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?

  • 2
    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 '20 at 22:14

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.

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.