Luisa Posada

The feminist critique has shown how Kant’s conception of the female sex breaks his pretended ethical universalism. The supposed male natural superiority, particularly expressed in his Die Metaphysik der Sitten, excludes women from rational autonomy and from the capacity for self-legislation. This exclusion is based on women’s own characteristics and makes women not participate in what Kant conceptualizes as distinctive of humanity. In addition to the critical-feminist revision of this incoherence, this text collects psychoanalyst Sarah Kofman’s analysis of Kant’s discourse on femininity. We will try to show here how the reading of this contemporary thinker, which is not carried out primarily from a critical-feminist perspective, nevertheless comes to coincide fully with it.

Para ocuparnos de las reflexiones butlerianas sobre la guerra y la resistencia a la violencia, nos va a interesar aquí comenzar por la revisión de la crítica feminista que habla también sobre la guerra. A partir de ahí, y de la común coincidencia sobre un proyecto de erradicación de la misma, nos interesarán las elaboraciones de Judith Butler. En torno a ejes como la vulnerabilidad, la precariedad y la inter- dependencia, estas elaboraciones sobre la guerra pueden leerse como una auténtica apuesta en esta pensadora por un replanteamiento de los límites de inteligibilidad de lo humano para abrirlos al proyecto, no imposible, de una convivencia libre de guerra y de violencia.

To speak about the inheritances of modern thought and to refer to Kant is something obvious. But when Putnam assures that Kant was “the first internal realist”, it is important to take it into account. Focusing only in the phase of this internal Putnamian realism– and particularly exactly as it is expressed in Reason, Truth and History-this work tries to detect some of the places in the Critique of Pure Reason which could back up this statement and give it sense. What both texts understand by rationality and truth will guide us to the place where – beyond the theoretical and historical distance – both philosophers coincide