You are on page 1of 8

Hegel in America: As American as Apple Pie

No Comments, Uncategorized, by Administrator.

Joseph W.H. Lough It may strike some students as odd to ind a !erman phi"osopher in an American #tudies course. And yet "ike most continenta" phi"osophers, Hege" $as preoccupied $ith America. Indeed, Americans o ten orget that unti" %&&' those $e ca"" Americans thought o themse"(es as co"onists, citizens o )ng"and $ho rebe""ed not because they $ere ta*ed, but because they $ere denied representation in the +ritish ,ar"iament. And or this reason, e(en the ramers $ere schoo"ed in the $ritings not on"y o +ritish thinkers, but continenta" thinkers as $e"" -and not on"y .rench, but !erman, /utch, Ita"ian, and e(en #panish0. Indeed, a g"ance through the origina" cata"ogue o the irst Library o Congress shou"d be enough to con(ince any American that the books the ramers thought necessary or $riting "egis"ation $ere, o course, non1American. +ut Hege" ho"ds a (ery specia" p"ace in American history. And not on"y because, as #usan +uck12orss has pointed out, it $as $ith s"a(ery in the Americas speci ica""y in mind that Hege" i""ed out his phi"osophy o the s"a(e1master re"ationship, a re"ationship that pro(ed so centra" to his interpretation o history. )3ua""y important $as Hege"4s sense that reedom $as un o"ding in history and that the re(o"utions, irst in the Americas and then in .rance, $ere e(idence that reedom $as on the mo(e. And, not un"ike his +ritish counterpart Adam #mith, Hege" a"so be"ie(ed that the comprehensi(e integration o economic markets go(erned by "a$ $as among the "eading agents as $e"" as one o the "eading resu"ts o""o$ing rom the un o"ding o reedom in history. 5his identi ication o markets and reedom has been a centra" theme or interpreters o American history since the (ery beginning. And, yet, particu"ar"y a ter Wor"d War I, interpreters ha(e been both re"uctant to e*p"ore, but a"so increasing"y incapab"e o grasping, the comp"e* re"ationships bet$een society, economy, and cu"ture that $ere a ha""mark o Hege"ian interpretations o history. 6et, $here i not America are Hege"4s ideas o comprehensi(e, rationa" economic integration more re"e(ant7 No$here ha(e the boundaries separating economy, society, po"itics and cu"ture been so comp"ete"y b"urred than in America. Which is part o the reason $hy Hege"4s 3uestions surrounding the (antage1point o criti3ue are so (ery centra" to understanding America. In order to ade3uate"y understand America, $e must understand not on"y ho$ it has been composed, $e need a"so to appreciate ho$ America has composed the (ery categories $e must dep"oy to understand that composition. We "i(e inside America. We think America rom a point inside of America. Which means that transcendenta" interpreti(e categories 8 categories that $e imagine stand outside o or en9oy independence rom this America 8 must be e*p"ained immanent"y, a ter the manner pioneered by Hege" himse" . +ut this a"so means that there is a high"y speci ic correspondence bet$een and ade3uacy o Hege"4s approach to a society, such as America, that en9oys such an e*treme degree o economic, socia", po"itica" and cu"tura" integration into a rationa""y inte""igib"e $ho"e. Hege" in America7 Its as American as app"e pie.

September 20th, 2013

Why the West?


No Comments, Uncategorized, by Administrator.

Joseph W.H. Lough When (ie$ed rom the :;,;;; oot "e(e", it is easy to e"ide many nasty prob"ems that on the ground cannot and must not be g"ossed o(er. Among these nasty prob"ems re(o"(es around $hy <capita"ism,= $ith its singu"ar preoccupation $ith industry, emerged $hen and $here it did. .or, as many scho"ars ha(e noted -see, or e*amp"e, >enneth ,omeranz, 5he !reat /i(ergence0, $hen (ie$ed rom the ourteenth, or the i teenth, or e(en the si*teenth centuries, there $ou"d be e(ery reason to be"ie(e that )urope $ou"d be the "ast p"ace to generate the kind o e*p"osion in industry that in act took p"ace. 5he natura" 3uestion is $hy7 I suggested one "ine o thinking on this 3uestion during the irst "ecture. .o""o$ing /a(id Landes, 2oishe ,ostone, !eo Le !o , as $e"" as the team o scho"ars headed up by Joseph Needham, -inc"uding Wang Ling, and /erek J. /e #o""a ,rice0, authors o Hea(en"y C"ock$ork, I credited the uni3ue position o the c"ock$ork and o time in )urope, beginning in the midd"e o the thirteen century, as a too" or measuring producti(e human acti(ity. ? course, the (ery possibi"ity o entrepreneurs to make use o the c"ock$ork is predicated upon the inabi"ity o the nobi"ity, re"igious authorities, and trade organizations to ho"d their ground in the comp"e* socia" and cu"tura" negotiations out o $hich $ages, prices, and goods had ormer"y emerged. And this inabi"ity o traditiona" groups to ho"d their ground in these negotiations points to conditions that $ere socia""y and historica""y uni3ue to "ate medie(a" )urope. In any case, $hat $e do not c"aim -and do not $ish to c"aim0 is that there $as anything historica""y ine(itab"e about the emergence o capita"ism in )urope. 5his contrasts $ith those (ie$s best e*emp"i ied by .rancis .ukuyama4s )nd o History -%@@A0 and ?rigins o ,o"itica" ?rder -A;%%0 that adopt "e t1 or right1$ing Hege"ian interpretations o historica" de(e"opment. According to these interpretations, the comprehensi(e integration o the $or"d into a consistent rationa" and materia" tota"ity, $as as natura" and ine(itab"e as natura" se"ection and e(o"ution. )conomics students $i"" appreciate ho$ deep"y engrained this interpretation is in their o$n science by comparing !W. Hege"Bs ,hi"osophy o Cight -or ,hi"osophy o History0 $ith the rame$ork master u""y disp"ayed in Cobert Lucas4 Lectures on )conomic !ro$th -A;;D0. #tudents o American #tudies $i"" ha(e to take note that there is an imp"icit and 3uite po$er u", a"though unackno$"edged, <Hege"ian= component to ho$ most Americans -irrespecti(e o their c"ass, educationa" achie(ement or socia" status0 e*perience and understand <America,= its history, and its current ro"e in the $or"d. 5hey shou"d a"so take note that criticism o this <American e*ceptiona"ism= by itse" o ten ai"s to accurate"y grasp its socia", cu"tura", and historica" productionE as though <American e*ceptiona"ism= $ere a <mora" "a$= in Immanue" >ant4s sense o the $ord. Ho$e(er, $hen $e re"egate American e*ceptiona"ism to the transcendenta" mora" p"ane, $e a"so e*empt it rom care u" historica" and socia" scrutiny. Which is $hy <Hege"ianism,= $hether de"iberate or imp"ied, cannot be treated as a 9oke, but must be treated $ith abso"ute candor and seriousness.

.or students o Literature F, it may appear as though $e enter the %@F;s $ith c"ear e(idence o the West4s superiority. Ho$e(er, as $e $i"" see in t$o $eeks, $hen $e consider the three con "icting diagnoses o Wor"d War II by 5 Adorno, . Hayek, and > ,o"anyi, the sur(i(a" o <$estern ci(i"ization,= much "ess the desirabi"ity o its sur(i(a", $as ar rom assured o""o$ing the $ar.

