Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:34:52.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kant’s Political Zweckmässigkeit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2015

Dilek Huseyinzadegan
Dilek Huseyinzadegan*
Affiliation:
Emory University
*
Email: dhuseyin1@emory.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While Kant’s political writings employ a teleological language, the exact benefit of such language to his politics is far from clear. Against recent interpretations of Kant’s political thought, which downplay or dismiss the role of teleology, I restore Zweckmässigkeit to its place in Kant’s politics as a theoretically and practically useful material principle, and show that a teleological perspective complements the perspective stipulated by the formal principle of Recht. By means of a systematic reconstruction of what I call ‘political Zweckmässigkeit’, we gain a fuller portrayal of and a valuable insight into Kant’s political thought.

Keywords

Kant’s political philosophyZweckmässigkeitteleologyregulative principlesCritique of the Power of Judgement
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , November 2015 , pp. 421 - 444
Copyright
© Kantian Review 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, Henry (1991) ‘Kant’s Antinomy of Teleological Judgment’. Southern Journal of Philosophy Supplement, 30, 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry (2000) ‘Is the Critique of Judgment “Post-Critical”?’. In Sally Sedgwick (ed.), The Reception of Kant’s Critical Philosophy: Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 78–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry (2009) ‘Teleology and History in Kant: The Critical Foundations of Kant’s Philosophy of History’. In Amélie Oksenberg Rorty and James Schmidt (eds), Kant’s Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Intent: A Critical Guide (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 24–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caranti, Luigi (2013) ‘What is Wrong with a Guarantee of Perpetual Peace?’. In Stegano Bacin et al. (eds), Kant und die Philosophie in weltbürgerlicher Absicht: Akten des XI. Kant-Kongresses 2010 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), pp. 611–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Elisabeth (2005) Kant’s Politics: Provisional Theory for an Uncertain World. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael (1991) ‘Regulative and Constitutive’. Southern Journal of Philosophy Supplement, 30, 73–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah (2001) ‘Kant on Understanding Organisms as Natural Purposes’. In Eric Watkins (ed.), Kant and the Sciences (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 231–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1997) ‘Kant’s Idea of Perpetual Peace, with the Benefit of Two Hundred Years’ Hindsight’. In J. Bohman, E. Lutz-Bachmann (eds), Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 113–154.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1902) Kants gesammelte Schriften. Ed. Deutschen (formerly, Königlichen Preussichen) Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1998) Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2002) Critique of the Power of Judgment. Trans. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2006) Practical Philosophy. Trans. and ed. Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2007) Anthropology, History, and Education. Ed. Günter Zöller and Robert Louden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline (1993) ‘The Philosophical Status of Gender-Neutral Language in the History of Philosophy: The Case of Kant’. Philosophical Forum, 25/2, 134–150.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline (1995) Fortschritt und Vernunft: Zur Geschichtsphilosophie Kants. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline (2001) ‘Nature or Providence? On the Theoretical and Moral Importance of Kant’s Philosophy of History’. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 75/2, 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline (2008) ‘Kant on Historiography and the Use of Regulative Ideas on Historiography’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 39, 523–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Makkreel, Rudolf (1990) Imagination and Interpretation in Kant: The Hermeneutical Import of Kant’s Critique of Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Makkreel, Rudolf (1991) ‘Regulative and Reflective Uses of Purposiveness in Kant’. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 30 (supplement), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, Patrick (1983) Kant’s Political Philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur (2009) Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steigerwald, Joan (ed.) (2006) ‘Special issue on ‘Kantian Teleology and Biological Sciences’’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 37/4.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen (2006) ‘Kant’s Philosophy of History’. In Pauline Kleingeld (ed.), Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History: Immanuel Kant (New Haven: Yale University Press), pp. 243–262.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen (2009) ‘Review of Arthur Ripstein’s Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy’. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews <https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24207-force-and-freedom-kant-s-legal-and-political-philosophy>..>Google Scholar
Yovel, Yirmiyahu (1989) Kant and the Philosophy of History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Zuckert, Rachel (2007) Kant on Beauty and Biology: An Interpretation of Kant’s Critique of Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar