مفهوم کانتی دولت: دولت در میانه اقتدار و آنارشی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
منظومه اخلاقی کانت بر مبنای یک مفهوم اساسی استوار شده که همانا خودآیینی است و سوژه خودآیین در نسبت مستقیم با صفت کنشگری سوژه قرار دارد. اما به عقیده کانت این سوژه خودآیین و کنشگر در فضایی تهی به سر نمی برد، بلکه برای بروز استعدادهایش باید زیست اجتماعی داشته باشد. زیست اجتماعی، وی را به سمت تدوین قرار داد اجتماعی و ابداع نهادی به نام دولت سوق می دهد. اما نکته اینجاست که کانت سیستمی از دولت را ارائه می دهد که نه تنها خودآیینی و کنشگری سوژه ها را از بین نمی برد، بلکه خود صورتی از کنشگری سوژه هاست و وجود خود را از قلمرو غایات (اجتماع سوژه ها) کسب می کند. در گستره اندیشه سیاسی و اجتماعی کانت تعریفی سوژه محور از دولت و نهادهای سیاسی ارائه می شود و ازاین رو کانت نه تنها میان اخلاق و سیاست فاصله ای نمی بیند، بلکه این دو را آلیاژهای یک فلز تلقی می کند که از ترکیبشان سیستمی از اجتماع برساخته می شود که در آن نه فرد، تفرّد خود را از دست می دهد و نه جامعه دچار هرج ومرج و ناامنی خواهد شد.Kantian Concept of the State: The State between authority and anarchy
Introduction Previous political readings of Kant's work have often taken the form of pitting ethics and politics against each other in the field of practical philosophy, where Kant seeks for laws that govern the actions of free and independent subjects. Looking at Kant's thought from this point of view, society (that is, the realm of Kant's aims) is, on the one hand, full of moral laws that human wisdom imposes on itself, and, on the other hand, man is confronted with legal laws that the government imposes. In fact, the readings of Kant so far have presented Kantian ethics as a separate system from Kantian politics, a disintegration that will bring the Kantian system to the verge of collapse. This paper discusses the various conceptions of freedom in Kant's texts, and analyzes the connection between them and Kant's moral theory and epistemology. Kant rejects a basis for the state, in particular, arguing that the welfare of citizens cannot be a basis for a state power. He argues that a state cannot legitimately impose any particular conception of happiness upon its citizens. It is important to try at the outset to clarify the relation between Kant political philosophy and his moral philosophy in general. He clearly subordinates politics to morality while at the same time basing politics on "right" not on utility or happiness.MethodologyRadical hermeneutic (ontological) method is used in this article. From the perspective of this methodology, there is no a priori meaning in the text that can be discovered by empathizing. In fact, from this point of view, instead of reconstructing and recovering the objective meaning of the text, the interpreter through mental agreement with the text participates in the creation of meaning and understands the text.FindingsThe findings of this study are discussed under the following themes: Political and social implications of Kant's Copernican revolution in the field of political thoughtAccording to Kant, man is "an end in himself" and "existence in itself", and therefore he calls the living space of these ends together "the realm of ends". In fact, Kant's thought, after introducing a specific type of subject that was created in the modern era, brings that subject into the social field. The influence of Protestant political theology on Kant's political thoughtBy rejecting the church as a mediator, Protestantism made possible the manifestation of the subject for the first time in the history of theology. The importance of understanding Protestantism for understanding Kant's political and social thought is not through leaving the church, but this importance lies in the confrontation of the particular and the general. The subject as The AutonomyAccording to Kant, the Autonomy is pure principle of all moral laws and all duties corresponding to them. Production of a new type of social contract in Kant's political thought Kant's intended social contract is a subject-centered social contract due to the elimination of superior authority.AnalysisKant's social contract is fundamentally different from previous social contracts in the thinking of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, etc., and this difference is in the sense that this contract is actually a mechanism for judging the optimal performance of the government. In the sense that the social contract does not include any practical agreement with a practical obligation to obey the government.ConclusionsGerman Idealism and Kant, as the pioneers of this intellectual current, brought two fundamental legacies to political thought; the first legacy was "subjectivity". From Kant onwards, the subject became capable of action, an action that involved knowledge on the one hand, and moral will and action on the other. These possibilities are the possibilities of human subjectivity and action, and their outcome is a second fundamental concept that is considered the second fundamental legacy of German idealism for modern political thought; this concept is "right". In fact, according to Kant, man is a subject with action and right, and therefore he follows only the moral laws of wisdom that other people also have, and through these general and universal laws he respects both his right and the right of others, because both he and the other have an end in themselves. According to Kant, man is a moral subject. Therefore, the government that manages the society of such moral people is not an authoritarian or totalitarian government. In other words, it is a civil state and not a political and police state.
تبلیغات
