مفهوم‌ کانتی دولت: دولت در میانه اقتدار و آنارشی

منظومه اخلاقی کانت بر مبنای یک مفهوم اساسی استوار شده که همانا خودآیینی است و سوژه خودآیین در نسبت مستقیم با صفت کنشگری سوژه قرار دارد. اما به عقیده کانت این سوژه خودآیین و کنشگر در فضایی تهی به‌سر نمی‌برد، بلکه برای بروز استعدادهایش باید زیست اجتماعی داشته باشد. زیست اجتماعی، وی را به سمت تدوین قرار‌داد اجتماعی و ابداع نهادی به نام دولت سوق می‌دهد. اما نکته اینجاست که کانت سیستمی از دولت را ارائه می‌دهد که نه‌تنها خودآیینی و کنشگری سوژه‌ها را از بین نمی‌برد، بلکه خود صورتی از کنشگری سوژه‌هاست و وجود خود را از قلمرو غایات (اجتماع سوژه‌‌ها) کسب می‌کند. در گستره اندیشه سیاسی و اجتماعی کانت تعریفی سوژه‌محور از دولت و نهادهای سیاسی ارائه می‌شود و ازاین‌رو کانت نه‌تنها میان اخلاق و سیاست فاصله‌ای نمی‌بیند، بلکه این دو را آلیاژهای یک فلز تلقی می‌کند که از ترکیبشان سیستمی از اجتماع برساخته می‌شود که در آن نه فرد، تفرّد خود را از دست می‌دهد و نه جامعه دچار هرج‌ومرج و ناامنی خواهد شد.

kantian concept of the state: the state between authority and anarchy

introduction previous political readings of kant’s work have often taken the form of pitting ethics and politics against each other in the field of practical philosophy, where kant seeks for laws that govern the actions of free and independent subjects. looking at kant’s thought from this point of view, society (that is, the realm of kant’s aims) is, on the one hand, full of moral laws that human wisdom imposes on itself, and, on the other hand, man is confronted with legal laws that the government imposes. in fact, the readings of kant so far have presented kantian ethics as a separate system from kantian politics, a disintegration that will bring the kantian system to the verge of collapse. this paper discusses the various conceptions of freedom in kant’s texts, and analyzes the connection between them and kant’s moral theory and epistemology. kant rejects a basis for the state, in particular, arguing that the welfare of citizens cannot be a basis for a state power. he argues that a state cannot legitimately impose any particular conception of happiness upon its citizens. it is important to try at the outset to clarify the relation between kant political philosophy and his moral philosophy in general. he clearly subordinates politics to morality while at the same time basing politics on right not on utility or happiness.methodologyradical hermeneutic (ontological) method is used in this article. from the perspective of this methodology, there is no a priori meaning in the text that can be discovered by empathizing. in fact, from this point of view, instead of reconstructing and recovering the objective meaning of the text, the interpreter through mental agreement with the text participates in the creation of meaning and understands the text.findingsthe findings of this study are discussed under the following themes: political and social implications of kant’s copernican revolution in the field of political thoughtaccording to kant, man is an end in himself and existence in itself , and therefore he calls the living space of these ends together the realm of ends . in fact, kant’s thought, after introducing a specific type of subject that was created in the modern era, brings that subject into the social field. the influence of protestant political theology on kant’s political thoughtby rejecting the church as a mediator, protestantism made possible the manifestation of the subject for the first time in the history of theology. the importance of understanding protestantism for understanding kant’s political and social thought is not through leaving the church, but this importance lies in the confrontation of the particular and the general. the subject as the autonomyaccording to kant, the autonomy is pure principle of all moral laws and all duties corresponding to them. production of a new type of social contract in kant’s political thought kant’s intended social contract is a subject-centered social contract due to the elimination of superior authority.analysiskant’s social contract is fundamentally different from previous social contracts in the thinking of hobbes, locke, rousseau, etc., and this difference is in the sense that this contract is actually a mechanism for judging the optimal performance of the government. in the sense that the social contract does not include any practical agreement with a practical obligation to obey the government.conclusionsgerman idealism and kant, as the pioneers of this intellectual current, brought two fundamental legacies to political thought; the first legacy was subjectivity . from kant onwards, the subject became capable of action, an action that involved knowledge on the one hand, and moral will and action on the other.