The dispute between the faculties

The following important information is missing from this article or section:

Contents of the first and third sections

Help Wikipedia by researching and pasting it .

The dispute between the faculties is a work by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant from 1798. In addition to the anthropology lecture published at the same time, it is, in pragmatic terms, the last work published by Kant himself.

The title alludes to the government's influence on the theological, law, and medical schools. Kant bases the work on the idea that the sciences should not depend on usefulness but on truth. With the criticism of contemporary practice, he argues for a special academic freedom of the humanities and natural sciences , gathered in the philosophical faculty against censorship and state guidelines. To this end, Kant gives three examples that show how the Philosophical Faculty (1.) through textual criticism and historical research of the Theological Faculty, (2.) through a freedom-oriented moral and historical philosophy of the Faculty of Law and (3.) with regard to is superior to considering the experience of medical school in establishing the truth. At the same time, he recognizes that the dispute is based on actually conflicting interests of the faculties. The philosophical faculty is solely committed to the state and progress of the sciences, while the three higher faculties are also supposed to fulfill specific interests of the state, be it on behalf of the community or its government.

publication

Kant initially made attempts to publish the three parts of the work individually, but failed in 1794 and 1797 due to prohibitions imposed by the Prussian censorship. Only the third part appeared at the beginning of 1798 in the "Journal of practical medicine and wound medicine". Only with the enthronement of Friedrich Wilhelm III. the essays, which have now been combined into one font, could appear in autumn 1798.

In 1796, Immanuel Kant wrote in an afterword to “About the Organ of the Soul” by Samuel Thomas Soemmering : “We are therefore looking for a response over which two faculties can come into dispute because of their jurisdiction […], the medical one, the anatomical-physiological one , with the philosophical, in its psychological-metaphysical subject, where, as with all coalition attempts, between which they want to base everything on empirical principles, and those who demand a priori reasons [...] inconveniences that arise only from the dispute between the faculties are based, […] - Whoever owes it to the medicinist as physiologist in the present case spoils it with the philosopher as metaphysician; and vice versa, whoever does it right, offends against the physiologist. ”This is still partly true today; the dispute continues to reflect the mind- body or mind- body problem .

content

The work consists of an attribution, a preface, and three sections. The three main sections are texts that Kant wrote at different times and only later put them together. In the preface Kant discusses a conflict with the Prussian censorship which had arisen from the publication of his work The Religion Within the Limits of Mere Reason . Thematically, this already results in the basic conflict between the government, which intervenes in the academic work on certain topics in its own interest or in the interests of the state. Kant points out that his writing does not affect the aspects of religion that affect the interests of the Prussian state: it is a scientific work that avoids the question of revelation or its content or any criticism of traditional dogmas and neither does itself addressed as a religious treatise to the general public. In fact, in the preface, Kant is even more critical of Prussian cultural policy , which deterred numerous candidates for theological studies who did not follow the recently pietistic line and whereupon they "overpopulated the law faculty". Under these circumstances, however, it is not surprising that the Scriptures seem to have little coherence overall. In contrast, the second section deals with a historical-philosophical question, which, however, in the 8th part contains the historical-philosophical necessity of freedom of publication for the sciences as a punchline. The third section seems to be completely out of line with its subject matter, but also in style and systematic structure, but completes the passage through the three higher faculties.

first section

The first section contains the dispute between the philosophical faculty and the theological.

second part

The dispute between the philosophical faculty and the juridical Kant raises the “ renewed question ”: “ Whether the human race is constantly improving for the better. “The treatise consists of ten parts:

1. Kant specified the question. One wants to know whether man is constantly making progress for the better, within the framework of the moral history of the human species, not within the framework of natural history. So he narrows the question morally.
2. Kant presents the methodology with which this question can be answered at all: Predictions are possible because the fortune teller makes the predicted himself. As examples he names the biblical prophets, politicians and clergy.
3. Kant presents the logically possible results: There would be three answers: 1. Decline towards what is angry, 2. Move towards the better, and 3. Stand still. Kant teleologically rules out a return to trouble , since in this case man would end up destroying himself. The progress for the better is also difficult to imagine, since every person is just as good as bad. The standstill therefore seems to be the only likely answer, but then humans would behave like animals. Kant also excludes this possibility teleologically.
4. The task cannot be solved through experience: We only see that backward and forward progress alternate in humans, since they are free beings. But we couldn't take a meta point of view.
5. Kant observes with some rhetoric: The story must be linked to some experience: there must be an experience that shows that there is a progress towards the better in the human species. Kant calls this experience a sign of history .
6. While searching for historical signs, he found an incident of his time: the enthusiasm of people across Europe for the French Revolution could only have a moral cause. People's morality comes from an idealism.
7. The story itself is thus fortunetelling. Human beings are in an evolution towards the ideal constitution to which historical signs would lead them. Even if there are setbacks, there will be further development at the next opportunity. Republicanism is the ideal state constitution. One day it will be so firmly anchored that it will no longer be reversible. From these considerations, Kant draws the conclusion that man follows progress. Interim setbacks are not intended by nature (humans are far too unimportant for that), but are made by humans.
8. Kant addresses the question of how the maxims intended for progress should be made public: the enlightenment of the people does not come from the state, but from the philosophers out of the people. In order for progress to be possible, there must be freedom of publication in a state. In the ideal state, the people are legislative. The ideal real state must, however, be tested.
9. The result that this progression yields is not in an increase in morality, but in an increase in the frequency of moral action. The good is already in people, otherwise their development for the better could not take place.
10. In what order can progress be expected? Progress comes from top to bottom, not the other way around. Therefore, the education of the people should proceed from the state. In addition, a state has to reform itself from time to time. The perfect constitution also prevents wars of aggression.

Third section

The third section includes the dispute between the philosophical faculty and the medical faculty.

literature

New text edition:

• Immanuel Kant: The dispute between the faculties . Edited by Horst D. Brandt and Piero Giordanetti, Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg 2005 (Philosophical Library 522), ISBN 3-7873-1450-4 .

Secondary literature:

• Reinhard Brandt : University between self-determination and external determination: Kant's "dispute between the faculties"; with an appendix to Heidegger's "Rector's Speech" . Akademie Verlag, Berlin 2003 (German magazine for philosophy, special volume 5), ISBN 3-05-003859-4 .
• Gerhard Medicus : What unites us humans - human ethological offers for communication between body and soul sciences . VWB Vlg. F. Science and Education, Berlin, 3rd edition 2015, ISBN 978-3-86135-585-4 ; English edition: Being Human - Bridging the Gap between the Sciences of Body and Mind . VWB Vlg. F. Science and Education, Berlin, ISBN 978-3-86135-584-7 .

Web links

• Immanuel Kant: Dispute of the Faculties , 1798, digitized
• Immanuel Kant: dispute between the faculties. , Text of the academy edition on korpora.org

Individual evidence

1. ^ Karl Vorländer: Dispute between the faculties. . In: Ders .: Immanuel Kant. The man and the work (1924) . From: textlog.de, February 14, 2007, accessed on August 17, 2011.