PHIL 111 Chapter Notes - Chapter 5: Presupposition, Psalm 51, Liberal Democracy
The Political Philosophy of Kant Session 6 April 20, 1967
132
79
Deleted “that his….”
80
Deleted “I…my….”
81
Deleted “at…at this….”
82
Deleted “reaches….”
83
Deleted “That is.”
84
Deleted “the.”
85
Deleted “and….”
86
Deleted “take up….”
87
Deleted “whom….”
88
Deleted “And why is….”
89
Deleted “Why does….”
90
Deleted “which expresses….”
91
Deleted “that….”
92
Deleted “we have to start….”
93
Deleted “We have to….”
94
Deleted “of….”
95
Deleted “The good will is that which….”
96
Deleted “what is the difference then….”
97
Deleted “the…in other….”
98
Deleted “that is…that is….”
99
Deleted “Kant….”
100
Deleted “The imperative…no, the command is as objective…is of a….”
101
Deleted “So now, imperative….”
102
Deleted “let us omit….”
103
Deleted “to do.so the…the….”
104
Deleted “then you would…then you….”
105
Deleted “then there is something….”
106
Deleted “we do not….”
107
Deleted “this is a matter….”
108
Deleted “So whereas the skills have to…to do….”
109
Deleted “To that extent….”
110
Deleted “it….”
111
Deleted “That….”
112
Deleted “in this...do you have any…any [inaudible word] pages? Let me see… Reinken: I have the
numbers. LS: Which…which numbers? Reinken: In mine the numbers are— LS: The 412.”
113
Deleted “409.”
114
Deleted “Reinken: From— LS: ‘But in order—’ Reinken: ‘In this study we do not advance merely
from the common moral judgment—’ LS: Yeah read…read again from the beginning.”
115
Deleted “in which….”
116
Deleted “Meaning….”
117
Deleted “an synthetic judgment of….”
118
Deleted “most….”
The Political Philosophy of Kant Session 7 April 25, 1967
133
Session 7: April 25, 1967
Leo Strauss: [in progress] —morals, otherwise
1
we cannot proceed in too strict a
manner. Now, first. Now one point which I believe we have not considered: Kant’s
Metaphysics of Morals, as moral philosophy in general, belongs to the sphere of practical
reason, which is understood in contradistinction to theoretical reason. Now
2
what does
practical reason mean? We see the reason related to action, to practice.
3
According to
4
the
view prevailing at present, there are no praxis, no practical reason—or, to speak in more
academic terms, there are no practical sciences. For example, even such a practical thing
like home economics is of course a theoretical pursuit. One could make a distinction
between theoretical and applied sciences, but practical sciences are not applied sciences.
Applied sciences are theoretical sciences which are then afterward applied to practical
problems. A practical science is one which is essentially independent of theoretical
sciences and essentially practical. The practical sciences (this notion stems from
Aristotle) have principles of their own, which cannot be reduced to theoretical principles.
Now there is an equivalent of that in our age, insofar as in the common practice of the
social sciences people take it for granted that the starting point, the highest principles of
the social sciences, to the extent to which they refer to human actions, are values. And
these values are not [LS taps on the table] theoretical principles. This is emphasized all
the time. And
5
according to the crudest view, which is now very powerful, values are
simply posits—products, whatever it may be—of emotions, on the lowest level of likes
and dislikes. But these values, according to the present-day common understanding [LS
taps on the table], are not in Kant’s language categorical. They are hypothetical. Say,
someone may be enamored of liberal democracy. That’s his business; then he will look at
political or social matters from the point of view of liberal democracy. But this is just his
preference. He may have a preference for collectivism, and that is from the point of view
of social science as feasible and reasonable as the other.
Now, but there is one, nevertheless—one great difference between Aristotle and Kant
although they agree as to the irreducibility of practical knowledge or practical science.
And that is this: I think that I am able to draw this schema [LS writes on the blackboard].
Let us assume this is the individual or the group concerned with action. And then it looks
ultimately, or primarily at the end or ends. And
6
then one seeks means for these ends.
One does not look beyond the ends; one does not make an attempt to reduce these ends to
something more fundamental, more primary. Aristotle and Kant agree as to this. Is there
any difficulty, my picture?
Student: I missed who you’re talking about here. Is this Aristotle or Kant?
LS: I am speaking now what practical knowledge as such means. But now
7
let us see the
difference between Kant and Aristotle.
This is the point of view which Kant preserves more radically than any earlier thinker, or
even later thinker.
8
But in Aristotle it is only a part of a larger whole. And
9
so
10
Kant the
philosopher stands all the time, even in his most subtle or abstract reflections, at the same
