| OCR Text |
Show Rationality and the Structure of the Self, Volume II: A Kantian Conception 457 anomaly away; or else she may revise her stereotypic and limited conception of people in order to accommodate it. Thus (B) suggests that it is in theory possible for the xenophobe to reformulate and reform that conception in light of new data that disconfirms it, and so to bring her reciprocal stereotypes closer to open-ended inductive generalizations. Of course whether or not this occurs, and the extent to which it occurs, depends on the virulence of her xenophobia; and this, in turn, on the extent of her personal investment in her honorific, stereotypical self-conception. But to the extent that (B) is correct, to the extent that one can discern the personhood of someone who violates one's limited conception of people, pseudorational dismissal of the stranger as a person is not a viable option. By hypothesis the properties that constitute her identity as a person cannot be denied. Attempts to dissociate them, i.e. to dismiss them as insignificant, alien or without value have unacceptable implications for one's own which similarly must be pseudorationalized out of the picture. Moreover, attempts to rationalize them as flukes or mutations or illusions or exceptions to a rule undermine the universality of the rule itself. As in all such cases, pseudorationality does not, in fact, preserve the rational coherence of the self, but only the appearance of coherence in one's self-conception, by temporarily dismissing the theoretical anomaly that threatens it. In the event that a xenophobe is confronted with such a phenomenon, xenophobia conflicts with the requirements of literal self-preservation and finally must be sacrificed to it. So finally, the only way for this type of xenophobe to insure literal self-preservation against the intrusion of an anomalous person is to revise her reciprocal stereotypes of herself and others accordingly so as to integrate her. 6. Kant on the Xenophilia in Vertical Consistency There is evidence in the text of the first Critique that supports 5.(B) as Kant's preferred alternative as well. These are in those introductory, explicative sections of the Dialectic, in which Kant maintains that it is in the very nature of transcendent concepts of reason to have a breadth of scope that surpasses any set or series of empirical experiences we may have; indeed, to provide the simplest unifying principle for all of them and more. Thus, for example, he tells us that "the principle peculiar to reason in general, in its logical use, is: to find for the conditioned cognitions of the understanding the unconditioned whereby its unity is brought to completion" (1C, A 307/B 364). By the "conditioned," Kant means those experiences and rules that depend on an inferential relation to other, more inclusive principles that explain them. And by the "unconditioned," Kant means those principles, concepts or ideas of reason that are not themselves dependent on any further ones, but rather provide the explanation of all of them. What he is saying here is that rationality works interrogatively for us: Given some datum of experience we © Adrian Piper Research Archive Foundation Berlin |
