Using the definition of neoliberalism (will not paste here), and Kan't third category being of relation, primarily his disjunctive judgement, hence community, and its application to the notion of neoliberalism.

Do they share similarities, such that a kantian thinker would be pro-neoliberal, or do they conflict, in regards to what a community represents. For some, a community represented by a neoliberal can be summed by the term homo economicus.

Whilst reading Kant and the concept of community by Charlton Payne, he describes 6 common notions of community by kant:

  1. The category of community. This is derived from the disjunctive form of judgment and Kant often identifies it with the concept of interaction.
  2. The scientific notion of interaction. This concept is introduced in the Third Analogy and developed in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science.
  3. A metaphysical idea. The idea of a world of individuals (monads) in interaction. This idea was developed in his precritical period and can be found in his metaphysics lectures.
  4. A moral ideal. The idea of a realm of ends. 3
  5. A political ideal. The idea of a political community (or community of communities) governed by juridical laws.
  6. A theological ideal. What Kant calls “the kingdom of heaven,” which can be thought of as a community of holy beings, or angels.

How does neoliberalism fit in with this, especially with no.5?

  • I think it is moot to use his theoretical table of categories and apply it to human community. That being said, his remarks on economics are scarce and mostly tied to the right to vote as far as I'm aware. And since the politician should act morally according to him, I do see no way in which this should be compatible with economic (neo)liberalism. Rather, the German Ordoliberalism (which was the 'original' neoliberalism, but runs diametrically to the modern use) seems influenced by Kantian thought. – Philip Klöcking Aug 30 at 22:14

It really doesnt relate to any of this...

Neoliberalism is just normal liberalism with more academic justifications. It uses the theoretical justifications for Capitalism developed over the decades between Keynes and the breakdown of the welfare state. It has no relation to philosophy, it is a purely economic/political concept.

| improve this answer | |
  • I would not accept this as an answer, only as a comment. Too vague, and to say that Neoliberalism does not incorporate the community, and concepts that revolve around community, would be harsh. Margret Thatcher also tried to classify community, as "individual men and women, and family". I presume my question would require a more specialised reader, one who has read kant, marx, foucalt and wendy brown. – Meilton Aug 30 at 9:01
  • It actually doesn't have anything to do with that, it's a economic theory, and Thatcher didn't develop it – D J Sims Aug 30 at 17:50
  • Look into Venn diagrams, especially the use of intersections. Whilst this is merely an analogy to thinking about this, A represents Kants concept of community, B represents Neoliberalism, and the concept in all its forms. Fortunately, they intersect, and at that intersection is what I am most interested in. Kant mentions that a community involves an Agent and patient, an agent has the freedom to act on a patient. – Meilton Aug 30 at 21:06
  • :-"neoliberalism transmogrifies every human domain and endeavor, along with humans themselves, according to a specific image of the economic. All conduct is economic conduct;" -wendy brown, who would be the agent and patient? large corporations that control through hegemonic power such as billboards, to soften the minds of consumerists, for more spending? You are most certainly correct in that Thatcher was not the first to coin and develop the concept, but she did have an impact in the development of neoliberalism. – Meilton Aug 30 at 21:09

If we associate liberalism with pluralism (idk about neo-liberalism in particular), then we might connect Kant's disjunctive judgments therewith by means of the example he gives of the foundation of the world: either the world exists by chance, internal necessity, or as created. We can accept the disjunction but not any specific disjunct (though for Kant, hope might be directed at such propositions).

So sociopolitically, we might assert that there is a mutually exclusive, exhaustive disjunction over some question, and then somehow act on this plurality (designing laws to support/express it). Rawls might be a detailed example of how we might do such a thing.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.