Zammito John H
Rice University, History Department-MS #42, PO Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251-1892, USA.
Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2008 Dec;39(4):535-45. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2008.09.004.
The essay, 'A renewed attempt to answer the question: "Is the human race continually improving?"' appeared as Part II of Kant's 1798 publication, The conflict of the faculties, where it was subordinated under a second title: 'The conflict of the philosophy faculty with the faculty of law'. How did this new situation (and title) affects the meaning of the essay? My argument considers first, the conflict of the faculty of philosophy with the faculty of law; second, the earlier philosophy of history Kant had developed; and, finally, the revision of this position in 'A renewed attempt'. The situation of his argument in the contest between the philosophical and the legal faculties points to other veins of argumentation in Kant's political theory, particularly his appeal to a principle of publicity, but they hardly achieve the theoretical clarity or the systematic centrality they should command. They are displaced in the quest for prediction of the future history of mankind. The question of human progress exceeds the frame of the coordination of the university, and the main question must remain: what was new in Kant's approach to the question of human progress, and was it in fact an enhancement of his philosophy of history? In those terms, 'A renewed attempt' must be regarded a distinct failure. Its innovations prove problematic. Its retreats and equivocations, moreover, threaten to undermine the grander vision of Kant's philosophical history and his political theory, entangling them in an unacceptably theological recourse.
论文《对“人类是否在持续进步?”这一问题的再次尝试性回答》作为康德1798年出版的《学科之争》第二部分出现,在该书中它从属于第二个标题:“哲学系与法律系的冲突”。这种新情况(以及标题)如何影响了这篇论文的意义?我的论证首先考虑哲学系与法律系的冲突;其次,康德早期发展的历史哲学;最后,在《再次尝试》中对这一立场的修正。他在哲学系与法律系之争中的论证情况指向了康德政治理论中的其他论证脉络,尤其是他对公开性原则的诉求,但它们几乎没有达到它们应有的理论清晰度或系统核心地位。在对人类未来历史的预测探索中,它们被取代了。人类进步问题超出了大学学科协调的框架,主要问题必须仍然是:康德处理人类进步问题的方法有哪些新之处,它实际上是否提升了他的历史哲学?从这些方面来看,《再次尝试》必须被视为一次明显的失败。它的创新被证明是有问题的。此外,它的退缩和含糊不清有可能破坏康德哲学历史和他的政治理论的更宏大愿景,使它们陷入一种不可接受的神学诉求之中。