the link between the first and the second part of the third critiques is weak, arendt still find two points about the important links between the two:
1 in neither of the two parts does kant speak of man as an intelligible or a cognitive being. The word truth does not occur. The first part speaks of men in the plural, as they really are and live in societies; the second part speaks of the human species.
2 the faculty of judgment deals with particulars, which”as such , contain something contingent in respect of the universal,”which normally is wha thought is dealing with. These particulars are again of two kinds; the first part of the critique of judgment deals with objects of judgment properly speaking, such as an object that we call”beautiful” without being able to subsume it under a general category of beauty as such;the other kind , dealt with in the second part of the critique of judgment is the impossibility of deriving any particular product of nature from general causes.
After the revolution of the American and the French ,kant had awakened from his political slumber to concern about how to reconcile the problem of the organization of the state with his moral philosophy, that is ,with the dictate of practical reason. But he knew that his moral philosophy could not help here. thus far beyond Aristotle`s remark that a “good man can be a good citizen only in a good state”, kant concludes that:
The problem of organizing a state, however hard it may seem, can be solved even for a race of devils, if only they are intelligent. The problem is:”given a multitude of rational beings requiring universal laws for their preservation, but each of whom is secretly inclined to exempt himself from them, to establish a constitution in such a way that, although their private intentions conflict, they check each other with the result that their public conduct is the same as if they had no such intentions.”36…
Arendt address the first and the second critiques of kant and give some comment.
“the subject-matter of modern political philosophy is not the polis or its politics, but the relation between philosophy and politics”---robert cumming
The philosophy tradition also attributes to kant.
Death/uneasy of human affairs
Three very differet concepts of the affairs of men:1 we have the human species and its progress;2 we have man as a moral being and an end in himself; 3 we have men in the plural, who actually are in the center of our considerations and whose true “end” is sociability. The distinctions among these three perspectives are a necessary precondition for an understanding of kant.
Human species = Mankind = part of nature =subject to "history," nature's ruse = to be considered under theidea of "end," teleological judgment: second part of Critique of Judgment.
Man = reasonable being, subject to the laws of practical reason which he gives to himself, autonomous, an end in himself, belonging to a Geisterreich, realm of intelligible beings = Critique of Practical Reason and Critique of Pure Reason.
Men = earthbound creatures, living in communities, endowed with common sense, sensus communis, a community sense; not autonomous, needing each other's company even for thinking ("freedom of the pen") = first part of the Critique of Judgment: aesthetic judgment.
Arendt thought that kant`attitude to human affairs is different from the west tradition of philosopher such as Plato.
Arendt thought that: though plato despises the pleasures of the pleasures. The point is rather that pleasures, like displeasures, distract the mind and lead it astray, that the body is a burden if you are after truth which being immaterial and beyong sense perception, can be perceived only by the eyes of the soul, which also is immaterial and beyond sense perception. In other words, true cognition is possible only to a mind untroubled by the senses.(phaedo)
But kant` position is different. He holds that all cognition depends on the interplay and cooperation of sensibility and intellect, and his critique of pure reason has rightly been called a justification of human sensibility.
So it comes to two consequences:
1 for kant, the philosopher clarifies the experiences we all have
2 the task of evaluating life with respect to pleasure and displeasure—which plato and the others claimed for the philosopher alone, holding that the many are quite satisfied with life as it is---kant claims can be expected from every ordinary man of good sense who ever reflected on life at all.
The consequences are all about equality! Three quota from kant:58 59 60
Pleasure---disinterested delight,kant think that this kind of pleasure is one exception to the rule,and that is the pleasure we feel when confronted with beauty.
“so ,let us retain for the moment the following ideas. The world is beautiful and therefore a fit place for men to live in, but individual men would never choose to live again. Man as a moral being is an end in himself, but the human species is subject to progress, which ,of course, is somehow in opposition to man as a moral and rational creature, an end in himself.p39”
So arendt wants to find the political philosophy of kant which is not written and is not peripheral.
