[lit-ideas] Re: A serious inquiry: Hannah
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:58:41 -0400
Walter Okshevsky wrote:
"... could you provide me with the references to the quotations you cite
below?"
Certainly. I am using Mary Gregor's translation, which lacks any
reference to a standardized pagination so I will give parts and
sections.
I agree that his political theory is a bit of a mess but this shouldn't
be too much of a surprise given the difficulties he had with censors and
court officials. Yet, I think it is possible to produce a fairly
coherent account of a political theory using what Kant provides. I
haven't read the Arendt so I can't comment on what she does, but I am
not sure I would start with the Third Critique. Some years ago I sat in
on a wonderful lecture by Onora O'Neill on _Conflict_ that left me
convinced that this is a text that isn't given its proper due. I would
begin with "What is Enlightenment" and _Conflict_ and then draw on the
Third Critique.
Anyways, here are the quotations with references.
"According to reason (that is, objectively), the following order exists
among the incentives that the government can use to achieve its end (of
influencing the people): first comes the eternal well-being of each ...
By public teachings about the first of these [i.e. eternal well-being],
the government can exercise very great influence to uncover the inmost
thoughts and guide the most secret intentions of its subjects."
(First Part, 'On the Relation of the Faculties', First Section, 'The
Concept and Division of the Higher Faculties', p31)
"To refuse to obey an external and supreme will on the grounds that it
allegedly does not conform with reason would be absurd; for the dignity
of the government consists precisely in this: that it does not leave its
subjects free to judge what is right or wrong according to their own
notions, but [determines right and wrong - trans.] for them by precepts
of the legislative power."
(First Part, First Section, SubSection B, 'The Distinctive
Characteristic of the Faculty of Law', p39)
"Now we may well comply with a practical teaching out of obedience, but
we can never accept it as true simply because we are ordered to. This
is not only objectively impossible (a judgment that ought not to be
made), but also subjectively quite impossible (a judgment that no one
can make). ... So when it is a question of the truth of a certain
teaching to be expounded in public, the teacher cannot appeal to a
supreme command nor the pupil pretend that he believed it by order.
This can happen only when it is a question of action, and even then the
pupil must recognize by a free judgment that such a command was really
issued and that he is obligated or at least entitled to obey it;
otherwise, his acceptance of it would be an empty pretense and a lie.
Now the power to judge autonomously - that is, freely (according to
principles of thought in general) - is called reason. So the philosophy
faculty, because it must answer for the truth of the teachings it is to
adopt or even allow, must be conceived as free and subject only to laws
given by reason, not by the government."
(First Part, Second Section, 'The Concept and Division of the Lower
Faculty', p43)
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