The Republic

Plato
Why do men beha(e 9ust"y7 Is it because they ear societa" punishment7 Are they tremb"ing be ore notions o di(ine retribution7 /o the stronger e"ements o society scare the $eak into submission in the name o "a$7 ?r do men beha(e 9ust"y because it is good or them to do so7 Is 9ustice, regard"ess o its re$ards and punishments, a good thing in and o itse" 7 Ho$ do $e de ine 9ustice7 ,"ato sets out to ans$er these 3uestions in The Republic. He $ants to de ine 9ustice, and to de ine it in such a $ay as to sho$ that 9ustice is $orth$hi"e in and o itse" . He meets these t$o cha""enges $ith a sing"e so"utionG a de inition o 9ustice that appea"s to human psycho"ogy, rather than to percei(ed beha(ior. ,"ato4s strategy in The Republic is to irst e*p"icate the primary notion o societa", or po"itica", 9ustice, and then to deri(e an ana"ogous concept o indi(idua" 9ustice. In +ooks II, III, and IH, ,"ato identi ies po"itica" 9ustice as harmony in a structured po"itica" body. An idea" society consists o three main c"asses o peop"eIproducers -cra tsmen, armers, artisans, etc.0, au*i"iaries -$arriors0, and guardians -ru"ers0E a society is 9ust $hen re"ations bet$een these three c"asses are right. )ach group must per orm its appropriate unction, and on"y that unction, and each must be in the right position o po$er in re"ation to the others. Cu"ers must ru"e, au*i"iaries must upho"d ru"ers4 con(ictions, and producers must "imit themse"(es to e*ercising $hate(er ski""s nature granted them - arming, b"acksmithing, painting, etc.0 Justice is a princip"e o specia"izationG a princip"e that re3uires that each person u" i"" the societa" ro"e to $hich nature itted him and not inter ere in any other business. At the end o +ook IH, ,"ato tries to sho$ that indi(idua" 9ustice mirrors po"itica" 9ustice. He c"aims that the sou" o e(ery indi(idua" has a three part structure ana"agous to the three c"asses o a society. 5here is a rationa" part o the sou", $hich seeks a ter truth and is responsib"e or our phi"osophica" inc"inationsE a spirited part o the sou", $hich desires honor and is responsib"e or our ee"ings o anger and indignationE and an appetiti(e part o the sou", $hich "usts a ter a"" sorts o things, but money most o a"" -since money must be used to u" i"" any other base desire0. 5he 9ust indi(idua" can be de ined in ana"ogy $ith the 9ust societyE the three parts o his sou" achie(e the re3uisite re"ationships o po$er and in "uence in regard to one another. In a 9ust indi(idua", the rationa" part o the sou" ru"es, the spirited part o the sou" supports this ru"e, and the appetiti(e part o the sou" submits and o""o$s $here(er reason "eads. ,ut more p"ain"yG in a 9ust indi(idua", the entire sou" aims at u" i""ing the desires o the rationa" part, much as in the 9ust society the entire community aims at u" i""ing $hate(er the ru"ers $i"". 5he para""e"s bet$een the 9ust society and the 9ust indi(idua" run deep. )ach o the three c"asses o society, in act, is dominated by one o the three parts o the sou". ,roducers are dominated by their appetitesItheir urges or money, "u*ury, and p"easure. Warriors are dominated by their spirits, $hich make them courageous. Cu"ers are dominated by their

