Lecture Notes on Constant and Kant

Constant: Liberty of the Ancients vs. Liberty of the Moderns

  • Context
    • Dictator/Emperor removed, prompting inquiry into what went wrong.
    • Benjamin Constant frames the issue as a contrast between the liberty of the ancients and the liberty of the moderns.

Liberty of the Ancients

  • Direct Participation

    • Citizens directly involved in public affairs (e.g., Ecclesia, De Castoria).
    • Face-to-face contact and direct involvement.

  • Downsides

    • No limits on legislation; anything could be decided in the Ecclesia.
    • No objective criteria for justice in the Castoria; conviction based on persuasion.
    • No concept of a protected private life; individuals were exposed to the vagaries of the political and legal system.

  • Defense Mechanism

    • Participation was essential self-defense.
    • Presence and participation in political and legal processes were the primary means of protection, given the absence of guardrails.

  • Two-Sided Coin

    • Liberty of the ancients involved both the freedom and the necessity to participate.

Liberty of the Moderns

  • Post-French Revolution Context

    • Monarchy restored after the French Revolution and Napoleon.
    • Large nation-state (France) with a substantial population.

  • Representative Republic

    • Direct democracy impractical due to size; citizens participate through representatives.

  • Modern Economy

    • Increased opportunities for wealth creation.
    • Focus on commerce rather than politics.

  • Limited Political Participation

    • Fewer opportunities to participate; system is mediated and institutionalized.

  • Modern Protections

    • Sophisticated legal system (influenced by Napoleon).
    • System of protections creating barriers between the individual and external entities.

  • Private Domain

    • Privacy as a boundary protecting individuals from the state, legal entities, commercial entities, and other people.
    • Civil rights and freedoms.
    • Modeled after the American Bill of Rights (civil protections, freedom of association).

  • Compensation

    • These protections compensate for limited political participation.

Symmetry and Reciprocal Structures

  • Ancients: Freedom to participate, but little protection.
  • Moderns: Great protection, but limited opportunity to participate.

The Terror: A Conceptual Analysis

  • Worst of Both Worlds
    • Lack of effective protections (ancient problem) combined with limited political participation in a modern society.

The Role of Political Philosophies

  • Rousseau's Influence

    • Jean-Jacques Rousseau's ideas were significant during the French Revolution.

  • The "Sainted Man"

    • Rousseau's death in 1778, before the revolution, contributed to his revered status.

  • The "Abe de Mably" as a Scapegoat

    • The Abbeh Mably, a less controversial figure, is critiqued instead.
    • Mably's political philosophy was similar to Rousseau's.

  • John Adams's Critique

    • John Adams found Mably's writings "ordinary" but enjoyable.

  • Rousseau's Ghost

    • Constant implicitly criticizes Rousseau without directly naming him due to his revered status.

Rousseau's Views Reconsidered

  • Reciprocal Drawbacks

    • The ideas of the ancients and the moderns have reciprocal drawbacks.
    • Rousseau's model involves a reciprocal commitment as both a subject of the laws and a sovereign citizen.

  • Modern Context Incompatibility

    • Rousseau's political philosophy may not be suitable for a modern society.
    • The French revolutionaries acted as if complete political participation were possible, without protecting private lives.

  • Consequences

    • This led to a terror, executions, and the rise of a dictator.

  • Scale and Modernity

    • Scaling up Rousseau's ideas to a modern European nation-state can lead to chaos.

  • The French Revolutionary Constitution of 1789

    • Law as an expression of the general will. (Article 6)

Modern Society and Protection

  • Size and Scale

    • Politics in modern society are challenging due to size, scale, and focus on commerce.

  • Locke's Influence

    • John Locke emphasized protecting people's property and person.

  • Rousseau's Rejection

    • Rousseau rejected Locke's ideas, leading to a different path.

  • Constant's Argument

    • Back to Locke: The speaker proposes a return to Locke's ideas with a modern twist, emphasizing the need for protection and the importance of limitations.

  • Rousseau's Focus on Participation

    • Rousseau believed the basis of society was participation.

  • Constant's Critique

    • Constant urges attention to the nature of society.
    • Rousseau's ideas are not a modern political theory.

Reconsidering Rousseau

  • Potential Defense

    • Rousseau never advocated that everyone should participate in politics.
    • The general will is more abstract.

  • Virtual Participation

    • The cognitive shift of thinking in terms of the common interest. Rousseau's idea is a thought experiment or abstraction rather than a literal call for physical participation.

Kant

Pep Talk and Introduction to Kant

  • Acknowledge Difficulty

    • Reading Kant is challenging but rewarding.

  • Metaphor: Climbing the Mountain

    • Climbing is hard work, but the view from the top is worth it.

  • Kant's Writing Style

    • Kant is not a great novelist but a clear, consistent, and systematic writer.

  • The Reward

    • Figuring out Kant is worth the effort.

Immanuel Kant's Life

  • Birth and Death

    • Born in 1724, died in 1804.

  • Comparison to Rousseau

    • Rousseau born in 1712 (slightly older contemporary).

  • Homebody

    • Lived his entire life in Konigsberg (now part of Russia).

  • Academic Career

    • Studied and taught at the University of Konigsberg.

  • Fame

    • Considered the greatest philosopher of his time.
    • Famous and humorous lecturer. A very popular professor.

Kant’s Intellectual Context: Two Great Revolutions

  • Physics

    • Modern Physics: One revolution was in physics, with developments in kinetics (the study of motion and change).
    • Causal Determinism: The physics of his time seemed to be approaching the point of being able to describe reality down to the smallest detail.
    • Predicting the Future: If the laws of causation (how one thing causes another) were known, the future could be predicted.

  • French Revolution

    • Political Upheaval: The French Revolution was a revolution against monarchy and tradition. Kant never left Koenigsberg, but he followed the events in newspapers.
    • Freedom: The revolution appeared to be an assertion of freedom, with people taking their destiny into their own hands.

  • Opposite Directions

    • The two revolutions seemed to be pulling intellectual thought in opposite directions, with physics suggesting determinism and politics suggesting freedom.

  • Book’s Task

    • The book will attempt to reconcile freedom and probable cause.

The Problem: Freedom vs. Causal Determinism

  • The Importance of Political Thought

    • Kant seeks to defend (or at least find) the reasons to think about civil rights or ancient freedoms.

  • The Main Concern

    • Does politics matter if everything is causally determined?

Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

  • Preliminary Reading

    • Introduction for the green book.

  • Approach

    • Aims to distill Kant’s core ideas into a clearer form than Kant himself presents them.

The Ego and Causation

  • The Ego Defined

    • The self in the most radical sense; the mind; the locus of thought, choice, and consideration.

  • Preexisting Tendencies

    • Tastes or inclinations arising from the body’s needs and desires (hunger, thirst, etc.).

  • The Experience of Choice

    • The ego has the sensation of making choices, even with inclinations.

  • Causal Determinants

    • Modern physics suggests inclinations simply cause actions, making the sensation of choice an illusion.

Freedom from Inclination

  • Breaking Free

    • Freedom requires freeing oneself from inclinations.

  • Self-Created Cause

    • Creating a cause for oneself, independent of bodily desires.

  • Example: Controlling Desires

    • The scenario is presented of choosing not to eat ice cream to control caloric intake and control oneself.

  • Imperatives

    • A command of reason.
    • Objective principle necessitating a will.
    • Formula of the command.

  • Objective Necessity

    • Necessitating: is causal necessity.

Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives

  • Hypothetical Imperative

    • Means to some end; if-then structure. (If you want ice cream, go to the refrigerator.)
    • Based on inclinations.

  • Categorical Imperative

    • Objectively necessary in itself, without reference to another end. (Go to the refrigerator.)

Hypothetical Imperatives are Causation

  • Action done for the sake of something else. Namely, inclinations.

Maxim

  • Subjective principle of acting.

  • Practicalities determined by reason.

  • Maxim as a History of Choice

    • Explanation for an action. I eat Ice cream, because I want to.

  • Maxim vs. Law

    • Different from an objective principle which is valid for every rational being.

Categorical Imperative

  • Objective principle valid for every rational being.
  • Reason (Objective vs. subjective)

Free Action

  • Concept Anatomy:
    • Every action is a maxim.

One Categorical Imperative.

  • The one and only categorical imperative: act only with the maxim which you wield to become a universal law.

  • Importance of Universality

    • Freeing oneself from inclinations requires cutting oneself off from particularities and acting in general, universal terms.