[lit-ideas] Re: Euthyphro & Habermas
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:05:13 -0330
Lovely account, Phil. Thank you. And thanks for the reference; I'll look it up
shortly.
RP: does that help? Not too much "metaphysical necessity" involved, by my
lights, anyway.
Mike: I agree with Phil's reply to your notion of the "personal." (You were a
school teacher?! I am deeply impressed.)
Walter O.
MUN
P.S. I just had a thought. (Beginner's luck, I know.) How does the academic
freedom of a university professor fit into Kant's distinction between public
and private reason? Wouldn't one of the obligations a prof. would have to
fulfill in order to legitimately claim academic freedom be that (s)he speak
only in "public" terms? I thought of this because Phil included university
professors in his list. I guess this raises the question of whether a
"university" whose accreditation were in question - i.e., one being
investigated for violations of academic freedom (Catholic University of America
in Washington, First Nations University in Canada, etc.) - were being targeted
as a source of "private" rather than "public" reason.
P.P.S. Is the Euthyphro reading still on? A question of particular moment in
light of Mike Geary's recently raised considerations?
============================================================================
Quoting Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Walter Okshevsky wrote:
>
> "I haven't come across that essay by H., I don't think. Could you give us
> the reference?"
>
> "Religion in the Public Sphere", _European Journal of Philosophy_, 14:1
>
>
> Walter:
>
> "When you say that the essay 'is essentially ....', do you mean that H
> himself states that that's what he's doing or is it your take on what he is
> doing in that essay?"
>
> It is my take on the essay.
>
>
> Walter:
>
> "Btw, Kant's distinction between public and private reason has always seemed
> counter-intuitive to me. What we normally understand by 'public', he takes
> to be 'private.' Do you have a short but accurate account of the
> difference?"
>
> It is a matter of freedom. Take, for example, the U.S. generals who have in
> the last few years commented on the Iraq war. When they are still in the
> service, they must consider their role within the military so that when they
> speak, they speak as representatives of the U.S. military. However, when
> they retire, these individuals speak as individuals and often say things
> they would not have said, were they still serving. According to Kant, the
> general who addresses the troops is constrained by their role as general and
> therefore is not speaking from freedom, hence privately. The general is not
> speaking to anyone who might overhear what is said, but instead addresses a
> particular audience within a determined context. However, when that general
> retires and writes an op-ed piece expressing personal convictions regarding
> the war, the individual is speaking to anyone who might read the piece. As
> a general, this person may be addressing tens of thousands of people, but
> what is said is addressed to that particular audience for a particular
> determined purpose, and therefore private. As an individual, the person's
> op-ed may only be read by a few hundred people, but what is said is
> addressed to anyone who bothers to read the piece, and therefore public.
>
> The issue is whether one has one's freedom constrained by acting within a
> determined role. It doesn't matter what the general says, what matters is
> whether it is in the service of being a general, or an individual. So, the
> same is true of preachers, bureaucrats, teachers, etc.
>
> Obviously Kant does not think that private reasoning is a bad thing.
> Rather, his argument is that for an enlightened society, there must be a
> sphere where people can speak freely, publicly. The general, preacher,
> mayor, professor, etc., must have the ability to speak apart from their
> roles as general, preacher, mayor, professor, etc.
>
> I take the relevance of the public/private reasoning distinction for Kant's
> account of morality to be obvious so I won't go on.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Phil Enns
> Glen Haven, NS
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