rationa" acu"ties and stri(e or $isdom. +ooks H through HII ocus on the ru"ers as the phi"osopher kings. In a series o three ana"ogiesIthe a""egories o the sun, the "ine, and the ca(eI,"ato e*p"ains $ho these indi(idua"s are $hi"e hammering out his theory o the .orms. ,"ato e*p"ains that the $or"d is di(ided into t$o rea"ms, the (isib"e -$hich $e grasp $ith our senses0 and the inte""igib"e -$hich $e on"y grasp $ith our mind0. 5he (isib"e $or"d is the uni(erse $e see around us. 5he inte""igib"e $or"d is comprised o the .ormsIabstract, change"ess abso"utes such as !oodness, +eauty, Cedness, and #$eetness that e*ist in permanent re"ation to the (isib"e rea"m and make it possib"e. -An app"e is red and s$eet, the theory goes, because it participates in the .orms o Cedness and #$eetness.0 ?n"y the .orms are ob9ects o kno$"edge, because on"y they possess the eterna" unchanging truth that the mindInot the sensesImust apprehend. ?n"y those $hose minds are trained to grasp the .ormsIthe phi"osophersIcan kno$ anything at a"". In particu"ar, $hat the phi"osophers must kno$ in order to become ab"e ru"ers is the .orm o the !oodIthe source o a"" other .orms, and o kno$"edge, truth, and beauty. ,"ato cannot describe this .orm direct"y, but he c"aims that it is to the inte""igib"e rea"m $hat the sun is to the (isib"e rea"m. Using the a""egory o the ca(e, ,"ato paints an e(ocati(e portrait o the phi"osopher4s sou" mo(ing through (arious stages o cognition -represented by the "ine0 through the (isib"e rea"m into the inte""igib"e, and ina""y grasping the .orm o the !ood. 5he aim o education is not to put kno$"edge into the sou", but to put the right desires into the sou"Ito i"" the sou" $ith a "ust or truth, so that it desires to mo(e past the (isib"e $or"d, into the inte""igib"e, u"timate"y to the .orm o the !ood. ,hi"osophers orm the on"y c"ass o men to possess kno$"edge and are a"so the most 9ust men. 5heir sou"s, more than others, aim to u" i" the desires o the rationa" part. A ter comparing the phi"osopher king to the most un9ust type o manIrepresented by the tyrant, $ho is ru"ed entire"y by his non1rationa" appetitesI,"ato c"aims that 9ustice is $orth$hi"e or its o$n sake. In +ook IJ he presents three arguments or the conc"usion that it is desirab"e to be 9ust. +y sketching a psycho"ogica" portrait o the tyrant, he attempts to pro(e that in9ustice tortures a man4s psyche, $hereas a 9ust sou" is a hea"thy, happy one, untroub"ed and ca"m. Ne*t he argues that, though each o the three main character typesImoney1"o(ing, honor1"o(ing, and truth1"o(ingIha(e their o$n conceptions o p"easure and o the corresponding good "i eI each choosing his o$n "i e as the most p"easantIon"y the phi"osopher can 9udge because on"y he has e*perienced a"" three types o p"easure. 5he others shou"d accept the phi"osopher4s 9udgement and conc"ude that the p"easures associated $ith the phi"osophica" are most p"easant and thus that the 9ust "i e is a"so most p"easant. He tries to demonstrate that on"y phi"osophica" p"easure is rea""y p"easure at a""E a"" other p"easure is nothing more than cessation o pain. ?ne might notice that none o these arguments actua""y pro(e that 9ustice is desirab"e apart rom its conse3uencesIinstead, they estab"ish that 9ustice is a"$ays accompanied by true p"easure. In a"" probabi"ity, none o these is actua""y supposed to ser(e as the main reason $hy 9ustice is desirab"e. Instead, the desirabi"ity o 9ustice is "ike"y connected to the intimate re"ationship bet$een the 9ust "i e and the .orms. 5he 9ust "i e is good in and o itse" because it in(o"(es grasping these u"timate goods, and imitating their order and harmony, thus incorporating them into one4s o$n "i e. Justice is good, in other $ords, because it is connected to the greatest good, the .orm o the !ood.

,"ato ends The Republic on a surprising note. Ha(ing de ined 9ustice and estab"ished it as the greatest good, he banishes poets rom his city. ,oets, he c"aims, appea" to the basest part o the sou" by imitating un9ust inc"inations. +y encouraging us to indu"ge ignob"e emotions in sympathy $ith the characters $e hear about, poetry encourages us to indu"ge these emotions in "i e. ,oetry, in sum, makes us un9ust. In c"osing, ,"ato re"ates the myth o )r, $hich describes the tra9ectory o a sou" a ter death. Just sou"s are re$arded or one thousand years, $hi"e un9ust ones are punished or the same amount o time. )ach sou" then must choose its ne*t "i e.

Aristotle (384322 B.C.)


