What do you think?
Rate this book
Teoria y Praxis
“Über den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht für die Praxis,” in Berlinische Monatsschrift (September 1793), pp. 201-84. [Ak. 8:275-313] “On the Common Saying: ‘That may be correct in theory, but it is of no use in practice’.” Translated by Ted Humphrey in Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace and Other Essays (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983), pp. 61-89. Translated by Mary J. Gregor in Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy, edited by Mary J. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 279-309.
- GenresPhilosophyPolitics
Paperback
7 people are currently reading
92 people want to read
About the author
Immanuel Kant
3,091 books4,401 followersImmanuel Kant was an 18th-century philosopher from Königsberg, Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He's regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe & of the late Enlightenment. His most important work is The Critique of Pure Reason, an investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics & epistemology, & highlights his own contribution to these areas. Other main works of his maturity are The Critique of Practical Reason, which is about ethics, & The Critique of Judgment, about esthetics & teleology.
Pursuing metaphysics involves asking questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Kant suggested that metaphysics can be reformed thru epistemology. He suggested that by understanding the sources & limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions. He asked if an object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality–which he concluded that it does–then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this that it's possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, & so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. So the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind. Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists & the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired thru experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason. Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists & empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding Kant's system, thus bringing about various forms of German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental philosophy.
Pursuing metaphysics involves asking questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Kant suggested that metaphysics can be reformed thru epistemology. He suggested that by understanding the sources & limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions. He asked if an object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality–which he concluded that it does–then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this that it's possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, & so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. So the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind. Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists & the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired thru experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason. Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists & empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding Kant's system, thus bringing about various forms of German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
July 25, 2020
In this short publication, Immanuel Kant argues against the common understanding of mankind that theories might be true or even important, but cannot translate into practice. In effect, Kant argues against two types of people: (1) those practical men - politicians, generals, lawyers, etc. - whom, in their ignorance, (falsely) believe that practice, and not theory, guides action; (2) those theorists that induce theory from practice (for example, those philosophers who try to build theories of knowledge on prior experiences).
The general idea is simple. This work was published in 1793 and by then Kant had finished his three critical works. That is, by then he had developed his theory of knowledge and morality to the full, and he applies his theory to three particular aspects - morality, law and human nature.
In the first part, Kant argues against Garve who tried to refute Kant's thesis that human morality is grounded in ouw duty towards the moral law. According to Garve, human morality springs from the principle of happiness and that only personal happiness can be the motivation for action. We can already see the general pattern: Garve starts from human practice and deduces a theory - Kant starts from a general principle (duty towards the moral law) and applies it to practice. This means, in effect, that Kant leaves room for Garve's happiness principle - he even acknowledges it as a main spring for human action - but, since man is a rational being, he applies the moral law to his actions and where the moral law and personal motivations conflict, he discards the latter. Or at least should do so.
In the second part, Kant argues against theorists (such as Hobbes) who deduce theories of state, law, sovereignty, etc. from human practice. According to him, there are three general a priori principles out of which social contract theories flow - freedom as human being, equality as subject to the sovereign, and autonomy as citizen of the state - and all three flow from the (more general) principle of the moral law. Following these lines, Kant ends up with a state that is guided by a constitution, which rightfully demands obedience of its citizens (revolution is forbidden), and where law springs from the will of the people (and not from despotism). Unlike Hobbes, he denies the full submission of the people to the sovereign - they should obey his laws, yet they have the right to freely express themselves against their sovereign. For Kant, freedom of expression is a mechanism that mediates between despotism and anarchy.
In short, the practice of statesmanship follows from general principles and their theoretical deductions, and this approach prevents both Hobbesian despotism as well as revolutionary uprisings.
The third and final subject Kant treats is humanity itself. He responds to Mendelssohn who, in his Jerusalem, claimed humanity is situated in an endless historical development of moral stagnation. True, sometimes we might make moral progress, but then something happens and we degrade again to our former status. This pessimism springs from letting practice rule theory - Mendelssohn looks at actual human society and history and then concludes from this the endless status quo of human nature. Kant reverses this position and claims the moral law, as a general, a priori principle dictates us to make the world a better place for our children. So even though we might see stagnation or even degradation in practice, the moral law shows us the possibility of creating progress in the world. In short, from the dictate of moral progress Kant deduces the practical possibility of moral progress. Thereby both destroying Mendelssohn's claims as well as religious theories of moral regress or progress.
As always with Kant, I find his writing both intriguing as well as tiresome. Also, his tendency to blindly cling to theoretical a priori's just because the practical outcomes are more desirable (in his view) is somewhat dull. For example, for Kant human progress is possible since it is dictated to us by reason. Which seems rather to put the cart before the horse - just because something is desirable doesn't mean it's possible (I can think of many examples of the opposite...). In the moral sphere, he is - as always - way too rigid, emphasizing a blind, almost autistic, belief in our duty towards some moral law which is itself rooted in transcendental notions (God, immortality of the soul, freedom) that are inaccessible to our reason.
Yet, I think his way of looking at morality can be a healthy antidote to the utilitarian outlook on life - very widespread nowadays, unfortunately - which seems to reduce human nature and human well-being to calculable entities and thus to some sort of game we all have to play. For example, the way the Dutch government uses data on the health, well-being and happiness of its people in shaping policies (including economic ones) is a case on point. What actually happens is that some hundreds of people have to tick boxes and scales on surveys about how they perceive their own happiness and well-being, and this then is exploded into moral 'truth'. I think our modern times sometimes lack Kant's emphasis on freedom and autonomy, and we need a return to these human, all too human, aspects.
As Kant says: the all-pervading hostility of the natural state of mankind forced people to submit to the force of reason, which makes us voluntarily submit to civil law (i.e. constitution of the state). And similarly, the all-pervading wars between states forces states and their citizens to submit to the force of reason, which makes us voluntarily submit to international law. In this time and age, we have slightly forgotten this message, due to its successful effects. We currently live in freedom, equality and autonomy, and are actually losing them gradually because we have forgotten were they sprang from. In general, I think we need some more principles and application of reason in our lives and less utilitarian calculations and whimsical behavior.
The general idea is simple. This work was published in 1793 and by then Kant had finished his three critical works. That is, by then he had developed his theory of knowledge and morality to the full, and he applies his theory to three particular aspects - morality, law and human nature.
In the first part, Kant argues against Garve who tried to refute Kant's thesis that human morality is grounded in ouw duty towards the moral law. According to Garve, human morality springs from the principle of happiness and that only personal happiness can be the motivation for action. We can already see the general pattern: Garve starts from human practice and deduces a theory - Kant starts from a general principle (duty towards the moral law) and applies it to practice. This means, in effect, that Kant leaves room for Garve's happiness principle - he even acknowledges it as a main spring for human action - but, since man is a rational being, he applies the moral law to his actions and where the moral law and personal motivations conflict, he discards the latter. Or at least should do so.
In the second part, Kant argues against theorists (such as Hobbes) who deduce theories of state, law, sovereignty, etc. from human practice. According to him, there are three general a priori principles out of which social contract theories flow - freedom as human being, equality as subject to the sovereign, and autonomy as citizen of the state - and all three flow from the (more general) principle of the moral law. Following these lines, Kant ends up with a state that is guided by a constitution, which rightfully demands obedience of its citizens (revolution is forbidden), and where law springs from the will of the people (and not from despotism). Unlike Hobbes, he denies the full submission of the people to the sovereign - they should obey his laws, yet they have the right to freely express themselves against their sovereign. For Kant, freedom of expression is a mechanism that mediates between despotism and anarchy.
In short, the practice of statesmanship follows from general principles and their theoretical deductions, and this approach prevents both Hobbesian despotism as well as revolutionary uprisings.
The third and final subject Kant treats is humanity itself. He responds to Mendelssohn who, in his Jerusalem, claimed humanity is situated in an endless historical development of moral stagnation. True, sometimes we might make moral progress, but then something happens and we degrade again to our former status. This pessimism springs from letting practice rule theory - Mendelssohn looks at actual human society and history and then concludes from this the endless status quo of human nature. Kant reverses this position and claims the moral law, as a general, a priori principle dictates us to make the world a better place for our children. So even though we might see stagnation or even degradation in practice, the moral law shows us the possibility of creating progress in the world. In short, from the dictate of moral progress Kant deduces the practical possibility of moral progress. Thereby both destroying Mendelssohn's claims as well as religious theories of moral regress or progress.
As always with Kant, I find his writing both intriguing as well as tiresome. Also, his tendency to blindly cling to theoretical a priori's just because the practical outcomes are more desirable (in his view) is somewhat dull. For example, for Kant human progress is possible since it is dictated to us by reason. Which seems rather to put the cart before the horse - just because something is desirable doesn't mean it's possible (I can think of many examples of the opposite...). In the moral sphere, he is - as always - way too rigid, emphasizing a blind, almost autistic, belief in our duty towards some moral law which is itself rooted in transcendental notions (God, immortality of the soul, freedom) that are inaccessible to our reason.
Yet, I think his way of looking at morality can be a healthy antidote to the utilitarian outlook on life - very widespread nowadays, unfortunately - which seems to reduce human nature and human well-being to calculable entities and thus to some sort of game we all have to play. For example, the way the Dutch government uses data on the health, well-being and happiness of its people in shaping policies (including economic ones) is a case on point. What actually happens is that some hundreds of people have to tick boxes and scales on surveys about how they perceive their own happiness and well-being, and this then is exploded into moral 'truth'. I think our modern times sometimes lack Kant's emphasis on freedom and autonomy, and we need a return to these human, all too human, aspects.
As Kant says: the all-pervading hostility of the natural state of mankind forced people to submit to the force of reason, which makes us voluntarily submit to civil law (i.e. constitution of the state). And similarly, the all-pervading wars between states forces states and their citizens to submit to the force of reason, which makes us voluntarily submit to international law. In this time and age, we have slightly forgotten this message, due to its successful effects. We currently live in freedom, equality and autonomy, and are actually losing them gradually because we have forgotten were they sprang from. In general, I think we need some more principles and application of reason in our lives and less utilitarian calculations and whimsical behavior.
January 12, 2026
J’ai un an de retard mais c’est ok
May 12, 2013
Love the title of this book, and it is a short one if you want to read some Kant. If you want to get a bit more out of the book, don't read the intro until you finish the Kant section.
December 13, 2020
I bought this book from Amazon with one clear objective in mind. In Kant's biography, I read that while defending the categorical imperative, Kant reasoned: "It would work, if only it were tried." Back then when I saw this sentence, it really struck a nerve with me. I thought this meant Kant was a consequentialist, in that 'trying' is clearly an aposteriori - and thus consequentialist - notion. I wanted to find out more about this defence, and saw that it was to be found in Kant's essay On the Old Saw: That May Be Right in Theory But It Won't Work in Practice.
When I started reading it, I quickly realised that I had misunderstood Kant. True, Kant argues that the widespread adoption of the categorical imperative would lead to moral improvement, which is a good consequence, but this is not the reason why the categorical imperative ought to be adopted. Instead, we must follow the moral law within us, as explicated through the categorical imperative, because this is our duty as rational moral creatures. So acting in accordance with our moral duty is good in itself and ought therefore to be carried out, and not because it is good in being a means to moral improvement - that is just a happy by-product.
Speaking of happiness, Kant's main point is that we must only achieve the happiness that we deserve, i.e., the happiness that we are able to obtain without ever violating our moral duty, which is pre-eminent. This is actually a much more facile way to live than the utilitarian way, Kant contends, because our moral duty is simple and straightforward, while the action that will create or has created the most happiness is often very difficult to determine. Hence, the categorical imperative is more practicable than utilitarianism. So, where plenty of utilitarians dissuade people from going out and practising the utilitarian ethical system, claiming that utilitarianism is just 'right in theory', Kant sees the feasibility of putting to practice an ethical theory as essential to its soundness.
