Jacek Surzyn University of Silesia Kant s Political Philosophy

Transcription

1 1 Jacek Surzyn University of Silesia Kant s Political Philosophy Politics is older than philosophy. According to Olof Gigon in Ancient Greece philosophy was born in opposition to the politics (and the poetry). The great Plato described that philosophy is better than poetry and politics because poetry says something about the world and its future but rather in fantastic and unreal visions and in this sense poetry poisons human reason false hopes or unreal possibilities. The politics also gives a false vision of the world and the future but its essence lies not in the fantastic and unreal imaginations of human hopes but rather lies in the wrong method of knowledge. Before the rise of philosophy politics according to Plato was the empirical knowledge in which the conditions of reality were founded in looking back into the past, into the tradition and wisdom old human generations. But it was a serious methodological error because it was assumed that everything that had existed in the past was good and correct, so worthy of imitation. Hence Plato, such as later Aristotle, suggested a different understanding of politics. According to him, politics is a part of philosophy because the area of politics is the whole contexts of relations one man to other people. This is the context of communications between men as members of a natural group (ethnos), which by Plato was called "poleois" the state (in Latin Res Publica public thing), and later community, society. In this perspective politics are consequences of philosophical thinking about the principle (or principles) of everything that exists (existed or can exist) and politics is subordinate to philosophy. Ontological or epistemological principles have determined political conceptions of community, society or theory of the state, the status of law (natural, normal) etc. for centuries. The situation was changed in Renaissance (see Nicollo Machiavelli), and radically in the era of Enlightenment. First industrial revolution in England, then the French Revolution and a little earlier rise of the United States of America caused birth of the new type of political thinkers, who tried to analyze the structure of society in the aspect of human freedom, the will of social contract and natural laws of man as the human being. It was the moment of growth Commonwealth it

2 2 means the society of equal individuals. From a philosophical point of view, the new political problem analyzed Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Edmund Burke or Jean-Jacques Rousseau or David Hume (in his monumental "History of England"). In this concrete mental situation lived Immanuel Kant, who we generally perceive rather as a great philosopher and not a political theorist. And indeed in thought of Immanuel Kant dominated ontology or epistemology (it has remained disputed, which is the first) and eventually as consequence of them moral theory. But there is not the full view of his thought. Politics interested him very strongly (we know that he was fascinated of French Revolution) and we have a lot of his texts on a political matter. But of course, Kantian philosophy is primarily understood as critical philosophy and only through this focus there is possible correct understanding of his political conception. In traditional researchers of Kantian thought the political problems are situated rather outside his main conceptions, however, this opinion seems, to be not entirely appropriate. The later works of Kant: "Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf"(" Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch"), "Idee zu einer allgemeinen Geschichte in weltbürgerlicher Absicht" ("Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose"), "Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?" ("Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment?") or "Der Streit der Fakultäten" ("The Contest of Faculties") actually do not have the texture that characterizes the masterpieces (particularly "Critiques") but they are very interesting and valuable. However in the perspective of political theory and political problems very interested seems to be analysis the last of the great Kant's critiques - "The Critique of Judgment". Perhaps there is rather surprise to take the "Critique of Judgment" as the example of political work. But there are strong arguments to this opinion and for example Hannah Arendt just puts it and gives in his "Lectures on Kant's political philosophy" convincing arguments for such thesis. Generally, this book is understood as the ground for aesthetic conception, because the main problem of it seems to be the question of taste Gesmack, which is understood in the relation to beauty, or beautiful. But there is not the full aspect of this work because the another problem, which could be discovered in this critique is the question of judgment, particularly seeking the origins our power of judgment, which has only subjective, individual ground and has no relation to our reason and understanding of the world. The power of judgment is very specific aspect of human relationships and in this way would be the general problem of politics.

3 3 For Kant, the political philosophy does not seem to be regarded as an addition to the main philosophical considerations of ontological or epistemological issues but would be important part of his critical reform. Kant was the great creator of critics thought, which in the light of the Copernican Turn (Copernican Revolution) analyzed the problems of metaphysics, of cognition theory, or of ethics-morality. However, Kant has paid much attention to political issues, mainly related to the issue of human reference to freedom, to the sense of duty, to the purpose of man as a species, to conduct in the context of good and evil, and in general to what he called "sociability" (Gellesigkeit). In this way Hannah Arendt writes that a group of several late Kant s texts or essays dealing with political issues deserves to be called Fourth Critique which Kant never managed to write as a separate work. Kant himself called some of them a mere play with ideas or a mere pleasure trip, but in fact, he treated them as seriously as his three critiques. And Critique of Judgment could be understood as the natural consequence of critical discourse implies the very deep aspect of human essence. In the first part of Critique of Judgment Kant discusses the four possible judgments, which he calls reflective. There are following: the agreeable, the beautiful, the sublime, and the good. Kant makes it clear that these are the only possible these judgments as reflective, and he relates them to the Table of Judgments from the Critique of Pure Reason". Reflective judgments differ from other judgments, which are presented in the first two critiques). In reflective judgment we try to find some specific constitution for given particulars in the relations to unknown universals; whereas in determinative judgment, we try to subsume given particulars under universals that are already known. It seems to be the key to understanding one of important principle Kant's conception of politics because political area is the place of communication and communication is possible only in universal, in common (community - see etymology of this word). So now let's try to shortly explain the four kinds of reflective judgments. First, the agreeable is a purely sensory judgment in the form that This rose is fine" or this table is good". Agreeably's judgment is purely subjective and based on inclination alone. Second, the good is essentially a judgment that something is ethical, it means the judgment is good if something conforms with the moral law, which according to Kant is essentially a claim of modality as a coherence with a fixed and absolute notion of reason. This kind of judgment is a purely objective judgment because all existed beings could be related to morale. Third, the judgment of beautiful and sublime have something common, because both of them are subjective universal judgments. But I we must keep in mind what really it means, because, in practice, every judgment is subjective, and is not tied to any absolute and determinate

4 4 concept. However, the judgment that something is beautiful or sublime is made with the belief that other people ought to agree (maybe not but this is not a desirable situation - making a judgment man expects that other people will agree in it with this) judgment. The force of this ought comes from a reference to something what Kant called a community taste" (sensus communis). It is very interesting that Hannah Arendt suggests that this sensus communis is for Kant a basis for building his own theory of politics based on the universal ability (and need) of people to communicate with one another, which actually arises from human nature since man possesses that community taste". The judgment of beauty seems to be the central concept of Kant's power of judgment and he called it the free play between the cognitive powers of imagination and understanding. We would call an object beautiful because its form fits our cognitive powers and enables such a free play the experience of which is pleasurable to us. According to Kant if about something we formulate the judgment of beautiful it means that we would like to claim that this thing (object) possesses the form of finality it appears to have been designed with a purpose, even though it does not have any apparent practical function. So, in consequence, there is not necessarily need to has a determinate concept of an object in order to find it beautiful. Judgments of beauty are free judgment and they are realizing the freedom that is in man, which is just in the sphere of communication with other people. At the same time, however, Kant emphasizes that purpose and utility do not play a role in the judgment of beauty. A man works here spontaneously referring to a common sense of taste. So in a sense, one can say that for Kant politics is a matter of taste. For Kant, the natural tendency of a man to make judgments is the basis of public space, and therefore the basis for politics. So man is by nature "political" and in this area, his freedom is revealed, because he can issue subjective judgments about individual things that are not based on the necessary logical conclusions, but are the result of his taste common sense of taste. The second part of the Critique of Judgment discusses another kind of judgment very specific for human being, because Kant asks about the sense of human existence at all, what means that man can and practically must ask about the meaning of human life on earth as a species. This is teleological judgment. In the teleological aspect, Kant locates man as the ultimate end, that is, that all other forms of nature exist for the purpose of their relation to human being as species. In this perspective, culture as the product of human activities becomes the expression of the highest teleological end, as it is the only expression of human freedom outside of the laws of nature. The man also garners the place as the highest teleological end due to his capacity for morality, or practical reason, which falls in line with

5 5 the theory of ethics proposes by Kant in the Metaphysics of Morals" or in the Critique of Practical Reason". Therefore man is the supreme goal for himself, but not as an individual being, but in the sense of the human species that dominates and subdues the earth (the world). The dominant concept of Kantian anthropocentrism is revealed here very fast, but also, apart from making of aesthetic judgments, the aspect of human freedom to do with nature according to its own will. Civilization, culture, but also history are purely human forms, and only in relation to man they have a sense and are understandable. Kant never interested in the past for him the fundament of our history is its future, particularly the future of the species (human species). In this context, he analyzed the question of the community (the state, law, duty), teleology, perpetual peace, progress of nature, and the goal of all. Because of them, history is a process of progress and a product of this process is something, what we called culture, or freedom. Progress itself, which was dominant concept of the XVIIIth century, is for Kant the impulsion for all human activities. In the other words, historical progress is the essence of the human condition as the individual being and his life on the earth. Everything what is connected with philosophical thinking is connected with loneliness. On the other hand, there is an area of our thinking that is not based on categories of intellect, or on the ideas of pure reason, but it is the judgment sphere a unique field in which one person must refer to another, which means that it is a sphere in which the meaning of our social life or community life is revealed. Researchers Kant's thought among them Hannah Arendt assume that his third critical work, "Critique of Judgment" can be regarded as a substitute for Kant's political considerations. Using the problem of taste Kant just discovered an entirely new human faculty, the faculty of judgment. And the problem of taste is directed towards the aesthetic issue of beauty, but Kant discovered that there is more than taste that will decide about the beautiful and the ugly, because about it decides the power of judgment, which is independent of the reason alone. The category of judgment has difference roots then intellect or pure reason. Hannah Arendt points out that the described two parts refer to Kant's understanding of politics. The first of these could be indicated by the sociability of man, that is, the fact that no man lives alone and their cares or needs can be realized only inside human society. The main theses of Kant is that "Company is indispensable for the thinker" and according to Hannah Arendt, this is a key to the first part of the third critique. The second main question of this book is "why is it necessary that men should exist at all?". In this problem, Kant tries to explain the concept of goal of human being and in this

6 6 perspective, it is connected with the famous Kantian questions whose answers, according to him, constituted the proper business of philosophy. These questions are: what can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope? And these three are going to anthropological problem of what is man. It seems to be that the last question touches the political aspects which are denoted by the two main problems of "Critique of Judgment": the sociability of man and the goal of his existence. Of course, classical political contexts of traditional political philosophy are wider: the questions of state, the problem of law (natural or human), the question of the ontological status of a community, the origin of social contract and nature of human status. And in Kant's own mind we can find these contexts, but specifically and originally aspect of his thought is probably connected with the questions of two parts of critique concentration on the man in his individual, singular being (this is the problem of pure and practical reason) on the one side and the man as the member of human species human community, it means as the member of society. The most important here seems to be that for Kant political area is unmoral and for him in politics we have no moral conditions because the moral laws are valid for all intelligible beings, whereas the rules of community (political rules) are strictly limited in their validity to human beings on earth. It is determined by fact that aspect of human being on earth the being inside the community is fundamental for conditions of our biological life because outside of community man has practically no chance for alive. Other speaking: we must live in community but the paradox of this situation lies in the fact that for our knowledge about the world and for the seeking of conditions of our knowledge we need only alone reflection on the transcendental conditions of our reason there are answers to the first three questions: what we can know, what we ought to do and what we may hope. Just when we ask about the fundaments of judgment it deals us into the different reflection in which we go into the natural world around us. The real fact is that the faculty of judgment deals with particulars, which as such contain something contingent in respect of the universal, which normally (and in the area of philosophy) is it what thought is dealing with. In this perspective in the first part of critique deals with the objects of judgment, for example, something that we can call "beautiful" without being able to subsume it under a general category of beauty. The proposition: "This rose is beautiful" is not the effect of logical discursive analyzing of our intellect with help of ours structure categories. And in consequence, the proposition "This rose is beautiful" is not true or false, because this proposition is not the result of thinking (true or false thinking) but the result of our engagement in social life and the result of our need to communicate with other people. Kant takes of very important condition for community life the necessity of communication with the validity of our thinking about particular real existing

7 7 things. So this is the ground for human sociability man with nature has the necessity to live with others. Sociability is for Kant the condition of politics. But with it influences the second problem of the teleological principle for a human being as species. For Kant determination of thinking about purpose of human existence as species is the condition to understanding the human production, technic and created civilization at all. We can, therefore, risk the statement that, based on all these considerations, Kant builds the conceptions of a political man who exists in a society surrounded by other people and he must live with them. That coercion does not result from any supernatural rationality, neither it is conditioned by the need for common knowledge acquisition. This is due to the inherent power of man, which leads him to be with other people. Such status creates the society, and as a consequence of the constant progression of humanity as a species, the state with all its functions. It must be state that is based on the law Rechtstaat, which protects all its own citizens. But what is extremely important here is that such state is good because of its functions and consequently a good state can exist even when it consists of the bad people themselves - Kant writes in his Perpetual Peace. There is no need to educate a good citizen to have a good state. At the same time, Kant emphasizes the importance of human freedom and activity. A thinking and active man need other people to live with them in the community. So we are by nature "sociability" and this property makes us accept the rights of others and it draws us into the political sphere.