POLITICS

Summary
A"" associations are ormed $ith the aim o achie(ing some good. 5he !reek city1state, or polis, is the most genera" association in the !reek $or"d, containing a"" other associations, such as ami"ies and trade associations. As such, the city1state must aim at achie(ing the highest good. Aristot"e conc"udes that <man is a po"itica" anima"=G $e can on"y achie(e the good "i e by "i(ing as citizens in a state. In discussing the economic re"ations that ho"d $ithin a city1state, Aristot"e de ends the institution o pri(ate property, condemns e*cessi(e capita"ism, and notorious"y de ends the institution o s"a(ery. +e ore presenting his o$n (ie$s, Aristot"e discusses (arious theoretica" and actua" mode"s current at his time. In particu"ar, he "aunches "engthy attacks on ,"ato4s Republic and Laws, $hich most commentators ind unsatis ying and o the mark, as $e"" as criticizing other contemporary phi"osophers and the constitutions o #parta, Crete, and Carthage. Aristot"e identi ies citizenship $ith the ho"ding o pub"ic o ice and administration o 9ustice and c"aims that the identity o a city rests in its constitution. In the case o a re(o"ution, $here the citizenship and constitution change, a city4s identity changes, and so it cannot be he"d responsib"e or its actions be ore the re(o"ution. Cough"y speaking, there are si* kinds o constitution, three 9ust and three un9ust. A constitution is 9ust $hen it bene its e(eryone in the city and un9ust $hen it bene its on"y those in po$er. When a sing"e person ru"es, a constitution is a monarchy i the ru"er is good and a tyranny i the ru"er is bad. When a sma"" e"ite ru"es, a constitution is an aristocracy i the ru"ers are good and an o"igarchy i the ru"ers are bad. When the masses ru"e, a constitution is a po"ity i they ru"e $e"" and a democracy i they ru"e bad"y. Aristot"e ackno$"edges that gi(ing u"" so(ereignty to either the go(erning body or the "a$s might make room or abuses o po$er and suggests that a po"ity is probab"y "east susceptib"e to corruption, especia""y $hen the "a$s are gi(en higher authority than the go(erning body. He proposes a princip"e o distributi(e 9ustice, saying that bene its shou"d be con erred upon di erent citizens di erent"y, depending on the contribution they make to the $e""1being o the state. In +ooks IH to HI, Aristot"e turns rom his theoretica" specu"ations to a practica" e*amination o po"itica" institutions as they e*ist in the !reek $or"d. He obser(es that the needs o city1 states (ary great"y depending on their $ea"th, popu"ation, c"ass distribution, and so on. He e*amines the di erent (arieties o states and constitutions and makes a number o genera" recommendations. 5he greatest tension in any state is the mutua" resentment bet$een the rich and the poor. Conse3uent"y, a strong midd"e c"ass keeps a state in ba"ance and guards against

corruption and oppression. 5he three branches o ci(ic go(ernment are the de"iberati(e, $hich makes the ma9or po"itica" decisions o the stateE the e*ecuti(e, $hich runs the day1to1day business o the stateE and the 9udicia", $hich o(ersees the "ega" a airs o the state. 5hough it is not necessary to gi(e e(eryone e3ua" access to pub"ic o ice, it is ne(er $ise to e*c"ude entire"y any group rom po$er. Constitutions are usua""y changed by a "arge, dissatis ied action that rises up against the peop"e in po$er. 5o preser(e a constitution, Aristot"e recommends moderation, education, and inc"usi(eness. 5he interests o the rich minority and poor ma9ority can be ba"anced by a""o$ing both actions a rough"y e3ua" amount o po$er. In such an arrangement, each indi(idua" rich person $ou"d ha(e more po"itica" po$er than each indi(idua" poor person, but the poor and the rich as groups $ou"d be ba"anced against one another. +ooks HII and HIII return to the 3uestion o $hat the idea" state $ou"d be "ike. 5he good "i e consists primari"y in rationa" contemp"ation, so e(en though po"itica" action is admirab"e and necessary, it is on"y a means to the end o securing the u"timate happiness o rationa" contemp"ation. An idea" city1state shou"d be arranged to ma*imize the happiness o its citizens. #uch a city $ou"d be "arge enough or se" 1su iciency but sma"" enough to ensure e""o$ ee"ing. It shou"d be "ocated by the $ater to a""o$ or easy sea commerce. 6oung citizens ser(e in the mi"itary, midd"e1aged citizens go(ern, and o"der citizens take care o re"igious a airs $hi"e noncitizen "aborers take care o arming and cra ts. )ducation is important to ensuring the $e""1being o the city, and Aristot"e pre ers a pub"ic program o education to pri(ate tutoring. He recommends that care be taken to breed the right habits in chi"dren rom the time they are in the $omb and that $hen they mature they "earn to hone their reason. His recommended curricu"um consists o reading and $riting, physica" education, music, and dra$ing. 5his education $i"" he"p citizens make the most o both $ork and p"ay, as $e"" as the "eisure time in $hich to pursue the good "i e.

