tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post5900822166581141061..comments2024-03-28T06:07:03.667-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: THE COMPLETION OF KANT'S MORAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE TENETS OF THE RECHTSLEHRERobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-59288083826842441452017-12-06T08:31:11.235-05:002017-12-06T08:31:11.235-05:00Professor, you have managed anew to make Kant'...Professor, you have managed anew to make Kant's ethical and political philosophy of interest to me! Kant's connection to Rousseau has never before been so clear to me.TheDudeDiogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613928663752680375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-81045976913032004152017-11-29T00:17:07.735-05:002017-11-29T00:17:07.735-05:00First, noting a typo: fourth line of Pt. II has &q...First, noting a typo: fourth line of Pt. II has "Karat's" instead of "Kant's".<br /><br /><br />Unfortunately, the late hour and other things preclude anything more than a couple of scattered thoughts on the essay, which I had to read somewhat quickly. <br /><br />It might be interesting to compare Kant's argument about property and the social contract, as described here, with Rousseau's account of the effects of the beginnings of agriculture in <i>The Discourse on Inequality</i>, e.g.:<br /><br />"The cultivation of the land necessarily led to its division, and the recognition of property led to the first rules of justice: for in order to render to each his own, each must be able to own [or 'possess', in another translation] something...." (Discourse on Inequality, Oxford World's Classics edition, p.64)<br /><br />---<br /><br />The essay perhaps draws a bit too sharp a contrast between pre-capitalist and capitalist notions of property and ownership. If the Earl of Northumberland wanted to transfer, sell, or otherwise alienate some portion of his lands to another titled person, I'm not sure why he couldn't have done so. Probably more to the historical point, landed nobles in debt or other kinds of financial distress might have been forced to sell some of their lands to stay afloat. 'Feudal' arrangements didn't mean that land could never be alienated. (This just scratches the surface of what cd be a long discussion, so I'll leave it there.) <br /><br />I had some thoughts about the end of the piece -- i.e., whether/why we are obligated to attempt to form a social contract or 'rational community' with other rational agents -- but can't put them into coherent enough form right now. Maybe Kant's particular arguments for that conclusion don't work, but are there others that may work better...? LFCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-13386631334323050762017-11-28T22:06:32.682-05:002017-11-28T22:06:32.682-05:00Does any of this have to do with your noted anarch...Does any of this have to do with your noted anarchism at all?Howiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12474061778220524205noreply@blogger.com