Immanuel Kant y la polémica sobre el origen del nacionalismo
In his classic work on nationalism, Elie Kedourie claims to have established a connection between the Kantian concept of autonomy and the ideology of national self-determination. For Kedourie, Kant was not a nationalist, but his understanding of freedom, when collectivized, became the core belief of...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Spanish |
| Published: |
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6237910 |
| Source: | Revista de estudios políticos, ISSN 0048-7694, Nº 178, 2017, pags. 71-103 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
|
| Summary: |
In his classic work on nationalism, Elie Kedourie claims to have established a connection between the Kantian concept of autonomy and the ideology of national self-determination. For Kedourie, Kant was not a nationalist, but his understanding of freedom, when collectivized, became the core belief of the principle of nationalities. Isaiah Berlin also pointed to this connection and posed Kant as an unsuspecting source of nationalism. Many years later in another classic book on nationalism, Ernest Gellner made a passionate defense of Kant, countering what he termed the unjust and mischievous charges raised against him. To Gellner, Kedourie’s search for intellectual progenitors of nationalism was moved by conservative resentment. According to Gellner, Kant is not the father of nationalism. On the contrary, he should be considered the father of an enlightened cosmopolitanism. This paper first examines the terms of this debate, before going back to Kant to highlight exactly what he had to say about nations. The paper concludes by contrasting nationalism with cosmopolitanism, in order to argue that the two concepts were connected, but not opposed, ideologies in the time of Kant. |
|---|