Analysis
Aristot"e4s discussion o po"itics is irm"y grounded in the $or"d o the !reek city1state, or polis. He assumes that any state $i"" consist o the same basic e"ements o a !reek city1stateG ma"e citizens $ho administer the state, and then $omen, s"a(es, oreigners, and noncitizen "aborers $ho per orm the necessary menia" tasks to keep the city running. Citizenship in the !reek $or"d $as a much more in(o"(ed responsibi"ity than it is in modern representati(e democracies. A"" citizens in a !reek city1state take part in go(ernment and ho"d (arious pub"ic o ices, $hich is $hy Aristot"e takes pub"ic o ice as a de ining eature o citizenship. +ecause citizenship in(o"(es an acti(e ro"e in running the state, a citizen identi ies strong"y $ith the city1state to $hich he be"ongs, to the point that the !reeks consider e*i"e to be a ate $orse than death. 5he tight bond bet$een citizen and city1state a"so e*p"ains $hy Aristot"e considers acti(e citizenship as a necessary eature o the good "i e. He insists that $e can on"y u""y rea"ize our rationa"ity and humanity as citizens o a city1state, and so he conc"udes that u""y rea"ized humans are, by necessity, po"itica" anima"s. Aristot"e4s Politics is sometimes c"assi ied as <communitarian,= because it p"aces the $e""1 being o the community as a $ho"e abo(e the $e""1being o the indi(idua". Aristot"e ca""s humans <po"itica" anima"s= because $e cannot be u""y human $ithout acti(e participation in a city1state, and his recommendations regarding 9ustice and education bear in mind on"y $hat $i"" make or the strongest state. Absent entire"y is the concern o modern "ibera"ism $ith indi(idua" reedoms and the protection o a citizen4s pri(ate "i e rom the pub"ic eye. Aristot"e does not ai" to discuss the tension bet$een indi(idua" "iberty and the demands o the state so

much as he does not "i(e in a $or"d $here this tension e*ists. 5he idea o a pri(ate "i e $ou"d seem absurd in a !reek city1state. A"" the highest aims in "i e, rom po"itica" debate to physica" e*ercise, take p"ace in the pub"ic sphere, and there is no conception o a <pri(ate persona,= $hich di ers rom the ace peop"e present in pub"ic. Conse3uent"y, the interests o the indi(idua" and the interests o the state are e3ui(a"ent in Aristot"e4s (ie$. His prioritizing o the community abo(e the indi(idua", as $e"" as his $arnings about the dangers o unrestrained capita"ism, had a strong in "uence on the $ork o >ar" 2ar*. Whi"e Aristot"e4s conception o distributi(e 9ustice gi(es a c"ear indication o his o$n aristocratic "eanings, much o Aristot"e4s discussion o 9ustice remains re"e(ant to this day. /istributi(e 9ustice is the idea that honors and $ea"th shou"d be distributed according to merit, so that the best peop"e get the highest re$ards. 5hough Aristot"e insists that <best= is a matter o merit, he seems unconcerned that the rich ha(e much greater opportunities or achie(ing merit and that noncitizens, $omen, and s"a(es ha(e no opportunity at a"". ) ecti(e"y, he condemns them to the "o$est rung o the socia" "adder by insisting that bene its be accorded to those $ith merit and de ining merit in terms o 3ua"ities that their "o$ status bars them rom. /espite these aristocratic "eanings, ho$e(er, Aristot"e has a keen sense o the dangers o po$er abused. In book III, he discusses at "ength the di icu"ties o ensuring that a"" citizens are accountab"e. He is not the irst to recommend that the $ritten "a$ ha(e greater authority than the ru"ing c"ass, but he makes the argument orce u""y and it is "arge"y thanks to his in "uence that $e take the primacy o the "a$ as a gi(en in the modern $or"d. ?ne o the "ess attracti(e eatures o the Politics is Aristot"e4s endorsement o s"a(ery, $hich, not surprising"y, rings ho""o$. His argument rests on the c"aim that e(eryone needs to be ru"ed and those $ho "ack the rationa"ity to ru"e themse"(es need to be ru"ed by others. Aristot"e opposes the ens"a(ement o other !reeks because he be"ie(es that a"" !reeks are at "east some$hat rationa" beings and so their ens"a(ement $ou"d be un9ust. Ho$e(er, in typica" !reek ashion, Aristot"e regards a"" non1!reeks as in erior barbarians, many o $hom can on"y "i(e producti(e"y in a state o s"a(ery. Ho$e(er, he a"so argues that s"a(es need su icient rationa"ity to understand and carry out the orders o their masters. 5his argument contradicts the argument that s"a(es deser(e their "ot because they "ack rationa"ity entire"y. I $e o""o$ Aristot"e4s reasoning to its "ogica" conc"usion, $e can argue that s"a(ery is a"$ays $rong because those $ho make capab"e s"a(es necessari"y ha(e a "e(e" o rationa"ity that renders their ens"a(ement un9ust. Un ortunate"y, Aristot"e himse" $as too caught up in the pre9udices o his o$n time to recognize that his argument re utes itse" .