Critique of pure reason
Arendt thinks that the word critique which kant chose is according with the spirit of the period of enlightment, enlightenment means, in this context, liberation from prejudices, from authorities, a purifying event.69 and the result of such criticism is to “use your own mind.” So kant discovered the “scandal of reason”,that is , that it is not just tradition and authority that lead us astray but the faculty of reason itself. Hence ,”critique” means an attempt to discover reason`s”sources and limits.”
Critique means the opposition to the dogmatic metaphysics on the one hand, to the skepticism on the other. The answer to the both was: critical thinking.p.41 –the difference between the doctrinst /skeptimicist and the critical.
Arendt thought that, kant had actually dismantled the whole machinery that had lasted or many centuries, deep into the modern age. Because kant is not free of responsibility for the fact that his critical philosophy was almost immediately understood as another”system” and was then attacked as such by next generation, when the spirit of the enlightenment, which had inspired it, was lost.
“the reading public” “common sense”…in contrast with hegle.
Critical thought applies not only to doctrines and conceots one receives from others, to the prejudices and traditions one inherits; it is precisely by applying critical standards to one’s own thought that one learns the art of critical thought. And this application one cannot learn without publicity, without the testing that arises from contact with other people’s thinking.
Impartiality is obtained by taking the viewpoints of others into account; impartiality is not the result of some higher standpoint that would then actually settle the dispute by being altogether above the mellee.
The enlargement of mind plays a crucial role in the critique of judgment. It is accomplished by “comparing our judgment with the possible rather than the actual judgments of others, and by putting ourselves in the place of any other man.”98 the faculty that makes this possible is called imagination. Critical thinking is possible only where the standpoints of all others are open to inspection. Hence, critical thinking, while is still a solitary business, does not cut itself off from “all others.” To be sure, it still goes on in isolation, but by the force of imagination it makes the others present and thus moves in a space that is potentially public, open to all sides. To think with an enlarged mentality means that one trains one’s imagination to go visiting.
Enlightenment is, first of all, liberation from prejudice. “enlarged thought” is the result of first”abstracting from the limitations which contingently attach to our own judgment,” of disregarding its “subjective private conditions…, by which so many are limited,” that is ,disregarding what we usually call self-interest, which, according to kant, is not enlightened or capable of enlightenment but is in fact limiting. The greater the reach-the larger the realm in which the enlightened individual is able to move from standpoint to standpoint-the more “general” will be his thinking. This generality, however, is not the generality of the concept. It is, on the contrary, closely connected with particulars, with the particular conditions of the standpoint one has to go through in order to arrive at one’s own “general standpoint.” This general standpoint we spoke of earlier as impartially; it is a viewpoint from which to reflect on human affairs.
For kant Revolution-the most important thing is the opinions about the occurrence that can be talked in public, which consist the meaning of the occurrence.
For kant The conflict between the engaged actor and the judging spectator is “conflict of politics with morality”engaged actor concern with his interest only, while the judging spectator can get the enlarged thought to get much more standpoint. So , publicness is already the criterion of rightness in kant’s moral philosophy.
Arendt: conclusion---in the center of kant’s moral philosophy stands the individual; in the center of his philosophy of history stands the perpetual progress of the human race, or mankind. The general viewpoint or standpoint is occupied, rather, by the spectator, who is the “world citizen” or, rather, a “world spectator” . it is he who dicides, by having an idea of the whole, whether, in any single, particular event, progress is being made.
The clash between the actor and spectator to kant is not the same as what plato distinguish between the philosopher(contemplative) and the many(political), for plato the most important is the idea behind the event. But for kant, on the contrary, publicness is the “thanscendental principle” that should rule all action. Whatever act “stands in the need of publicity” in order not to defeat its own purpose is an act that combines politics and right. So kant can not have the same notion as plato about acting and mere judging or contemplating or knowing. For kant the public is the reading public, and it is the weight of their opinion he is appealing to, not the weight of their votes. The judgment of the spectator creates the space without which no such objects could appear at all. At last , what constituted the appropriate public realm for this particular event were not the actors but the acclaiming spectators.
The relationship between common sense and taste?p64.
Conclusion of the above
●Why taste which is more subjective than other three sense is the vehicle for judgment? It was because only taste and smell(touch sight hear) are discriminatory by their very nature and because only these senses relate to the particular qua particular whereas all objects given to the objective senses share their properties with other objects, that is ,they are not unique. However, the disturbing thing about matters of taste is that they are not communicable.(no argument can persuade me to like oysters if I do not like them,there can be no dispute about matters of taste.)
●the solution to it can be indicated by the names of two other faculties: imagination. Common sense.
Imagination that is the faculty of having present what is absent, transforms an object into something I do not have to be directly confronted with but that I have in some sense internalized, so that I now can be affected by it as though it were given to me by a nonobjective sense.” Kant says:” that is beautiful which pleases in the mere act of judging it.” Arendt—that is : it is not important whether or not it pleases in perception; what pleases merely in perception is gratifying but not beautifu. It pleases in representation, for now the imagination has prepared it so that I can reflect on it. this is the “operation of reflection”. Only what touches, affects, one in representation, when one can no longer be affected by immediate presence can be judged to be right or wrong, important or irrelevant, beautiful or ugly. One has, by means of representation ,established the proper distance, which is requisite for evaluating something at its proper worth.by removing the object, one has established the conditions for impartiality.
As for common sense: kant was very early aware that there was something nonsubjective in what seems to be the most private and subjective sense.(“the beautiful intersts us only when we are in society…a man abandoned by himself on a desert island would adorn neither his hut nor his person…””in taste egoism is overcome”) that is we are considerate, in the original meaning of the word. We must overcome our special subjective conditions for the sake of others. In other words, the nonsubjective element in the nonobjective senses is intersubjectivity. Arendt---judgment always reflects upon others and their taste, takes their possible judgments into account. I judge as a member of the community and not as a member of a supersensible world.
About the opposition is not clearly…▼
●The two mental operations in judgment:
The operation of the imagination---when one represents something to oneself that is absent, one closes those sense by which objects in their objectivity are given to one. The sense of taste is a sense in which one, as it were, senses oneself. This operation of imagination prepares the object for “the operation of reflection”.
The operation of reflection---the actual activity of judging something. About what is the criterion of the operation of reflection, arendt `s answer is the criterion of communicability or publicness. The criterion is communicability, and the standard of deciding about it is common sense.p69.
This twofold operation establishes the most important condition for all judgments, the condition of impartiality, of “disinterested dlight.”
So , the advantage of the spectator has is that he sees the play as a whole, while each of the actors knows only his part or,if he should judge from the perspective of acting, only the part of the whole that concerns him. The actor is partial by definition.p.69
●Explain for ss39 and ss40(the C of judgment)
Of the communicability of a sensation(感觉)
Of taste as a kind of sensus communis
Kant indicates that sensus communis means something different from common sense: an extra sense---like an extra mental capability---that fits us into a community.” Common understanding of men…is the very least to be expected from anyone claiming the name of man.”
The sensus communis is the specifically human sense because communication, speech, depends on it
●Conclusion for the above:
In the very special Kantian meaning, common sense is community sense,sensus communis, as distinguished from sensus privatus. This sensus communis is what judgment appeals to in everyone, and it is this possible appeal that gives judgments their special validity. The it-pleases-or-displeases-me, which as a feeling seems so utterly private and noncommunicative, is actually rooted in this community sense and is therefore open to communication once it has bees transformed by reflection, which takes all others and their fellings into accout. The validity of these judgments never has the validity of cognitive or scientific propositions. Similarly , one can never compel anyone to agree with one`s judgments. One can only”court” the agreement of everyone else. And in this persuasive activity one actually appeals to the “community sense.” In other words, when one judges, one judges as a member of a community. ”p.72
●Explain on ss41:
An “enlarged mentality” is the condition sine qua non ofright judgment; one`s community sese makes it possible to enlarge one`s mentality. Private conditions condition us; imagination and reflection enable us to liberate ourselves from them and to attain that relative impartiality tha is the specific virtue of judgment. The less idiosyncratic one`s taste is the better it can be communicated.
The chief difficulty in judgment is that it is “the faculty of thinking the particular”; but to think means to generalize hence it is the faculty of mysteriously combining the particular and the general.
▼-----two ways to the difficulty: reflevtive judgments