> I think that you are missing the point...
Wouldn't be the first time.
> Kant's categorical imperative comes embedded in, and
complement, a political philosophy that's predicated on
the suppression of the practical exercise of power,
knowledge (esp. historical knowledge), & desire for
happiness by the people. What can be more 'authoritarian'
than that?
Which is why Lacan re-interprets Kant as an internalized voice of conscience. We are both repulsed and drawn to the object of our desire. Kant's categorical imperative, "Obey!" is equivalent to Sade's imperative, "Enjoy!" - but when we look at Kant critically, this is precisely what is forbidden. One cannot "Obey" or "Enjoy" in an unlimited way. In Lacanese, it is the pervert who "goes all the way" - right into the hands of the highest good / evil. Kant's practical philosophy, then, is an ethics of responsibility, of contingency and finitude. When we take radical evil seriously, this is where morality exists. Morality is a perspective from the viewpoint of radical evil (and serves as a polemic against "ethics of the good" which unequivically have authoritarian implications (from discourse ethics to dialectical / hermeneutical ethics and postmodern ethics) (which all rely on an underlying notion of the good). The Kantian position, then, devoid of all content, forbids the strict identification of this underlying good (we cannot know the good, because we must not know the good).
So morality isn't about happiness (it could be argued that the Nazis were happy serving their fatherland) - its about responsibility, an awareness, a knowledge, of knowing that one is committing, despite oneself, an act of radical evil. The quote from Zupancic yesterday notes this, the happy person who thinks they are a god is of little concern, it is the god who thinks they are merely a happy person that is frightening.
I'm not calling for a return to Kant, I'm just trying to highlight how Kant might still speak to us in a meaningful way, today.
ken