Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T19:02:05.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Freedom and Perfection: German Debates on the State in the Eighteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2009

Douglas Moggach
Douglas Moggach*
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
*
Douglas Moggach, School of Political Studies and Department of Philosophy, University of Ottawa, 55 Laurier Ave. E., Ottawa K1N6N5, Canada, dmoggach@uottawa.ca.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. This paper explores eighteenth-century German debates on the relation of freedom and perfection in the course of which Kant works out his juridical theory. It contrasts the perfectionist ideas of political activity in Christian Wolff and Karl von Dalberg (a historically important but neglected figure), with Fichte's program in The Closed Commercial State (1800), distinguishing logics of political intervention. Examining insufficiently recognized aspects of the intellectual context for Kant's distinction between happiness, right and virtue, the paper demonstrates Fichte's (problematic) application of Kantian ideas of freedom to political economy and contests current interpretations of the politically disengaged character or attenuated modernism of German political philosophy in the Enlightenment.

Résumé. Ce texte étudie le rapport entre liberté et perfection dans la pensée allemande du dix-huitième siècle. C'est dans le contexte de ces débats que Kant élabore sa propre théorie juridique. En examinant les fondements théoriques de l'intervention politique, le texte fait une distinction entre le perfectionnisme éthique de Christian Wolff et de Karl von Dalberg (personnage historiquement important mais peu étudié), et le programme d'inspiration kantienne proposé par Fichte dans son État commercial fermé (1800).

