Search

Kant's city of words is a tremendous source of ideas and strategies for contemporary political theorists. Yet the theoretical foundation of Kant's practical philosophy, the doctrine of transcendental idealism, advances a two-world metaphysics that seems hard to square with modern science. How it is possible to naturalize Kant's politics? That is, how is it possible to advance Kantian politics after Darwin? This essay shows how John Rawls and Gilles Deleuze blend Kant's and Hume's doctrines to forge philosophies that both transcend and originate within the given. Initially, I show how Rawls and Deleuze recast the concept of reason to overcome the dualityâ??between rationalism and sensualismâ??that characterizes Enlightenment historiography. Then, I present Rawls's and Deleuze's argument that naturalizing Kant's politics today means rethinking the terms of political pluralism. This position is not consonant with Kant's aim to formulate a pure moral philosophy that grounds both Kant's doctrines of right and virtue, but it does resonate with the Kantian project of criticizing the ideas and practices of one's age. Finally, I show how Rawls and Deleuze conceive the relationship between common sense and philosophy. Both Rawls and Deleuze agree with Kant that philosophy becomes practical through engaging and criticizing common sense. Yet Rawls's basic sympathy for democratic common sense, and Deleuze's philosophic antipathy towards common sense as such, marks the basic difference between Rawls's and Deleuze's post-Kantian political theories. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What political principles should Kantians adopt in the twenty-first century? For Kant scholars such as Allen W. Wood - co-general editor of the Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant and prominent advocate of Kant's ethical thought - the answer is clear: Kant's principles, rightly understood. For other Kantians, however, philosophers should heed Kant's advice in his essay on Enlightenment and courageously invent new principles. This essay draws upon the writings of John Rawls and Gilles Deleuze - preeminent Kant scholars and political theorists in Anglo-American and Continental philosophy, respectively - to support the latter thesis. Initially, I examine Wood's exposition and defense of Kant's principles in his essay, "The Supreme Principle of Morality." Then, I consider Rawls's analysis and reworking of Kantian constructivism in his essays and lectures on Kant as well as in Political Liberalism. Next, I examine Deleuze's interpretation and use of Kantian constructivism in What is Philosophy? and A Thousand Plateaus. Finally, I advance two claims why Kantians should invent new principles rather than retain Kant's. Philosophically, Kantians may advance stronger theories by incorporating the criticisms of Kant's principles made by such philosophers as Hegel, Dewey, Nietzsche, and Bergson; and politically, Kantians may articulate more timely theories by adapting Kant's principles to the conditions of late-modernity. The debate over Kantian principles affects whether philosophers view Kant scholarship as practical philosophy itself or as a preparatory exercise for the task of generating new principles. The debate also impacts whether Kant's heirs on the Left retain the ideals of the Enlightenment or confidently invent new ones. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]