Suchergebnisse

Calling Kant a liberal philosopher requires important qualifications. Much like his theoretical philosophy, his political transcendentalism was and remains a great enterprise of navigating between the extremes of liberalism and conservatism, of balancing the "empirical" and the "pure" in human society, as well as in human mind. Of all the attempts to enlist Kant among the classics of liberalism, John Rawls' is the most impressive and thorough. However, it is hardly a success. The reason for this lies in a profound difference in their answering the fundamental (and therefore vague) question "What is Man?". This paper is an attempt to revise the debate about the extent of Rawls' Kantianism and to compare the meanings of basic concepts of what could be called "pure political anthropology" in Kant and in Rawls.

In 'Interpretations' the editors invite scholars to explore and debate central issues, concepts or problems encountered in the study of contemporary European history. Recent sections have dealt with 'Political Religion' (18:4) and consumerism (20:1). Here, Peter Baldwin takes issue with Richard J. Evans's characterisation of British historians as peculiarly 'cosmopolitan'. Evans provides an energetic defence of his thesis, and Baldwin responds with an equally robust rejoinder.

In 'Interpretations' the editors invite scholars to explore and debate central issues or concepts encountered in the study of contemporary European history. Recent sections have dealt with 'political religion' (18:4) and political violence (14:1). Here, Andreas Wirsching discusses the changing relationship between labour, consumption and individuality in the twentieth century, Frank Trentmann comments on the difficulties of the term 'consumer society', and Andreas Wirsching has provided a final rejoinder.

In 'Interpretations' the editors invite scholars to explore and debate central issues or concepts encountered in the study of contemporary European history. Recent sections have dealt with political violence (14:1), Europe and its historians (12:3) and fascist-era dictatorships (11:3). Here, David Roberts discusses the merits of the term 'political religion', and Carl Levy has responded. Although authors have the right of reply, David Roberts has declined to do so on this occasion.