I agree with most of what is said above, but I must say that I am not a convinced Kantian now. As Nietzsche aptly says: "the categorical imperative reeks of cruelty". While Nietzsche's analysis was focused on the violent and bloody origin of the ideas of "guilt" and "a bad conscience", I think it can just as well be applied to the categorical imperative's remorseless, though not necessarily violent, strictness. In a footnote in the chapter on constitutional law, Kant explains that one has no right to preserve one's own life by pushing another off a raft that is not big enough for the two of you, if the other is innocent. He also states that one must necessarily snitch on one's relatives if they are planning to endanger the state, even when this results in the relative's death and the endangered state is a tyrannical one.
Although I have now expressed worries about Kant's ethical system on a personal level, I still think his political thinking has a lot of highly interesting insights. He seems to countenance a liberalism very much similar to what John Stuart Mill would espouse half a century later. And his snitching requirement is only there because of his belief that true freedom, the one necessary for the cultivation of our moral characters, can be guaranteed solely under the rule of law in a civil society. Allowing the people to rebel whenever they feel that the state is treating them unjustly, would make the rule of law a contradiction. Kant furthermore expresses the hope that "impotence must finally accomplish what good will ought to have done but did not" referring to the preservation of sustained peace by establishing international law. He predicted that only pressing and disillusioning circumstances could lead men to this. Seeing the array of international and supranational institutions that have been established after the ravages of the World Wars, Kant's prognosis does not seem to be far off.
When I started reading it, I quickly realised that I had misunderstood Kant. True, Kant argues that the widespread adoption of the categorical imperative would lead to moral improvement, which is a good consequence, but this is not the reason why the categorical imperative ought to be adopted. Instead, we must follow the moral law within us, as explicated through the categorical imperative, because this is our duty as rational moral creatures. So acting in accordance with our moral duty is good in itself and ought therefore to be carried out, and not because it is good in being a means to moral improvement - that is just a happy by-product.
Speaking of happiness, Kant's main point is that we must only achieve the happiness that we deserve, i.e., the happiness that we are able to obtain without ever violating our moral duty, which is pre-eminent. This is actually a much more facile way to live than the utilitarian way, Kant contends, because our moral duty is simple and straightforward, while the action that will create or has created the most happiness is often very difficult to determine. Hence, the categorical imperative is more practicable than utilitarianism. So, where plenty of utilitarians dissuade people from going out and practising the utilitarian ethical system, claiming that utilitarianism is just 'right in theory', Kant sees the feasibility of putting to practice an ethical theory as essential to its soundness.
I agree with most of what is said above, but I must say that I am not a convinced Kantian now. As Nietzsche aptly says: "the categorical imperative reeks of cruelty". While Nietzsche's analysis was focused on the violent and bloody origin of the ideas of "guilt" and "a bad conscience", I think it can just as well be applied to the categorical imperative's remorseless, though not necessarily violent, strictness. In a footnote in the chapter on constitutional law, Kant explains that one has no right to preserve one's own life by pushing another off a raft that is not big enough for the two of you, if the other is innocent. He also states that one must necessarily snitch on one's relatives if they are planning to endanger the state, even when this results in the relative's death and the endangered state is a tyrannical one.
Although I have now expressed worries about Kant's ethical system on a personal level, I still think his political thinking has a lot of highly interesting insights. He seems to countenance a liberalism very much similar to what John Stuart Mill would espouse half a century later. And his snitching requirement is only there because of his belief that true freedom, the one necessary for the cultivation of our moral characters, can be guaranteed solely under the rule of law in a civil society. Allowing the people to rebel whenever they feel that the state is treating them unjustly, would make the rule of law a contradiction. Kant furthermore expresses the hope that "impotence must finally accomplish what good will ought to have done but did not" referring to the preservation of sustained peace by establishing international law. He predicted that only pressing and disillusioning circumstances could lead men to this. Seeing the array of international and supranational institutions that have been established after the ravages of the World Wars, Kant's prognosis does not seem to be far off.
March 21, 2024
El libro contiene una serie de artículos interesantes para comprender en mayor profundidad el pensamiento de Kant y sobre todo el debate que emprende contra Hobbes y su idea —según Kant— de un “estado paternal” que imposibilita la libertad civil y la constitución civil. Para Kant la constitución civil se comprende con 3 parámetros: la libertad, la autonomía y la igualdad. La libertad de cada individuo en tanto hombre que constituye la sociedad, la igualdad de cada individuo frente a otros que constituyen la sociedad y la autonomía, a la vez Kant critica la idea de estado paternal en el sentido de que cuando este se empeña en imponer un modo de ser feliz se torna en un despotismo . En el último ensayo Kant se va a disputa directa contra Mendelssohn y ciertos ilustrados a quien tilda de “dogmáticos” por seguir el pensamiento de Spinoza. Kant discrepa con Mendelssohn y entiende que la especie humana tiene que ser apreciada en su totalidad y que está en un constante progreso hacia lo mejor, ya que viceversa un constante progreso hacia lo peor posibilita la extinción para Kant. Para Mendelssohn el progreso es una quimera porque por cada avance se retrocede 5 escalones, en cambio para Kant es posible el progreso solo y por medio de la providencia que tenga como fin la moralidad. Kant entiende al “progreso hacia lo mejor” como “eudaimonismo” y el “retroceso hacia lo peor” como un “terrorismo moral” por el hecho de que corrompe a los individuos. Finalmente habrá otro ensayo donde Kant reflexionará sobre si es posible concluir y llegar a un pueblo ilustrado, un pueblo que tenga dimensión de sus deberes y de los deberes de los gobernantes para con ellos. El libro es muy bueno! Tómense un tiempo, Kant no es fácil. Pero es brillante.
April 22, 2025
Interessant boekje. Het eerste deel - "over de verhouding van de theorie tot de praktijk in de moraal in het algemeen" - is behoorlijk technisch, met zinnen die ikzelf soms drie keer moest lezen om ze te begrijpen. Als je echter eenmaal de smaak te pakken hebt, krijg je een inzichtelijke verhandeling over 'waarin de menselijke moraal besloten ligt'. Spoiler: Kant stelt dat deze i.i.g. niet besloten kan liggen in het menselijk geluk. Het tweede deel wordt al concreter en betrekt dit 'vraagstuk der moraliteit' op de politiek, waarin de soevereiniteit van het staatshoofd - in het taxeren van de moraliteit en hoe deze toe te passen - verdedigd wordt. Het derde, zeer korte, deel plaatst dit vraagstuk in mondiale context, op basis waarvan Kant opteert voor een sterk volkenrecht. De inleiding van Thomas Mertens en Eric Boot is nuttig; en een stuk makkelijker lezen dan Kant zelf.
February 15, 2023
“No one has a right to compel me to be happy in the peculiar way in which he may think of the well-being of other men; but everyone is entitled to seek his own happiness in the way that seems to him best, if it does not infringe the liberty of others in striving after a similar end for themselves when their Liberty is capable of consisting with the Right of Liberty in all others according to possible universal laws.”
May 24, 2023
4.5/5
Gave uitwerking van Kants eerdere boek Fundering voor de Metafysica van de Zeden. Jammer om het onderscheid naar geslacht/status te zien, voelt niet in lijn met zijn filosofie, maar begrijpelijk voor de tijd. Hoge cijfer vooral vanwege de interessante analyse over het volkerenrecht, als je je bedenkt dat het boek uit 1793 komt, vraag je je zeker af wat de toekomst ons op dit gebied te bieden heeft.
Gave uitwerking van Kants eerdere boek Fundering voor de Metafysica van de Zeden. Jammer om het onderscheid naar geslacht/status te zien, voelt niet in lijn met zijn filosofie, maar begrijpelijk voor de tijd. Hoge cijfer vooral vanwege de interessante analyse over het volkerenrecht, als je je bedenkt dat het boek uit 1793 komt, vraag je je zeker af wat de toekomst ons op dit gebied te bieden heeft.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 4, 2020
La óptica inicial me ha parecido increible, el desarrollo de las bases, brinda oportunidad a opiniones varias.
October 26, 2024
DOAMNE CE FRUMOASA E A DOUA CU PARTE CU DREPTUL CIVIC SI DOAMNE CE MISTO E CA SE REFERA LA TEORIE CA PARTEA A PRIORI SI LA PRACTICA CA PARTEA A POSTERIORI SI TOTUL ARE SENS CAT DE TARE
October 28, 2024
Juste parce que j'ai du acheté la traduction qui coûte 18€ je suis aigrie + il fait que dire de la merde j'en peux plus
December 19, 2025
Siempre es una belleza leer algo y exclamar "¡ah, así que de ahí se inspiraron todos!".
July 27, 2016
Un libro arduo pero interesante. Se trata de un compilado de textos de Immanuel Kant con algunas notas críticas e introducción que facilitan la lectura. Kant no es fácil de entender, ni por su pensamiento, ni por su modo de escribir. Su estilo de escritura se parece al crecimiento de una de esas plantas que trepan muros, envuelven árboles, rocas, se ramifican, forman entramados indescifrables y, sin embargo, crecen con absoluta eficiencia hasta cubrirlo todo. En este libro, el sigiloso discurso vegetal ataca tres temas: la articulación de la teoría con la praxis, algunos elementos de filosofía política derivados del enfoque crítico kantiano y, por último, cómo orientarse en el pensamiento. La unión subterránea de estos textos está dada por la Crítica de la Razón Pura, la Crítica de la Razón Práctica y la Crítica del Juicio. El tratamiento del problema del puente entre teoría y praxis se focaliza en la conexión que Kant propone entre la ley y la libertad. Argumenta que obedecer la ley, obedecer al gobierno, es la única manera de garantizar la libertad. Esto pareciera ser así porque sin comunidad no hay libertad. De manera que Kant extiende su disección del razonamiento humano a una concepción del buen ciudadano como ser humano obediente. Esto valdría tanto para cada comunidad local, como para la comunidad internacional. En este punto se parece al marxismo nada menos que de Trotsky y otros internacionalistas en sus aspiraciones globales. El segundo problema seleccionado en este libro es el tema del progreso. Kant argumenta a favor de un progreso continuo en el contexto de su filosofía política. El tercer problema es cómo orientarse en el pensamiento. Kant argumenta a favor de emplear un criterio racional, individual, sin recurrir a fundamentos extrínsecos, que sin embargo en su visión lograría convergencia entre las personas. En síntesis, este libro presenta una reunión de textos kantianos que tienen incumbencia para la filosofía crítica propiamente dicha, pero también para la política, el derecho, la sociología, la educación, la psicología y la religión, entre otros campos del conocimiento -aparentemente limitado, muy limitado, pero firme- disponibles para el ser humano. Opino que una reflexión ensayada desde el siglo XXI sobre estos brillantes textos de fines del siglo XVIII trae de inmediato una exacerbación mixta de dos corrientes que coexisten en el pensamiento de Kant: favorable a la limitación de la razón humana y contraria al optimismo en el futuro. Una inspección general de las humanidades -la filosofía y la historia en particular- y de las ciencias -la neurociencias, las ciencias cognitivas, la física, la química y la biología- nos sugieren que la razón humana es arrogante pero muy limitada, capaz de provocar desastres de gran alcance y si bien algunos de sus recursos son útiles, padece una enorme cantidad de distorsiones que, en muchos casos, pasan inadvertidas. Es decir, una lectura no especializada de estos textos kantianos deriva, en mi opinión, en una adhesión a la perspectiva crítica y en un rechazo a la perspectiva progresista. En cualquier caso, creo que se trata de textos filosóficos de gran importancia histórica que exigen cuidadosas lecturas técnicas. La filosofía kantiana, en gran medida, le ha dado forma al mundo actual. Opino que se trata de un buen libro: estimula el pensamiento, la crítica y la argumentación. Creo que es una lectura muy recomendable.
April 20, 2025
Solo leí el capítulo 2, de la relación entre teoría y práctica en el derecho político (contra Hobbes)
Básicamente 1/3 del libro 🤡🤡
Básicamente 1/3 del libro 🤡🤡
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews