Feyerabend’s Natural Law Notes and their significance for Kant studies. Preface
- DOI
- 10.5922/0207-6918-2016-3-6
- Pages
- 68-74
Abstract
Natural Law Notes of Feyerabend is one of the most important sources by the research of ethical and juridical views of Kant. Dating back to 1784 they distinctly demonstrate that the basic principles of Kant’s philosophy of right are not a late production of the philosopher, but they have been formed already in the middle of 80’s of 18th century. Therewith we can use this lectures notes for the studies of Kant’s moral philosophy too, because of their closeness to the Foundations of Metaphysics of Morals, what can help us to understand some not clear aspects of Kant’s ethical thought. One of such questions is the question of moral motivation, and namely how we can not only know, what we have to do according to the moral law, but also actually want do it? As in his published writings Kant concludes in the Introduction of Natural Law Notes that human will itself can not be in complete agreement with the moral law, because objective motive (that is the moral law alone) for this will isn’t identical with subjective ones (that are maxims of action). That is why it must be forced to follow the moral law and its commandments are for it imperatives. But in order not to distort autonomy of will, this force should come from the will itself. Such a force according to Kant is possible, if the will would force itself to action with an idea of an complete good will (what means such a will which is always in accordance with the moral law), which is inherent in God alone. With the article is enclosed the translation of a small fragment of Introduction to the Natural Law Feyerabend.
Reference
1. Kant, I. 1994a, Antropologija s pragmaticheskoj tochki zrenija [Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View], Sobranije sochinienij v 8 tt. [Works in 8 vol.], Moscow, Vol. 7.
2. Kant, I. 1994b, Vseobzhhaja jestestvennaja istorija i teorija neba [Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens], Sobranije sochinienij v 8 tt. [Works in 8 vol.], Moscow, Vol. 1.
3. Kant, I. 1994c, Jedinstvenno vozmozhnoje osnovanije dla lokazatelstva bytija Boga [The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God], Sobranije sochinienij v 8 tt. [Works in 8 vol.], Moscow, Vol. 1.
4. Kant, I. 2016, Jestestvennoje pravo Fajerabjenda. Vvedenije [Natural Law of Feyerabend. Introduction], Kantovskij sbornik [Kant review], Vol. 35, № 3. Р. 75—81.
5. Kant, I. 1994d, K vjechnomu miru [Perpetual Peace], Sobranije sochinienij v 8 tt. [Works in 8 vol.], Moscow, Vol. 7.
6. Kant, I. 1994e, Kritika sposobnosti suzhdenija [Critique of judgement], Sobranije sochinienij v 8 tt. [Works in 8 vol.], Moscow, Vol. 5.
7. Kant, I. 1997, Osnovopolozhenije k metafizike nravov [Foundations of Metaphysics of Morals], Sochinenija v 4-ch tt. na russkom I nemeckom jazyke [Works in 4 vol. In Russian and German], Moscow, Vol. 3.
8. Kryshtop, L. E. 2013, Postulaty prakticheskogo razuma: ot pjervoj “Kritiki” ko vtoroj [Postulates of practical reason: from the first “Critique” to the second], Voprosy filosofii [Questions of Philosophy], no. 6, p. 129—139.
9. Hinske, N. 2014, Nezamechennyj kommentarij Kanta 1784 goda k “Osnovopolozheniju k metafiziki nravov” (1785) [An Annoticed Kant’s Commentary to the “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals” (1785) from 1784], Istoriki-filosofskij jezhegodnik [History of Philosophy Yearbook], p. 31—38.
10. Arnold, E. 1893, Möglichst vollständiges Verzeichniss aller von Kant gehaltenen oder auch nur angekündigten Vorlesungen nebst darauf bezüglichen Notizen und Bemerkungen, Altpreussische Monatsschrift, Bd. 30, Königsberg.
11. Bordoni, G. S. 2016 a, Introduzione, Kant I. Lezioni sul Diritto Naturale (Naturrecht Feyerabend), a cura di N. Hinske, G. S. Bordoni. Milano, p. 9—50.
12. Bordoni, G. S. 2016 b, Note al Testo, Kant I. Lezioni sul Diritto Naturale (Naturrecht Feyerabend), a cura di N. Hinske, G. S. Bordoni. Milano, p. 233—282.
13. Brandt, R. 1982, Das Erlaubnisgesetz, oder: Vernunft und Geschichte in Kants Rechtslehre, Rechtsphilosophie der Aufklärung. Symposium Wolfenbüttel, Berlin, S. 233—285.
14. Brandt, R. 1982, Immanuel Kant — was bleibt?, Hamburg.
15. Delfosse, H. P., Hinske, N., Bordoni, G. S. 2010, Kant-Index, Bd. 30, Stellenindex und Konkordanz zum „Naturrecht Feyerabend“, Tl. 1, Einleitung des „Naturrechts Feyerabend“, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt.
16. Günter, O. 1909, Katalog der Handschriften der Danziger Stadtbibliothek, Bd. 3. Danzig.
17. Erler, G. 1911—1912, Die Matrikel der Universität Königsberg i. Pr., Bd. 2, Leipzig.
18. Hirsch, Ph.-A. 2012, Kants Einleitung in die Rechtslehre von 1784. Immanuel Kants Rechtsbegriff in der Moralvorlesung „Mrongovius II“ und der Naturrechtsvorlesung „Feyerabend“ von 1784 sowie in der „Metaphysik der Sitten“ von 1797, Göttingen.
19. Kuehn, M. 2010, Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: its history and significance of its deferral, Kant’s “Metaphysics of Morals”. A Critical Guide, ed. by L. Denis, New York, p. 9—27.
20. Wildberger, H. 1972, Jesaja, Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament. Bd. X. Tl. 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn.