Between Revolution and Reaction: The Political Significance of Kant’s Doctrine of the Idea

Michael Kryluk
{"title":"Between Revolution and Reaction: The Political Significance of Kant’s Doctrine of the Idea","authors":"Michael Kryluk","doi":"10.1515/agph-2023-0093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This essay argues that Kant’s conception of regulative ideas of practical reason introduced in the Critique of Pure Reason serves an important twofold function in his political philosophy. First, Kant’s version of the ideal, Platonic republic acts as the a priori paradigm of a rightful state to which existing regimes can and should conform. Second, Kant frames the regulative status of such practical ideas as a resolution of the conflict between the extremes of dogmatism and skepticism. In his principal political writings from the 1790s—i. e., “Theory and Practice,” “Perpetual Peace,” and the Doctrine of Right—Kant draws on his account of practical ideas in the Critique to articulate a counterfactual norm of popular sovereignty that distinguishes his political standpoint from opponents on the left and the right. Radicals repeat the error of the dogmatists by affirming that the norm of collective self-legislation is completely attainable in experience. By contrast, conservatives make the mistake of the skeptics by denying that rational political standards can be applied to reality at all. I show that Kant reconciles these extremes through his model of gradual, non-violent political reform guided by the regulative ideal of a perfectly self-legislating state.","PeriodicalId":517350,"journal":{"name":"Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"1 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2023-0093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This essay argues that Kant’s conception of regulative ideas of practical reason introduced in the Critique of Pure Reason serves an important twofold function in his political philosophy. First, Kant’s version of the ideal, Platonic republic acts as the a priori paradigm of a rightful state to which existing regimes can and should conform. Second, Kant frames the regulative status of such practical ideas as a resolution of the conflict between the extremes of dogmatism and skepticism. In his principal political writings from the 1790s—i. e., “Theory and Practice,” “Perpetual Peace,” and the Doctrine of Right—Kant draws on his account of practical ideas in the Critique to articulate a counterfactual norm of popular sovereignty that distinguishes his political standpoint from opponents on the left and the right. Radicals repeat the error of the dogmatists by affirming that the norm of collective self-legislation is completely attainable in experience. By contrast, conservatives make the mistake of the skeptics by denying that rational political standards can be applied to reality at all. I show that Kant reconciles these extremes through his model of gradual, non-violent political reform guided by the regulative ideal of a perfectly self-legislating state.
革命与反动之间:康德理念学说的政治意义
这篇文章认为,康德在《纯粹理性批判》中提出的实践理性规范理念在其政治哲学中发挥着两方面的重要作用。首先,康德版本的柏拉图式的理想共和国是一个合法国家的先验范式,现有的制度可以也应该符合这一范式。其次,康德将这种实践理念的规范地位归结为解决教条主义和怀疑主义这两个极端之间的冲突。在康德 17 世纪 90 年代的主要政治著作(即《理论与实践》、《永久和平》和《权利论》)中,康德借鉴了他在《批判》中对实践理念的论述,阐明了人民主权的反事实规范,从而将他的政治立场与左翼和右翼的反对者区分开来。激进派重蹈教条主义者的覆辙,肯定集体自我立法的准则在经验中是完全可以实现的。相反,保守派则犯了怀疑论者的错误,否认理性的政治标准可以应用于现实。我的论述表明,康德通过他的模式调和了这两个极端,即在一个完全自我立法的国家这一规范性理想的指导下,进行渐进的、非暴力的政治改革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信