Fourteen contributions from international academics examine the themes of judgment, imagination, and politics in the philosophy of Hannah Arendt and Immanuel Kant. In the introduction, Beiner and Nedelsky (both political science, U. of Toronto) discuss the problem of political judgment and the recognition of subjectivity. Other topics include the challenges of diversity to the law, the public use of reason, and Arendt's lectures on Kant. c. Book News Inc.

The debates over "universal" human rights versus alleged abuses in the name of culture and tradition are best understood as conflicts between different communities of judgment. This article attempts to respond to the pressing need for an adequate theory of the role of judgment in order to address these debates. Using Hannah Arendt's work on judgment as a starting point, the article tackles the problems and possibilities that arise out of Arendt's view that judgment relies on a "common sense" shared (...) by members of a community of judging subjects. The author identifies some of the puzzles surrounding the concepts of "common sense," "community," and "other judging subjects," concepts not fully developed in Arendt's theory. Section I begins with a brief outline of Arendt's theory and its relation to Kant's. In Section II, the author points to some of the virtues of a community-based theory of judgment and, in Section III, to the link between the issues in international human rights and judgment as community-based. Section IV identifies a set of interlocking puzzles posed by the idea of "community-based" judgment, while Section V offers a more detailed account of the concepts of "enlarged mentality" and "common sense" that serve as the basis for exploring these puzzles. These puzzles are then worked through in Section VI, particularly, the question of how can one decide to change or oppose "common sense" when it seems to be presupposed for judgment to be possible. Finally, Section VII addresses the implications of these theoretical arguments for human rights and the insights human rights debates provide for the theory. The author shows that it is necessary to understand these debates as a concrete manifestation of the problem of judgment across communities and how this particular problem, in turn, helps to refine the issues the theory must articulate and resolve. The modern world makes huge demands on our linked capacities for autonomy and judgment; in order to bestmeet these demands, we must understand the ways in which judgment is community-based. (shrink)

Both judgment and receptivity are important to optimal politics, and both are important to each other. In making this argument, I use an Arendtian conception of judgment and take mindfulness as an example of receptivity. I argue that receptivity offers a needed dimension to addressing the puzzles of what makes Arendtian judgment possible, and that judgment provides a necessary complement to receptivity for action in the world. Exploring this complementary relation between judgment and receptivity also reveals a surprising similarity between (...) what each offers to the practice of politics, in particular to freedom and the possibility of transformation. At the same time, I argue, these important contributions to politics are best understood and realized if judgment and receptivity are thought of as distinct forms of relating to the world. Keywords: judgment; mindfulness; receptivity; Arendt; political transformation; Kant; enlarged mentality; perspective; freedom (Published: 23 December 2011) Citation: Ethics & Global Politics, Vol. 4 , No. 4, 2011, pp. 231-254. DOI: 10.3402/egp.v4i4.15116. (shrink)