The World According to Kant: Appearances and Things in Themselves in Critical Idealism by Anja Jauernig (review)

IF 0.7 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Patricia Kitcher
{"title":"The World According to Kant: Appearances and Things in Themselves in Critical Idealism by Anja Jauernig (review)","authors":"Patricia Kitcher","doi":"10.1353/hph.2023.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"together. This overlooks the growing importance that Macaulay’s political framework, suitably recast in contemporary secular terms, has in republican discourse today. Green says little in the book about modern republicanism, other than to distance her reading of Macaulay from the current republican ideal of “non-domination” (223–24). What this omission obscures, however, is the increasing awareness by present-day republicans that women contributed in significant numbers to the history of this tradition, challenging many of the male-dominated assumptions that have beset it (see Alan Coffee, “Women and Republicanism,” Australasian Philosophical Review 3/4 [2020]: 361–69). Particularly through her influence on Wollstonecraft, but also on her own account, Macaulay is at the forefront of this reappraisal. This is, in my view, a missed opportunity. In her conclusion, for example, Green includes a subsection on “Macaulay on the Tradition of Liberal Feminism,” but she is silent on republican feminism. One final observation about Green’s focus on the particular substantive principles in Macaulay, rather than on her framework, is that it also sometimes leads Green to take a narrower view than she might of some of the principles she identifies. On the question of liberty, Green twice says that Macaulay “clearly” uses a positive notion as understood through Isaiah Berlin’s famous distinction (220–21). However, while it cannot be denied that in some sense Macaulay does invoke a positive notion, Berlin’s sharp dichotomy is not helpful when thinking in terms of a framework of ideas in which Macaulay makes use of both positive and negative elements within her broader system. These methodological differences aside, Green has produced a magnificent intellectual biography that will be indispensable for scholars interested in Macaulay specifically or in late eighteenth-century politics in general. As Bridget Hill ushered in a new era of Macaulay studies a generation ago with The Republican Virago (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), Green too has likely produced the definitive guide for the generation to come. A l a n C o f f e e King’s College London","PeriodicalId":46448,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY","volume":"61 1","pages":"160 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2023.0008","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

together. This overlooks the growing importance that Macaulay’s political framework, suitably recast in contemporary secular terms, has in republican discourse today. Green says little in the book about modern republicanism, other than to distance her reading of Macaulay from the current republican ideal of “non-domination” (223–24). What this omission obscures, however, is the increasing awareness by present-day republicans that women contributed in significant numbers to the history of this tradition, challenging many of the male-dominated assumptions that have beset it (see Alan Coffee, “Women and Republicanism,” Australasian Philosophical Review 3/4 [2020]: 361–69). Particularly through her influence on Wollstonecraft, but also on her own account, Macaulay is at the forefront of this reappraisal. This is, in my view, a missed opportunity. In her conclusion, for example, Green includes a subsection on “Macaulay on the Tradition of Liberal Feminism,” but she is silent on republican feminism. One final observation about Green’s focus on the particular substantive principles in Macaulay, rather than on her framework, is that it also sometimes leads Green to take a narrower view than she might of some of the principles she identifies. On the question of liberty, Green twice says that Macaulay “clearly” uses a positive notion as understood through Isaiah Berlin’s famous distinction (220–21). However, while it cannot be denied that in some sense Macaulay does invoke a positive notion, Berlin’s sharp dichotomy is not helpful when thinking in terms of a framework of ideas in which Macaulay makes use of both positive and negative elements within her broader system. These methodological differences aside, Green has produced a magnificent intellectual biography that will be indispensable for scholars interested in Macaulay specifically or in late eighteenth-century politics in general. As Bridget Hill ushered in a new era of Macaulay studies a generation ago with The Republican Virago (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), Green too has likely produced the definitive guide for the generation to come. A l a n C o f f e e King’s College London
《康德的世界:批判唯心主义中的表象与自在之物》安雅·焦宁著(书评)
在一起。这种观点忽视了麦考利的政治框架在当今共和话语中日益增长的重要性,麦考利的政治框架在当代世俗语境中得到了恰当的重塑。格林在书中几乎没有提到现代共和主义,只是将她对麦考利的解读与当前“非统治”的共和理想划清界限(223-24页)。然而,这种遗漏所掩盖的是,当代共和党人越来越意识到,女性在这一传统的历史上做出了重大贡献,挑战了许多困扰它的男性主导的假设(见艾伦·科菲,“女性和共和主义”,澳大利亚哲学评论3/4[2020]:361-69)。尤其是通过她对沃斯通克拉夫特的影响,也通过她自己的叙述,麦考利站在了重新评估的最前沿。在我看来,这是一个错失的机会。例如,在她的结论中,格林包括了一个关于“麦考利论自由女权主义传统”的小节,但她对共和女权主义却只字未提。关于格林关注麦考利的具体实质性原则,而不是她的框架的最后一个观察是,这有时也会导致格林对她所确定的一些原则采取比她可能采取的更狭隘的观点。在自由问题上,格林两次说麦考利“显然”使用了一个积极的概念,正如以赛亚·伯林(Isaiah Berlin)著名的区分(220-21)所理解的那样。然而,不可否认的是,在某种意义上,麦考利确实引用了一个积极的概念,但在考虑麦考利在其更广泛的体系中同时使用积极和消极元素的思想框架时,柏林尖锐的二分法并没有帮助。撇开这些方法论上的差异不谈,格林创作了一部精彩的知识分子传记,对于那些对麦考利或18世纪晚期政治感兴趣的学者来说,这部传记是不可或缺的。正如布里奇特·希尔在上一代人之前以《共和党的维拉戈》(牛津:克拉伦登出版社,1992年)开创了麦考利研究的新时代一样,格林也可能为下一代人提供了权威的指导。我是伦敦大学国王学院的一名学生
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: Since January 2002, the Journal of the History of Philosophy has been published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. For subscriptions, change of address, and back issues, please contact Subscription Services. In addition to photocopying allowed by the "fair use" doctrine, JHP authorizes personal or educational multiple-copying by instructors for use within a course. This policy does not cover photocopying for commercial use either by individuals or publishers. All such uses must be authorized by JHP.
×
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