L'objectif du texte est de reconstruire le contexte intellectuel de la distinction kantienne entre bonheur, droit et vertu, et de démontrer l'usage problématique qu'en fait Fichte dans le domaine de l'économie politique. Le texte remet en question des interprétations récentes qui dévalorisent l'engagement politique et le modernisme des Lumières allemandes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 1003 - 1023
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Backhaus, Jürgen. n.d. “Subsidiarity as a Constitutional Principle in Environmental Policy.”http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=599 [accessed Jan. 3, 2009].Google Scholar
Backhaus, Jürgen. 1999. “Constitutional Causes for Technological Leadership: Why Europe?” http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/39_constitutional.pdf [accessed Jan. 3, 2009].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beiser, Frederick. 2008. “Schiller as Philosopher: A Reply to My Critics.” Inquiry 51 (1): 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourgeois, Bernard. 1992. Etudes hégéliennes. Raison et decision. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Boyle, Nicholas. 2000. Goethe. The Poet and the Age. vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Cesa, Claudio. 2000. “Diritto naturale e filosofia classica tedesca.” In Diritto naturale e filosofia classica tedesca, ed. Fonnesu, L. and Henry, B.. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Dreitzel, Horst. 1992. Absolutismus und ständische Verfassung in Deutschland. Mainz: von Zabern.Google Scholar
Feder, J.G. 1773. Lehrbuch der praktischen Philosophie. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Fichte, J.G. [1800] 1971a. Der geschloßne Handelsstaat (The Closed Commercial State). Werke. Bd. III.Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fichte, J.G. [1798] 1971b. System der Sittenlehre. Werke. Bd. IV.Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fichte, J.G. [1793] 1973. Schriften zur Revolution, ed. Willms, Bernard. Frankfurt: UllsteinGoogle Scholar
Fichte, J.G. [1796–1797] 2000. The Foundations of Natural Right, ed. Neuhouser, F., trans. Baur, M.. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Fischer, Klaus. 1975. “John Locke in the German Enlightenment: An Interpretation.” Journal of the History of Ideas 36: 431–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin. 2000. Kant and Modern Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonnesu, Luca. 2004. “Kants praktische Philosophie und die Verwirklichung der Moral.” In Recht-Geschichte-Religion. Die Bedeutung Kants für die Gegenwart, ed. Nagl-Docekal, Herta and Langthaler, Rudolf.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 2004. “Civic Responsibility and the Kantian Social Contract.” In Recht-Geschichte-Religion. Die Bedeutung Kants für die Gegenwart, ed. Nagl-Docekal, Herta and Langthaler, Rudolf. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. Forthcoming. “Perfection, Autonomy, and Heautonomy: The Path of Reason from Wolff to Kant.” In Wolff und die europäische Aufklärung: Akten des 1. Internationalen Wolff-Kongresses, ed. Jürgen Stolzenberg, Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Haakonssen, Knud. 2006. “German Natural Law.” In The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Political Thought, ed. Goldie, Mark and Wokler, Robert. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G.W.F. 1991. Elements of the Philosophy of Right, ed. Wood, Allen, trans. Nisbet, H.B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochstrasser, T.J. 2000. Natural Law Theories in the Early Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höffe, Otfried, ed. 1999. Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höffe, Otfried. 2006. Kant's Cosmopolitan Theory of Law and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hont, Istvan. 2005. The Jealousy of Trade: International Competition and the Nation-State in Historical Perspective. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hufeland, Gottlieb. 1785. Versuch über den Grundsatz des Naturrechts. Leipzig.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hufeland, Gottlieb. [1790] 1795.Lehrsätze des Naturrechts. 2nd ed.Jena: Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Hunter, Ian. 2001. Rival Enlightenments: Civil and Metaphysical Philosophy in Early Modern Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justi, Karl. 1923. Winckelmann und seine Zeitgenossen. Leipzig: Vogel.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. [1788] 1956. Critique of Practical Reason, trans. Beck, L.W.. New York: BobbsMerrill.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. [1785] 1964 Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Paton, H.J.. London: Hutchinson & Co.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. [1793] 1970a. “On the Common Saying: ‘This may be true in theory, but it does not apply in practice’” (“Theory and Practice”). In Kant's Political Writings, ed. Reiss, Hans. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. [1795] 1970b. “Perpetual Peace.” In Kant's Political Writings, ed. Reiss, Hans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. [1797] 1991. The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Gregor, Mary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Alexander. 1999. Welfare in the Kantian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kersting, W. 1984. Wohlgeordnete Freiheit. Immanuel Kants Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klippel, Diethelm. 1976. Politische Freiheit und Freiheitsrechte im deutschen Naturrecht des 18. Jahrhunderts. Paderborn: Schöningh.Google Scholar
Klippel, Diethelm. 1998. “Der liberale Interventionsstaat. Staatszweck und Staatstätigkeit in der deutschen politischen Theorie des 18. und der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts.” In Recht und Rechtswissenschaft im mitteldeutschen Raum, ed. Lück, Heiner. Köln: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Langewiesche, Dieter. 1980. “Republik, konstitutionelle Monarchie und ‘soziale Frage’: Grundprobleme der deutschen Revolution von 1848/49.” Historische Zeitschrift Bd. 230, Nr. 3: 529–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G.W. 1993. Leibniz-Thomasius. Correspondance (1663–1672), ed. Bodéus, Richard. Paris: VrinGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G.W. [1720] 1996. Monadologie, ed. Horn, J.C.. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann.Google Scholar
Leroux, Robert. 1932. La théorie du despotisme éclairé chez Karl Theodor Dalberg. Paris: Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Maesschalck, Marc. 1996. Droit et création sociale chez Fichte: Une philosophie moderne de l'action politique. Louvain: Peeters, 1996.Google Scholar
Moggach, Douglas. 2003. The Philosophy and Politics of Bruno Bauer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moggach, Douglas. 2008. “Schiller, Scots, and Germans: Freedom and Diversity in The Aesthetic Education of Man.” Inquiry 51 (1): 16–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakhimovsky, Isaac. 2007. “The Political Theory of Fichte's Closed Commercial State.” Paper presented to the Political Thought and Intellectual History Research Seminar, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Nelson, Eric. 2004. The Greek Tradition in Republican Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oz-Salzberger, Fania. 1995. Translating the Enlightenment: Scottish Civic Discourse in Eighteenth-Century Germany. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pippin, Robert. 1997. Idealism as Modernism: Hegelian Variations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pocock, J.G.A. 1975. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pult, Guido. 1980. “Le modèle de planification de Fichte. In L'Etat commercial fermé, Fichte, J.G., trad. D. Schulthess.Lausanne: L'Age d'Homme.Google Scholar
Reinhold, K.L. 1790–1792. Briefe über die Kantische Philosophie. 2nd ed.Leipzig: Jena.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedel, Manfred. 1984. Between Tradition and Revolution: The Hegelian Transformation of Political Philosophy, trans. Wright, W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rohls, Michael. 2004. Kantisches Naturrecht und historisches Zivilrecht. Wissenschaft und bürgerliche Freiheit bei Gottlieb Hufeland (1760–1817). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Schneewind, J.B. 1998. The Invention of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sonenscher, Michael. 2008. Sans-Culottes: An Eighteenth-Century Emblem in the French Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stedman Jones, Gareth. 2004. An End to Poverty? A Historical Debate. London: Profile.Google Scholar
Stipperger, Emanuel. 1984. Freiheit und Institution bei Christian Wolff (1679–1754). Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Timmons, M., ed. 2002. Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tribe, Keith. 1988. Governing Economy. The Reformation of German Economic Discourse, 1750–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Völker, Martin A. 2006. Raumphantasien, narrative Ganzheit und Identität. Eine Rekonstruktion des Ästhetischen aus dem Werk und Wirken der Freiherren von Dalberg. Hannover: Wehrhahn.Google Scholar
von Beaulieu-Marconnay, Karl. 1879. Karl von Dalberg und seine Zeit. 2 vols.Weimar: Böhlau.Google Scholar
von Dalberg, Karl. [1793] 1932. “Von den wahren Grenzen der Wirksamkeit des Staats in Beziehung auf seine Mitglieder.” Reproduced in La théorie du despotisme éclairé chez Karl Theodor Dalberg, Robert Leroux.Paris: Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
von Humboldt, Wilhelm. [1792] 1903. Ideen zu einem Versuch die Grenzen der Wirksamkeit des Staates zu bestimmen. Gesammelte Schriften. Bd. 1.Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian. [1754] 1969. Institutiones juris naturae et gentium. Gesammelte Werke, ed. Thomann, M.. Bd. 26.Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian. [1721] 1971. Vernünftige Gedanken von dem gesellschaftlichen Leben der Menschen und insonderheit dem gemeinen Wesen. Frankfurt: Athenaeum.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian. [1758] 1988. Principes du droit de la nature et des gens, extrait du grand ouvrage latin, trans. Formey, M.. Vol 1.Caen: Centre de philosophie politique et juridique.Google Scholar