KANT AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY – BOOK REVIEW
The recent revival of political philosophy , largely Kantian inspiration , drew attention to the historical writings of Kant , where a large part of his political thinking is embedded and edit Lewis White Beck testing historical Kant brought the unknown material to a new audience . All recent books on the subject , Yirmiahu Yovel ” S is the most ambitious and provocative. Instead of starting historical essays , long distrusted as casual and ” dogmatic ” , he stressed the large systematic and critical work of Kant , in order to ” restore the elements of a critical philosophy history” in the work of Kant and reintegration historical essays in this context ( p. x ) . fundamental texts prove to the Critique of Pure Reason (including prefaces and chapters about his ” architectonic of pure reason ” and ” History of Pure Reason ” ) , discussion of teleology Criticism in the OJ trial and religion within the limits of reason.
Yovel book is divided into three sections . The first is devoted to the design history in the thought of Kant a concept formed by the regulative idea of the greater good and made possible by the adoption of a mediation between God ‘s natural and moral spheres . I said that second part is about the relationship between the two sources of agency historical change and social conflict and the systematic status of historical teleology argument Kant clarify . The third section analyzes three phenomena ( in the opinion of Kant) illustrate the rational history, religion , philosophy and the development of its own theoretical position of Kant. Very , Yovel seeks to identify and develop the two meanings of rational history of Kant : ” the process by which humans same reason imprints on the real world ” practical and theoretical history history ” the process by which human reason explicates his latent phase paradigm articulate its fundamental concepts , principles and interests into a coherent system ” ( p. 6 ) As several researchers have noted, the concept of rational history can not be accommodated in the critical attitude of maturity Kant , indeed, this is a major reason for his historical thought is ignored or rejected . In a concluding chapter , Yovel exhaustive catalogs and compelling challenges Kant meetings . Each reflects a central mystery. Kant’s critical philosophy is built on a series of related dualism of nature and freedom , spontaneity and receptivity , autonomy and heteronomy , reason and understanding and critical thrust requires that the poles of these contradictions are strictly separated . But , as Kant explicitly with the concept, the story requires a rational series ol illegal syntheses , for example , the convergence of natural processes and moral freedom and temporal events and the transcendental ego ateinpoi.il In Kant ‘s theory of time , no development of reason and morality is even conceivable , because there is no intermediary between them and the empirical history is possible. Until now , a familiar story , well told . Yovel but goes further . These problems , he argues, not only confirm the view that it could not always adhere to a critical philosophy of history. Kant established Instead , they are on one side of the Yovel calls ” historical contradiction ” in the system Karu the idea of rational story is not only unsustainable, but also indispensable. In this thesis, the heart and the originality of the argument Yovel .
This is also the time when the argument less convincing . The practical necessity of history systematically based on the extension of the concept of the greater good of the object of hope in an individual moral duty regulative idea of the story . Yovel brilliantly organized and explicitly with different levels of Kant’s argument for the greater good . But as he admits (in fact , emphasis added ) , this expansion , far from being a logical necessity rather there is a ” systematic discontinuity based on moral or religious external ” considerations (see especially pages 61-64 ) . if this is the case , the history to be seen as a practical necessity systematic side, but it may seem attractive in itself. The need for systematic theoretical story is based on the fundamental characteristics of human reason itself . Because human reason is finite , there are differences between the objectives and news . Because the human mind is autonomous , its objectives can not be given , but should be included in its own activities . Therefore, pursuing his own immanent or ” essential functions ” tasks on top of which the interest is ” architectural ” of reason in the harmonious unity of all its products and activities . The story ol reason is the way he follows the conscious or unconscious of his immanent ends pursuit. Yovel is right to emphasize the teleological nature of the Kantian reason and he ‘s reconstruction persuasive texts which figures centrally interested der Vernunft irons. But he has failed to demonstrate that the reason as follows , requires a rational history , orderly , progressive and significant flow of events . For that matter, no more than Kant , who instead present the temporal evolution of reason as a bare empirical fact ( and an ” unhappy ” with it) . The confirmation of the Yovel for Kant ” the structure of the history of philosophy is basically the same as the system of philosophy ” says ( p. 228 ) goes far beyond what Kant actually : past efforts cumulative thinkers have provided us with the equipment we shape ourselves an architectural organization of rational knowledge ( Pure Reason , a 835 / B 863) . And Kant ‘s remarks in the last chapter of the Critique of Pure Reason ( ” The History of Pure Reason ” ) hardly suggest the temporal evolution of reason. Instead , controversies based on ontology epistemology and methodology were developed in ancient Greece and most ” have since been maintained unbroken continuity ” (A 853 / B 881 ) . Yovel fails to show that the rational history, practical or theoretical , is an essential feature of Kant’s thinking. It is therefore not historical contradiction in the strict sense . But everyone is the inevitable problem of linking the systematic philosophy of Kant , theoretical and practical , with the temporality of human knowledge and to act as we live . To clarify this issue Lias Yovel has a remarkable contribution . His comments on the teleology , on the state of the practice rooms and Kant’s argument for the primacy of practical reason are especially dazzling . 11 is not the fault of Yovel that her research has produced more confusion than answers .