PHILOSOPHY AND POLITICS. THE CASE OF KANT AND LATVIAN KANTIANS
PHILOSOPHY AND POLITICS. THE CASE OF KANT AND LATVIAN KANTIANS

Summary/Abstract: Since the war between Russia and Ukraine and the inflamed conflicts in the Middle East, mostly around Israel, we see more clearly than ever that Carl Schmitt must have been right when he tried to define politics using the categories of friend and enemy. Since the times are such that they demand to stand with friends against enemies, and if you are not a friend, you must be an enemy, many people without discrimination, especially in regions of conflicts and wars, therefore also Latvia, turned out to be enemies simply because they were no friends. Many people in these regions turned out to be homeless as the category of home became a political one. Your home is where your political friends live. In the year of Kant’s 300th birthday, when conflicting regions and countries try to appropriate Kant and make him their own thinker, their friend, and the enemy of the other party, it is interesting to ask whether Kant would be politically engaged at all. And if not, would he then not turn out to be homeless since home becomes political? According to Hannah Arendt, there is an enmity from the philosophy towards politics, and this enmity starts with the trial of Socrates. The lesson Plato learned from the trial of Socrates is that a city (political community) is not a safe place for the philosopher. Philosophers have two options regarding their lives in the city: (I) rule over it or (II) die. Therefore, the hostile relationship between philosophy and politics begins with Plato, but it does not depend on Plato, the person, or Plato, the philosopher; instead, such a relationship is determined by the subjects – philosophy and politics – themselves. By their nature, they are not compatible. According to Arendt – Kant is an exception to this enmity of philosophy towards politics. The meaning of Kant’s exceptional position can be interpreted as (a) Kant understands the problematic relationship between philosophy and politics, so as a philosopher, he knows to keep out of politics; (b) Kant knows how to act in politics, knows to engage in it like any other person who is not a philosopher; (c) Kant is not such an exception to this enmity towards politics. and interest in politics, as Hannah Arendt would like to think. In this article, I argue for the latter option (c) – Kant was interested in politics, and his attitude towards politics resembles a platonic wish to dominate the sphere of politics. I argue for this option using a specific interpretation of Kant’s ideas on education. It is a well-established view among Kant scholars that Kant argues for education to be cosmopolitan and not have a political dimension. I propose a reading of the Education text that suggests that Kant’s cosmopolitan education includes a political dimension and is not only concerned with the moral universe. By examining the lives and works of prominent Latvian Kantians such as Teodors Celms, Atis Rolavs, and Rihards Kūlis, we can see the profound consequences of the hostile relationship between philosophy and politics. Their experiences are a stark reminder of the weighty implications of this enduring conflict.

• Details
• Contents