Kant II

Sorry for not being able to post about Kant for day 1 and for the prep. But I do believe that contradiction comes along with a lot of arguments and a lot of frustration.

Doctrine of Right

Chapter 1: How to Have Something External as One's Own

The thought of property and ownership came to my mind. Only because property or things around us, are external to us. Which was what I linked with the title of chapter 1. After reading it seems like Kant has put a lot of labels on things such as the different kinds of possessions and the things around us that we can say is our own. It seems to me that Kant was explaining things that belong to us and things that belong to others. I understood this first part of his explanation with the example of the apple and the land but then as I read forward, I could not make a connection with the subtitles and the content.

Chapter 2: How to Acquire Something External

This makes me think of taking hold of things around us. Like how to get that ball over there or grasp onto what is around me. That second sentence to the first paragraph of the chapter confuses me. My question is, what act establishes a right to something? To me as I read, I feel like he is saying nothing is originally ours, but we must go and acquire whatever it is that we want. That makes sense. To have experience of somethings gives an acquire taste of it whereas if we never exposed to such a thing we would not want it making it not originally ours but something to acquire. When he speaks about obligations, "On Property Right", I can only think of people or things that have a mind can feel obligation. So when he says that 'it is already under obligation for him', is he referring to the object having obligation to its owner or is he saying that others who want to own it feel obligation to not take it because it already has a rightful owner? For section II of chapter 2, I am amazingly confused. I do not know if it is because I am trying to hard to understand or if I am not trying hard enough to understand. I understand when he says in one sentence the way contract right works, but when he further goes on about contract right I get lost with the labels.

Chapter 3: On Acquisition That Is Dependent Subjectively upon the Decision of a Public Court of Justice

The only thing that comes to my mind would be legal things, legal documents...etc. Is Kant saying that a court is always moral even when a person who 'administers justice' is immoral? Just a thought, a question, that came to mind. To my understand he just goes on to speak of the different contracts, how to acquire and the transition.


Part two: Public Right

I feel like he is now going on to explain things that occur in a society or in big groups, like a nation. He further explains the different rights but I cannot say that I fully have a grasp of each concept. Hopefully by tomorrow, while being in class, that will change.


There was a lot that troubled me but the ones that I have written out here, are probably the most troubling. I find it interesting though that, to me, he is very neat. I say this only because he has labels for the different ways things are. So being able to have those labels for reference with an explanation with what they are and how they are used is a lot of help in understanding the concept. I think without his explanation I would be more lost.