tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post1488772964683765310..comments2022-03-24T15:14:12.561+00:00Comments on Inter Kant: Cosmopolitan Right (I)Gary Banhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-77888380720480595602009-09-28T10:04:52.010+01:002009-09-28T10:04:52.010+01:00So there is a reference to boundaries!So there is a reference to boundaries!Gary Banhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-37290624998408283862009-09-28T00:23:58.037+01:002009-09-28T00:23:58.037+01:00Actually, Kant does say that since the earth is no...Actually, Kant does say that since the earth is not unbounded....Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424473980754426257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-43459274119122477112009-09-27T20:11:56.735+01:002009-09-27T20:11:56.735+01:00Gary - I didn't mean to say "boundaries&q...Gary - I didn't mean to say "boundaries" was suggestive in relation to cosmopolitan right. I meant the non-use of "boundaries", and the use of "limited" (eingeschränkt), could be important.was suggestive in cosmopolitan right. See my post on the limits of cosomopolitan right:<br />http://cosmopolitanright.blogspot.com/2009/09/limits-of-cosmopolitan-right-in-his.htmlTimothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424473980754426257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-55943790023368607432009-09-27T20:03:55.263+01:002009-09-27T20:03:55.263+01:00You are right Tim that it was over the word "...You are right Tim that it was over the word "mere" rather than "boundaries" that I had the problem since, as Di Givoanni himself says, the predominant meaning of "mere" in English is restrictive. No real problem with him altering "limits" to "boundaries". You are right that "boundary" is suggestive in relation to cosmopolitan right.Gary Banhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-37060773810237956452009-09-27T17:52:17.981+01:002009-09-27T17:52:17.981+01:00Gary: In your book, you mentioned that you disagre...Gary: In your book, you mentioned that you disagreed with the reasons the cambridge editor gave for the translation of the title as "Religion with the boundaries of mere reason". What was your disagreement? I suspect it had to do with the word "mere" rather than "boundaries"? But what the editor says about the distinction between boundaries and limits has some bearing on our discussion. Limits, the author said, provided a negation with no implication of space outside the ear, whereas boundaries implied/allowed a territory with a space outside.Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424473980754426257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-10617386787089204552009-09-27T17:05:07.742+01:002009-09-27T17:05:07.742+01:00Thanks Tim: I came over earlier but will re-check....Thanks Tim: I came over earlier but will re-check.<br />The Religion book translation that has boundaries in the title was one I adopted for convenience since its in the Cambridge edition. Do like the word "boundaries" though.Gary Banhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-56018911891735631052009-09-27T16:46:21.310+01:002009-09-27T16:46:21.310+01:00Gary - I've also posted some long comments on ...Gary - I've also posted some long comments on cosmopolitan right, related to the issue of limits and refugees on my blog cosmopolitanright.blogspot.com. Your comments are welcome.<br /><br />Also, on limits and boundaries: do you degree with the translation "religion within the the boundaries of mere reason" (you mention this in a footnote in your book) because of the reference to boundaries, not limits? Or because of the word "mere"?Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424473980754426257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-22146001833500744792009-09-27T11:48:08.914+01:002009-09-27T11:48:08.914+01:00Thanks, as always, Tim, for comments. You are righ...Thanks, as always, Tim, for comments. You are right that I may have been hasty in assuming that what is meant by natural right is right within the state of nature although it fits in serious respects since states are in a state of nature with regard to each other.<br />Didn't occur to me to think about the use of the term "conditions" in the title. <br />The term "commerce" is intriguing in the way you suggest and the discussion as is stands is ambiguous for sure. I assumed the right to make a living as without it the visitor would have only very limited visitation rights but, again, Kant's text is here unclear.Gary Banhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-52338423891466406732009-09-27T04:41:03.818+01:002009-09-27T04:41:03.818+01:00"This right evidently would provide those who..."This right evidently would provide those who are visiting with a means to establish a livelihood which may be one of the reasons for granting them the right to commerce."<br /><br />In Kant's situations, why would the locals want to give visitors the means to establish a livelihood? I can understand why contemporary states might want to (or should) allow for lawful way for long-term "visitors" to establish a livihood. This gets to the ambiguities of the word commerce. It is a right to trade (which implies the other has something). Or is it a legal capacity to be part of the local society, including its economy?Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424473980754426257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-14817282098054949732009-09-26T20:51:47.483+01:002009-09-26T20:51:47.483+01:00"This reference to "natural right" ..."This reference to "natural right" also implies that cosmopolitan right is a kind of right within the state of nature"<br /><br />No, not necessarily. Natural right has two references for Kant. One is as you say. The second refers to what reason tells us should be enacted as positive law. The metaphysics of morals has a lot of examples of the second. <br /><br />So natural right may speak of a right to visit, but this right might only become effective under the conditions of cosmopolitan right (that, the conditions of universal hospitality)<br /><br />Also, I've wondered whether it is important that Kant does not say "cosmopolitan right is limited to universal hospitality"-- Kant says that cosmopolitan right is limited the <i>conditions</i> for universal hospitality. Does this mean that cosmopolitan right is only operative when there is universal hospitality? Or does this mean that any conditions needed to establish universal hospitality falls under cosmopolitan right? (compare: what are the conditions of domestic constitutional right?) If the latter, this might be pretty extensive depending on the circumstances, and especially in our world. It might explain how the specification of the content of cosmopolitan right could change without the essentials of the category changing. Of course, what constitutes universal hospitality is vague.Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424473980754426257noreply@blogger.com