Prolegomena to An !uture "etaph sics

mman!el "ant
Overall Summary

,rompted by HumeKs skepticism, >ant addresses the 3uestion o $hether and ho$ metaphysics is possib"e. 2etaphysicians ha(e yet to agree on one de inite proposition, or e(en to estab"ish a basis or agreement upon 9udgments. >ant distinguishes bet$een a priori and a posteriori cognitions and bet$een ana"ytic and synthetic 9udgments. >no$"edge $e gain rom e*perience is a posteriori, and $hat $e can kno$ independent o e*perience is a priori. A synthetic 9udgment is one $hose predicate

contains in ormation not contained in the sub9ect, and an ana"ytic 9udgment is one $hose predicate is a mere ana"ysis o the sub9ect. >ant c"aims that mathematics, natura" science, and metaphysics a"" "ay c"aim to synthetic a priori propositionsIpropositions that are necessari"y but not tri(ia""y true, and can be kno$n prior to e*perience. #ince mathematics and pure natura" science are $e""1estab"ished ie"ds, he proposes to e*amine ho$ their synthetic truths are possib"e a priori in the hope that this e*amination $i"" shed "ight on the possibi"ity o metaphysics as a science. 2athematics is possib"e, >ant suggests, thanks to the pure intuitions o our acu"ty o sensibi"ity. #pace and time are not things in themse"(es that $e meet $ith in e*perienceE rather, they are pure intuitions that he"p us structure our sensations. !eometry comes rom our pure intuition o space, and mathematics comes rom our pure intuition o timeIour concept o numbers is bui"t rom the successi(e moments in our concept o time. ,ure natura" science is possib"e thanks to the pure concepts o our acu"ty o understanding. >ant distinguishes bet$een L9udgments o perception,L $hich are based on sub9ecti(e sensations, and L9udgments o e*perience,L $hich try to dra$ ob9ecti(e, necessary truths rom e*perience. #cience, as an ob9ecti(e body o kno$"edge, is on"y possib"e i $e can consider nature as according itse" $ith ob9ecti(e, regu"ar "a$s. 5hese "a$sI"ike Le(ery e ect has a causeLIare concepts o our understanding 9ust as space and time are intuitions o our sensibi"ity. We cannot kno$ anything about things in themse"(es, but the appearances that constitute our e*perience o""o$ these "a$s. >ant constructs a comp"e* tab"e o categories to sho$ ho$ the pure concepts o the understanding structure e*perience. 2etaphysics re"ies on the acu"ty o reason, $hich has nothing to do $ith e*perience. In its dri(e or comp"eteness, reason aspires to kno$ about things in themse"(es, and mistaken"y app"ies concepts o the understanding to matters outside e*perience. >ant c"assi ies the Lideas o reasonL into three typesG psycho"ogica", $hich dea"s $ith our idea o substance and o a sou", cosmo"ogica", $hich gi(es rise to our sets o LantinomiesL based on causa" reasoning, and theo"ogica", $hich dea"s $ith our idea o !od. In each case, >ant argues, reason o(ersteps its bounds and tries to make c"aims about things in themse"(es, o ten con using these $ith appearances. 2etaphysics is un"ike math or science in that its reach e*ceeds its grasp. It aspires to kno$ $hat it cannot kno$. In inding itse" bounded, ho$e(er, reason a"so e*p"ores the u"" e*tent and possibi"ity o human kno$"edge. Whi"e reason cannot te"" us anything about things in themse"(es, it can be used to e*amine our o$n acu"ties. >ant rede ines metaphysics as a Lcriti3ue,L an attempt to e*amine ho$ kno$"edge is structured and 9usti ied.

You might also like