Continental Philosophy Review

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 331–352

An antinomy of political judgment: Kant, Arendt, and the role of purposiveness in reflective judgment

Article

Abstract

This article builds on Arendt’s development of a Kantian politics from out of the conception of reflective judgment in the Critique of Judgment. Arendt looks to Kant’s analysis of the beautiful to explain how political thought can be conceived. And yet Arendt describes such Kantian reflection as an empirical undertaking that justifies itself only in relation to the abstract principle of the moral law. The problem for such an account is that the autonomy of the moral law appears to be at odds with the social cohesion of Kantian political life. The ensuing contradiction can be deemed the antinomy of political judgment. Kant’s conception of reflective judgment offers such an inquiry considerably more to work with than Arendt uncovers. In particular, the regulative principle of the purposiveness of nature that is shown to direct all reflection can be seen to offer the solution to this antinomy.

Keywords

Kant Arendt Political judgment Antinomy Purposiveness 

References

  1. Arendt, Hannah. 1968a. Truth and politics. In Between past and future, 227–264. New York: Penguin Books [originally published in the New Yorker, 25th Feb 1967: 49–88].Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, Hannah. 1968b. The crisis in culture: Its social and its political significance. In Between past and future, 197–226.Google Scholar
  3. Arendt, Hannah. 1982. Lectures on Kant’s political philosophy, ed. Ronald Beiner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arendt, Hannah. 2003a. Collective responsibility. In Responsibility and judgment, 147–158. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
  5. Arendt, Hannah. 2003b. Some questions of moral philosophy. In Responsibility and judgment, 49–146.Google Scholar
  6. Baum, Manfred. 1979. Transcendental proofs in Kant’s critique of pure reason. In Transcendental arguments and science, ed. Peter Bieri, R.-P. Horstmann, and L. Krüger, 3–26. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  7. Baum, Manfred. 1986. Deduktion und Beweis in Kants Transzendentalphilosophie. Königstein: Athenäum Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Beiner, Ronald. 2008. Rereading ‘Truth and Politics’. Philosophy and Social Criticism 34 (1–2): 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bubner, Rüdiger. 1974. Zur Struktur eines transzendentalen Arguments. In Akten des 4. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, ed. G. Funke and J. Kopper, I, 15–27. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  10. Bubner, Rüdiger. 1975. Kant, transcendental arguments and the problem of deduction. Review of Metaphysics 28: 453–467.Google Scholar
  11. Goldman, Avery. 2004. Beauty and critique: On the role of reason in Kant’s aesthetics. In Internationales Jahrbuch für Hermeneutik, vol. 3, ed. Günter Figal, 203–220. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  12. Goldman, Avery. 2007. Critique and the mind: Towards a defense of Kant’s transcendental method. Kant-Studien 98(4): 403–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hegel, G.W.F. 1991. Elements of the philosophy of right, trans. H.B. Nisbet, ed. Allen W. Wood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press [Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. In Werke in zwanzig Bänden, ed. Eva Moldenhauer and Karl Markus Michel, v. 7. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1970].Google Scholar
  14. Heidegger, Martin. 1967. What is a Thing?, trans. W.B. Barton Jr. and Vera Deutsch. South Bend, IN: Regnery/Gateway [Die Frage nach dem Ding. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1987].Google Scholar
  15. Höffe, Otfried. 1989. Kant’s principle of justice as categorical imperative of law. In Kant’s practical philosophy reconsidered, ed. Yirmiyahu Yovel, 149–167. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Kant, Immanuel. 1963. The conflict of the faculties, trans. Robert E. Anchor [title translation altered]. In On history, ed. Lewis White Beck, 137–154. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill [Der Streit der Fakultäten. In Gesammelte Schriften. Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1900-, AA 7, 5–114].Google Scholar
  17. Kant, Immanuel. 1996a. Critique of practical reason, trans. ed. Mary J. Gregor. In Practical philosophy, 137–271. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press [Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, AA 5, 1–163].Google Scholar
  18. Kant, Immanuel. 1996b. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. In Practical philosophy, 41–108 [Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, AA 4, 385–463].Google Scholar
  19. Kant, Immanuel. 1996c. The metaphysics of morals. In Practical philosophy, 363–603 [Die Metaphysik der Sitten, AA 6, 203–493].Google Scholar
  20. Kant, Immanuel. 1996d. On the common saying: This may be true in theory but it does not apply in practice. In Practical philosophy, 277–309 [Über den Gemeinspruch: ‘Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht für die Praxis’, AA 8, 273–313].Google Scholar
  21. Kant, Immanuel. 1996e. Toward perpetual peace. In Practical philosophy, 317–351, [Zum ewigen Frieden, AA 8, 343–386].Google Scholar
  22. Kant, Immanuel. 1996f. An answer to the question: What is enlightenment? In Practical philosophy, 15–22 [Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?, AA 8, 33–42].Google Scholar
  23. Kant, Immanuel. 1998. Critique of pure reason, trans. Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press [Kritik der reinen Vernunft, AA 3 (B edition), and 4 (A edition)].Google Scholar
  24. Kant, Immanuel. 2000. Critique of judgment, trans. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews [title translation altered]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press [Kritik der Urteilskraft, AA 5 and 20].Google Scholar
  25. Kerszberg, Pierre. 1997. Critique and totality. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lyotard, Jean-François. 1993. The survivor. In Toward the postmodern, ed. Robert Harvey, and Mark S. Roberts, 144–163. Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lyotard, Jean-François. 1994. Lessons on the analytic of the sublime, trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mertens, Helga. 1975. Kommentar zur Ersten Einleitung in Kants Kritik der Urteilskraft. München: Johannes Berchmans Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. Nuzzo, Angelica. 2005. Kant and the unity of reason. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Piché, Claude. 1995. Self-referentiality in Kant’s transcendental philosophy. In Proceedings of the eighth international Kant congress, ed. Hoke Robinson, II, 1, 259–267. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Pippin, Robert. 2006. Mine and thine? The Kantian state. In The Cambridge companion to Kant and modern philosophy, ed. Paul Guyer, 416–446. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Souriau, Michel. 1926. Le jugement réfléchissant dans la philosophie critique de Kant. Paris: Félix Alcan.Google Scholar
  33. Sturma, Dieter. 1985. Kant über Selbstbewußtsein: Zum Zusammenhang von Erkenntniskritik und Theorie des Selbstbewußtseins. Hildescheim, Zurich, New York: Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyDePaul UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations