Kephalos en Kant. Een gesprek over plichten | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 114 Number 2
  • ISSN: 0002-5275
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1244

Abstract

Abstract

Socrates’s first conversational partner in Plato’s Politeia is Cephalos, the host of the dialogue. But the conversation between Cephalos and Socrates does not appear to be very fruitful. It merely seems to function as the setting of the stage. Nonetheless, what Cephalos has to say about life and old age, about justice and doing one’s duty is far from uninteresting. Indeed, if Cephalos had presented his views to Immanuel Kant, they would have been well received. Kant would have agreed with Cephalos’s emphasis on duties: the duty to speak truthfully; the duty of returning what one has borrowed from another and the duty of gratitude for what one has been given. Kant’s fictional conversation with Cephalos even presents us with some unexpected vistas.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2022.2.002.MERT
2022-07-01
2024-06-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allison, H.E. (1990) Kant’s Theory of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Benatar, D. (2006) Better Never to Have Been. The Harm of Coming into Existence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Byrd, S.B. & Hruschka, J. (2010) Kant’s Doctrine of Right. A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Eekert, G. van (2009) Seneca in Königsberg: een analyse van Kants Gedanken bei dem frühzeitigen Ableben des Herrn Johann Friedrich von Funk,Bijdragen. Tijdschrift voor Filosofie en Theologie, 70(1), pp. 87-119.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Harris, S. (2013) Lying. Four Elephants Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Heidegger, M. (1977[1923]) Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Kleingeld, P. (2019) On Dealing with Kant’s Sexism and Racism, SGIR Review, 2(2), pp. 3-22.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Kuehn, M. (2001) Kant. A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Merle, J.-C. & Freiin von Villiez, C. (2021) (red.) Zwischen Rechten und Pflichten – Kants Metaphysik der Sitten. Berlijn en Boston: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Mertens, Th. (1997/98) Wat moet ik doen? (De hemel en de wet), Wijsgerig Perspectief, 38, pp. 81-86.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Mertens, Th. (2000) Kant en de platoonse republiek, in: M.Keestra (red.), Tien westerse filosofen, Nieuwezijds, Amsterdam, pp. 107-127.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Mertens, Th. (2016) On Kant’s duty to speak the truth, Kantian Review, 21(1), pp. 27-51.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Mertens, Th. (2017) Kant over zelfmoord, Filosofie & praktijk, 38(3), pp. 5-21.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Mertens, Th. (2019) Bona Fama Defuncti in Kant’s Rechtslehre: Some Perspectives, Kantian Review, 24(4), pp.513-529.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Mertens, Th. (2021) Cur Homo Deus? Enige overwegingen omtrent het recht op leven, Ars Aequi, 70, pp.907-915.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Motto, A.L & Clark, J.R. (1994) Seneca on the vir ingratus, Acta Classica, 37, pp. 41-48.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Nussbaum, M. en Levmore, S. (2017) Aging Thoughtfully. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ozeki, R. (2013) A Tale for the Time Being, Lounsbury: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Plato (1978), Verzameld werk, Vertaald door Xaveerde Win, Baarn: Ambo.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Reich, K. (1935) Kant und die Ethik der Griechen. Tübingen: Mohr.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ripstein, A. (2009) Force and Freedom. Kant’s legal and political philosophy. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Roermund, B. van (2012) Ieder Tsèn, Zeven variaties op een rechtsbeginsel. Tilburg: Tilburg University.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Sandel, M. (2009) Justice. What’s the right thing to do. Londen: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Sandel, M. (2020) The Tyranny of Merit. What’s become of the Common Good. Penguin: New York2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Scanlon, T.M. (2000) What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Schofield, P. (2021) Duty to Self. Moral, Political & Legal Self-Relation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Smit, H. & Timmons, M. (2011) The Moral Significance of Gratitude in Kant’s Ethics, Southern Journal of Philosophy, 49(4), pp. 295-320.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Stephens Davidowitz, S. (2017) Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data and What the Internet Can Tell Us about Who We Really Are. New York: Dey Street Books
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Steinberger, P. (1996), Who is Cephalos?, Political Theory24(2), pp. 172-199.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Seneca (2020), How To Give. An Ancient Guide to Giving and Receiving. Edited by J.S.Romm. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Tongeren, P. van (2015) Dankbaar. Denken over danken na de dood van God. Zoetermeer: Klement.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Wils, J.P. (2019) Das Nachleben der Toten. Philosophie auf der Grenze. Paderborn: Mentis.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Wilson, E. (2014) Seneca. A Life. Londen: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wittwer, H. (2001) Űber Kants Verbod der Selbsttötung, Kant-Studien, 92(2), pp. 180-209.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Wood, A.W. (2004) The Final Form of Kant’s Practical Philosophy, in: M.Timmons (red.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals. Interpretative Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-22.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2022.2.002.MERT
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error