ON DELUE'S REVIEW OF ARENDT'S LECTURES ON KANT'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY PATRICK RILEY

In: Political theory: an international journal of political philosophy, Volume 12, Issue 3, p. 435-439

Abstract

IN HIS RECENT REVIEW (NOVEMBER 1983) OF HANNAH ARENDT'S LECTURES ON KANT'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, STEVEN M. DELUE CERTAINLY SUCCEEDED IN THROWING SOME LIGHT ON BOTH ARENDT AND KANT. BUT WHAT SEEMS TO HAVE ESCAPED HIME ENTIRELY IS THE SHEER ODDITY, THE BRILLIANT PERVERSITY, OF THE BOOK, VIEWED AS ITS TITLE ENCOURAGES-AS "LECTUURES ON KANT'S POLITICAL PHILOSPHY." THE CENTRAL CLAIM OF THE LECTURES-SKILLFULLY EDITED AND INTRODUCED BY RONALD BEINER-IS BOLD, IMAGINATIVE, AND RISK TAKING: "SINCE KANT DID NOT WRITE HIS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, THE BEST WAY TO FIND OUT WHAT HE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS MATTER IS TO TURN TO HIM CRITIQUE OF AESTHETIC JUDGMENT." TO BE SURE, ARENDT GRANTS THAT KANT PRODUCED EXPLICITLY POLITICAL WRITINGS. BUT ETHERNAL PEACE IS CHARACTERIZED AS A "REVERIE" CAST IN AN "IRONICAL TONE," WHILE THE RECHTSLEHRE IS STYLED "BORING AND PEDANTIC"; HENCE THE NECESSITY, FOR ARENDT, TO TURN TO THE CRITIQUE OF JUDGMENT, WHOSE "TOPICS" ARE OF "EMINENT POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE."