Back in 1996 Sam Fleischacker published “Values Behind the Market: Kant’s Response to the Wealth of Nations,” in History of Political Thought; he made a compelling case that Kant started to engage with Smith’s Wealth of Nations from around 1784 onward. (The first uncontroversial and explicit reference is in the
I bring in Kant on a limited number of topics: federalism, peace projects, and social mechanism design. (I do have interest in a number of other projects where Kant might intersect; I have written on his early engagement with newton and spinoza, for example.)
I use to de-center Kant quite a bit. (In my PhD cohort everyone was doing Kant. So I rebelled.)
But since I am trying to develop a new well Foucault-inflected (without the dazzle and the idiom) approach to the story of liberalism (that will, en passant, do away with Rawlsian-Kantianism), Kant has returned to my focus.
I do think that because I come from Kant sideways, but with well-honed historical skills, I have something fresh to say I hope. Anyway, thank you for the implied, I hope, compliment.
I bring in Kant on a limited number of topics: federalism, peace projects, and social mechanism design. (I do have interest in a number of other projects where Kant might intersect; I have written on his early engagement with newton and spinoza, for example.)
I use to de-center Kant quite a bit. (In my PhD cohort everyone was doing Kant. So I rebelled.)
But since I am trying to develop a new well Foucault-inflected (without the dazzle and the idiom) approach to the story of liberalism (that will, en passant, do away with Rawlsian-Kantianism), Kant has returned to my focus.
I do think that because I come from Kant sideways, but with well-honed historical skills, I have something fresh to say I hope. Anyway, thank you for the implied, I hope, compliment.