The essay, ‘A renewed attempt to answer the question: “Is the human race continually improving?”’ appeared as Part II of Kant’s 1798 publication, The conflict of the faculties, where it was subordinated under a second title: ‘The conflict of the philosophy faculty with the faculty of law’. How did this new situation affects the meaning of the essay? My argument considers first, the conflict of the faculty of philosophy with the faculty of law; second, the earlier philosophy of history Kant (...) had developed; and, finally, the revision of this position in ‘A renewed attempt’. The situation of his argument in the contest between the philosophical and the legal faculties points to other veins of argumentation in Kant’s political theory, particularly his appeal to a principle of publicity, but they hardly achieve the theoretical clarity or the systematic centrality they should command. They are displaced in the quest for prediction of the future history of mankind. The question of human progress exceeds the frame of the coordination of the university, and the main question must remain: what was new in Kant’s approach to the question of human progress, and was it in fact an enhancement of his philosophy of history? In those terms, ‘A renewed attempt’ must be regarded a distinct failure. Its innovations prove problematic. Its retreats and equivocations, moreover, threaten to undermine the grander vision of Kant’s philosophical history and his political theory, entangling them in an unacceptably theological recourse.Keywords: Immanuel Kant; Philosophy of history; Progress; Publicity; Providence. (shrink)

The ideal of publicity plays an important role in contemporary legal and political philosophy. Yet, to date, it has not been brought to bear on the question of voting method choice. This paper aims to fix this. I argue that voting method publicity is a well-motivated requirement which reveals tradeoffs inherent to democracy between procedural and epistemic equality. I further explore the implications of voting method publicity to the normative status of plurality voting and its possible alternatives.

The paper analyzes Kant’s conception of Enlightenment, as it is presented in the 1784 essay An answer to the question: What is Enlightenment?, and considers the notion of enlightenment of the people, discussed by the philosopher in The contest of the Faculties, by contrasting his position with that of other Enlightened authors. This analysis not only attempts to clarify the reformist premises implicit in Kant’s concept of Enlightenment but also intends to explain the specific role that he assigns to intellectuals (...) in the progress of the Enlightened project. (shrink)

With An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment? (1784) and What Does It Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking? (1786), Kant presents the concept of public use of reason and defines its requirements, scope, and function. In outline, the public use of reason consists in sharing one’s thoughts with “the entire public of the world of readers” (8:37). As for its requirements, to the extent that someone communicates in their own person, i.e. not in the exercise of their function (...) as a public official, and bases their reasoning on universalizable grounds, their use of reason qualifies as public and shall be free from state censorship. Therefore, Kant’s concept of public use reason aims to establish a public debate that is free and includes in its scope, both as subjects and recipients, potentially all adult men. The ultimate function of the public use of reason is to foster moral progress and, with it, the reform of the political community according to the republican ideal. However, it is commonly held that Kant, with his 1798 essay The Conflict of the Faculties, deprives his notion of public use of reason of its progressive core and adjusts it to the absolutist conception of speech and civil service. Characterizations of state officials as “not free to make public use of their learning” (7:18) and “bound to uphold whatever […] the crown sanctions for them to expound publicly” (7:8), as well as the depiction of laypeople as “incompetent” (7:18) and “resigned to understanding nothing about [the sciences]” (7:34), have led influential interpreters to read Kant as redefining his notion of public use of reason by restricting its subjects to university professors and its recipients to government members (e.g. John Christian Laursen 1986, rpt. 1992 and 1996; Kevin Davis 1992; Steven Lestition 1993; Jay Franzel 2013). On my reading, with The Conflict of the Faculties, Kant does indeed redefine the concept of public use of reason making concessions to the absolutist notion of speech and civil service. However, a close reading of the text reveals that the public use of reason ends up being reaffirmed in its progressive core and extended in its scope. To substantiate my interpretation, I will systematically analyse and classify each of the 68 occurrences of the adjective ‘public’ in The Conflict of the Faculties and show how Kant employs the absolutist vocabulary to convey the progressive project of his previous writings. Accordingly, I argue that Kant holds on to the free public use of reason as a means to reform politics according to the republican ideal and that the employment of the absolutist vocabulary is motivated by a pragmatic attitude and a provocative stance. (shrink)

Resumen: Este trabajo examina la posición que adopta Kant en la polémica del spinozismo, la cual involucró a importantes figuras de la Ilustración alemana en un debate acerca de los alcances y límites de la razón. Con la publicación del texto Was heisst: Sich im Denken orientiren?, Kant rechaza tanto la posición de Jacobi -quien declara que la razón es incapaz de arribar a una demostración de la existencia de Dios y proclama la necesidad de un "salto a la fe"- (...) como la posición de Mendelssohn, quien confía en las posibilidades de la razón para alcanzar tal demostración. A través de una concepción de la razón como facultad crítica y autónoma, Kant toma una posición mediadora en el debate, y establece los alcances y límites de la razón, fundamentalmente en lo que atañe a la representación de Dios como ser originario. El concepto de razón esbozado en el escrito de 1786 deja entrever la insoslayable dimensión política ínsita en la noción kantiana de publicidad. El modo en que Kant concibe allí la conexión entre razón, crítica, publicidad y política trasciende los márgenes de dicha polémica e introduce cuestiones fundamentales sobre las condiciones político-jurídicas que se requieren para el ejercicio autónomo del pensamiento. Sin embargo, y pese a la radicalidad de los planteamientos kantianos, la naturalización racionalista de la creencia religiosa supone un límite de la filosofía crítica que exige revisarse a la luz de criterios actuales.: This paper analyzes the position taken by Kant in the controversy of Spinozism, which engaged many important thinkers of the German Enlightenment in a debate on the scope and limits of reason. With the publication of Was heisst: Sich im Denken orientiren?, Kant takes part in the debate and rejects both the position adopted by Jacobi -who regards reason as incapable of reaching a demonstration of God's existence and thus proclaims the necessity of a "leap of faith"-, and Mendelssohn's position, who trusts in the possibilities of reason to reach such a demonstration. By means of a conception of reason as a critical and autonomous faculty, Kant attempts to go beyond both positions, and sets the scope and limits of reason in regard to the representation of God as the originating being. The concept of reason developed within the framework of the critical project exhibits its unavoidable political dimension in the text of 1786. Kant establishes there a connection between reason, critique, publicity, and politics that goes beyond the margins of the controversy and addresses fundamental issues regarding the political and juridical conditions required for an autonomous exercise of reason. However, despite the radical character of Kant's proposals, the rationalistic naturalization of religious belief represents a limit to his critical philosophy, and should be revised by the lights of current criteria. (shrink)