{"id":8684,"date":"2022-12-22T13:40:00","date_gmt":"2022-12-22T10:40:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/turkiyekanttoplulugu.org\/?p=8684"},"modified":"2023-03-17T13:41:40","modified_gmt":"2023-03-17T10:41:40","slug":"suffering-from-indeterminacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/turkiyekanttoplulugu.org\/?p=8684&lang=en","title":{"rendered":"Suffering from Indeterminacy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Author: Zeynep Sava\u015f\u00e7\u0131n<\/em>
*This article is written in Turkish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHer insan, \u00e7abalamas\u0131yla, birincil olarak gelece\u011fe d\u00f6n\u00fck ya\u015far, ge\u00e7mi\u015f olan ancak sonradan gelir, sahici Bug\u00fcn ise hemen hi\u00e7bir zaman v\u00e2s\u0131l olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r hen\u00fcz\u201d.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                                      Ernst Bloch, Umut \u0130lkesi<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yaz\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda asl\u0131nda polemik bir bi\u00e7imde kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131m “belirlenimsizlik \u0131zd\u0131rab\u0131” ifadesi Axel Honneth’in, Hegel’in hukuk felsefesine g\u00fcncellik kazand\u0131rmay\u0131 ama\u00e7layan eserinin (Leiden an Unbestimmtheit: Eine Reaktualisierung der Hegelschen Rechtphilosophie<\/em>) ad\u0131nda yer al\u0131yor. Honneth’in Hegel’den devralarak bu eserde yer verdi\u011fi etik ya\u015fam teorisi, bireysel \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn ancak toplumsal \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck yoluyla ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilece\u011fi temel sav\u0131ndan hareket eder. Buna g\u00f6re \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesinde toplumsal kurumlar\u0131n yetersiz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131, patolojik deneyimlere neden oldu\u011fu durumlarda bireylerin ya\u015fant\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fey bir belirlenimsizlik \u0131zd\u0131rab\u0131d\u0131r. Hegel’e g\u00f6re bu belirlenimsizlik ayn\u0131 zamanda Kant’taki formel \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n da bir sonucudur. Hegel gen\u00e7lik eserlerinden ba\u015flayarak yasa ve ya\u015fam aras\u0131ndaki ikili\u011fe, b\u00f6l\u00fcnm\u00fc\u015fl\u00fc\u011fe kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kar; Kant’\u0131n felsefesini de bu b\u00f6l\u00fcnm\u00fc\u015fl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn teorisi olarak okur. Hegel’e g\u00f6re ahlak \u00f6devi ya\u015fam\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndan ne olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini buyuran bir yasad\u0131r. Bu yasan\u0131n insan\u0131n kendi kendine koydu\u011fu yasa olmas\u0131, olsa olsa efendiyi d\u0131\u015far\u0131dan i\u00e7e ta\u015f\u0131r. Ahlak yasas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6znesi, yasadan ayr\u0131 tuttu\u011fu ya\u015fam\u0131nda kendi kendisinin k\u00f6lesidir. (Werke<\/em> I: 323) Di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle yasadan kaynaklanan \u00f6dev bireylerin toplumsal ya\u015fant\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7indeki \u00e2detleri, al\u0131\u015fkanl\u0131klar\u0131, gelenekleri, hatta ihtiya\u00e7lar\u0131yla uzla\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, bu durum bireyleri toplumsal kurumlar\u0131n ve pratiklerin normatif olan\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmedeki yetersizli\u011finden kaynaklanan bir belirlenimsizlik i\u00e7inde b\u0131rak\u0131r. Burada Hegel’in ele\u015ftirisi Kant’\u0131n \u00f6zerklik olarak \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik de\u011fildir, aksine ona g\u00f6re irade ancak Kant felsefesindeki \u00f6zerklik d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesiyle sars\u0131lmaz bir temel ve hareket noktas\u0131 kazanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. (Werke<\/em> VII: 252) Ne var ki s\u0131ra bu \u00f6zerklik bilincinin belirlenimlerini anlamaya, onu tarih i\u00e7inde kendisini nas\u0131l ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirdi\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131karmaya geldi\u011finde ele\u015ftirel felsefe adeta geri ad\u0131m atar, yasay\u0131 ya\u015fam\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131na yerle\u015ftirir; ahlak yasas\u0131ndan hareketle olmas\u0131 gerekeni d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnen \u00f6zneyi toplumsal ya\u015fam i\u00e7inde belirlenmi\u015f yasalar gere\u011fi eyleyen \u00f6zneden ay\u0131r\u0131r. Kant’\u0131n “Ayd\u0131nlanma Nedir?” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 k\u0131sa yaz\u0131s\u0131 bu ayr\u0131m\u0131 do\u011frularcas\u0131na tesis edilmi\u015f pozitif yasalara itaati bir y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck ortaya koyarken, \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc adil olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclen yasalar\u0131n ele\u015ftirilmesiyle s\u0131n\u0131rlar, b\u00f6ylece “d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc” ya da “kalem \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc” ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc t\u00fcm\u00fcyle d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin hanesine yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve onun eylemle ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kopard\u0131\u011f\u0131 izlenimini verir. (AK, VIII: 37-41) Oysa belirlenimsizli\u011fin \u00f6znelerde yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0131zd\u0131rab\u0131n, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce ve eylem aras\u0131ndaki bo\u015flu\u011fun Kant’ta yaln\u0131zca bir s\u0131n\u0131ra, \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesinin imk\u00e2ns\u0131z olu\u015funa i\u015faret etmedi\u011fini, bu bo\u015flu\u011fun ayn\u0131 zamanda pratik akl\u0131n normatif g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn hukuki ve politik alanda a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir ufku m\u00fcjdeledi\u011fini g\u00f6rmek gerekir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kant’ta ahl\u00e2k yasas\u0131 t\u00fcm “belirlenmi\u015f” yasalar\u0131n normudur, ancak bu belirlenmi\u015f yasalar pratik akl\u0131n kendisi taraf\u0131ndan \u00fcretilmezler. Pratik akl\u0131n a priori<\/em> ilkeleri aras\u0131nda yer alan hukuk normlar\u0131 ile tarihin \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc olan hukukun ampirik ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi metodolojik olarak birbirinden ayr\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ancak Kant, ona y\u00f6neltilen ele\u015ftirilerin merkezinde yer alan d\u00fcalizm sorununu ne g\u00f6z ard\u0131 eder ne de \u00f6nemsizle\u015ftirir. Onun eserleri akl\u0131n teorik ve pratik kullan\u0131mlar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki, buna ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak da insan\u0131n moral varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile duyulur d\u00fcnyas\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkinin kurulmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir \u00e7aban\u0131n s\u00fcrekli olarak g\u00fcndemde oldu\u011fu eserlerdir. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc Kritik bu \u00e7abay\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ifade eder: “\u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck kavram\u0131 yasalar\u0131n\u0131n i\u015faret etti\u011fi amac\u0131 duyulur d\u00fcnyada etkin k\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r”. (AK, V: 176) Bu ama\u00e7 ku\u015fkusuz ko\u015fulsuz buyru\u011fun ikinci form\u00fcl\u00fcnde dile gelen, bir kendinde ama\u00e7 olarak insanl\u0131kt\u0131r (AK, IV: 429) ve her birimiz i\u00e7in bir \u00f6devdir. \u0130nsanl\u0131k ideas\u0131 ve onun temelinde hukukun idealar\u0131 olan cumhuriyet\u00e7ilik, kozmopolitizm ve ebedi bar\u0131\u015f, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcl\u00fcr olan\u0131 bir ama\u00e7 olarak duyulur d\u00fcnyaya yans\u0131tan idealard\u0131r. Bu idealar yoluyla insan, do\u011fal nedensellikle \u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fc ili\u015fkilerden ibaret olan ve o do\u011fan\u0131n bir par\u00e7as\u0131 olarak i\u00e7inde yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 mekanizmi bozmadan, duyulur d\u00fcnyay\u0131 \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn, kendi kendine yasa koyma yetisinin k\u0131lavuzlu\u011funda d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnebilir, anlamland\u0131rabilir ve sorgulayabilir. Buna imk\u00e2n veren \u015fey ne teorik akl\u0131n bilgi \u00fcreten belirleyici yarg\u0131lar\u0131d\u0131r ne de pratik akl\u0131n olmas\u0131 gerekeni bildiren belirleyici yarg\u0131lar\u0131, yani \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn a priori <\/em>normlar\u0131. D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcl\u00fcr olan\u0131n, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla idealar\u0131n duyulur olan \u00fczerindeki etkisini m\u00fcmk\u00fcn k\u0131lan yarg\u0131lar teleolojik d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fcn yarg\u0131lar\u0131d\u0131r. Bu yarg\u0131lar\u0131n a<\/em> priori<\/em> ilkesi olan ve nihai olarak ahlak yasas\u0131na g\u00f6nderen ereksellik, “d\u00fcnyan\u0131n tema\u015fas\u0131n\u0131n […] bir de\u011fere sahip olmas\u0131n\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn k\u0131lan” \u015feydir (AK V: 442). Olgu olarak hukuku ve siyasal prati\u011fi, ahlak teorisinin bir par\u00e7as\u0131 olan normatif hukuk a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ele almam\u0131z, onlar\u0131n hukuk \u00f6devi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan de\u011ferini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmemiz, yarg\u0131 yetisinin ereksel<\/em> d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcm<\/em> faaliyeti sayesinde m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olur. Bu yeti tikel olan\u0131 bilgi d\u00fczeyinde bir kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olmayan, bu anlamda “belirlenimsiz” bir t\u00fcmelin alt\u0131na yerle\u015ftirmemize izin verir. (AK, V: 178-180) Kant’\u0131n k\u0131sa yaz\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7o\u011funda, \u00f6zellikle de hukuk, politika ve tarih \u00fczerine yaz\u0131lar\u0131nda ereksel yarg\u0131lar\u0131n \u00f6nemli bir rol\u00fc oldu\u011funu farkederiz. Bunlardan biri de Yayg\u0131n bir s\u00f6z \u00fcst\u00fcne: ‘Teoride do\u011fru olabilir ama pratikte i\u015fe yaramaz’<\/em> ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 eseridir. Tam da teori ve pratik aras\u0131ndaki kopukluk ele\u015ftirisine cevap veren bu metin, toplumsall\u0131\u011f\u0131 kurucu “k\u00f6kensel s\u00f6zle\u015fme”yi hem yasa koyucunun hem de yurtta\u015flar\u0131n yasayla ili\u015fkilerinin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fc olarak belirler. Yukar\u0131da bahsetti\u011fim hukuk idealar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7ekirde\u011fi olan “k\u00f6kensel s\u00f6zle\u015fme” de sadece bir idead\u0131r, tarihsel bir olgu olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclemeyece\u011fi i\u00e7in bilgimizin konusu de\u011fildir. Ancak bu durum onun pratik ger\u00e7ekli\u011finden bir \u015fey eksiltmez. K\u00f6kensel s\u00f6zle\u015fme var olan hukuki d\u00fczenin adaleti, yurtta\u015flar\u0131n kamusal hukuk alt\u0131ndaki eylemleri i\u00e7in bir \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct olu\u015fturdu\u011fu i\u00e7in bu pratik ger\u00e7ekli\u011fe sahiptir. T\u0131pk\u0131 insan\u0131n kendine yasa koyan varl\u0131k olarak bir kendinde ama\u00e7 olmas\u0131 gibi, yasalara itaat edenlerin ve yasalar\u0131 koyanlar\u0131n ayn\u0131 \u00f6zneler oldu\u011fu, kendi kendisinin amac\u0131 olan bir toplumu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmemize imk\u00e2n verir. Bu amaca uygun \u015fekilde eylemenin ko\u015fulu, yasalar\u0131n “halk\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131n birle\u015fmi\u015f iradesinden” kaynaklanm\u0131\u015f gibi<\/em> d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclmesidir. (AK, VIII: 297) Toplumun hukuki temelini b\u00f6yle anlamak, \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc var olan yasal d\u00fczenin kurumlar\u0131na ve pratiklerine teslim etmemek, toplumsall\u0131\u011f\u0131 hep bir \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fme dinami\u011finin \u00e7er\u00e7evesi olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmek anlam\u0131na gelir. Benzer bi\u00e7imde Kant, insan\u0131n ergin olmama halinden \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131 olarak nitelendirdi\u011fi Ayd\u0131nlanma’y\u0131 da bir d\u00f6nem olarak ele almak yerine ayn\u0131 dinami\u011fe ili\u015fkin bir s\u00fcre\u00e7 olarak de\u011ferlendirir. Ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn bir \u015fimdisi yoktur, insan \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc hep bir \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fme \u00e7abas\u0131d\u0131r, ya da insan \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ancak bir \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fme \u00e7abas\u0131 olarak deneyimler.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hegel\u2019in ele\u015ftirisine \u015f\u00f6yle kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kabiliriz: Kant\u2019\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcl\u00fcr ve duyulur d\u00fcnyalar aras\u0131nda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ayr\u0131m insan \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn deneyim alan\u0131n\u0131 yasa ve ya\u015fam\u0131 bir sistem i\u00e7inde uzla\u015ft\u0131rarak de\u011fil, yasay\u0131 ya\u015fam \u00fczerine d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmenin, onu sorgulaman\u0131n, ele\u015ftirmenin ve ona dair arzulan\u0131r bir d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcme y\u00f6n vermenin ilkesi haline d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrerek a\u00e7ar. Pratik akl\u0131n idealar\u0131 bize ancak y\u00fcz\u00fcm\u00fcz\u00fc d\u00f6nmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc<\/em> oldu\u011fumuz y\u00f6n\u00fc g\u00f6sterirler: Devlet hukukunun \u00e7er\u00e7evesi i\u00e7inde bu y\u00f6n cumhuriyeti i\u015faret eder; devletler ve bu devletlerin vatanda\u015flar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkilerde ise bir d\u00fcnya devletleri federasyonuyla tesis edilecek kozmopolit hukuk y\u00f6n g\u00f6sterici ilkedir. Ebedi bar\u0131\u015f ideas\u0131 \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fme \u00e7abas\u0131n\u0131n ancak ebedi istirahatte dinece\u011fini duyururcas\u0131na t\u00fcm bu idealar\u0131n \u00fczerinde yer alarak, hukuk ve eti\u011fi d\u00fcnya ve insanl\u0131k i\u00e7in d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnebilece\u011fimiz nihai ama\u00e7ta bulu\u015fturur. Simon Goyard-Fabre\u2019\u0131n s\u00f6zleriyle, Kant\u2019\u0131n \u201cHukuk \u00d6\u011fretisi<\/em> hukuk \u00fczerine bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme bi\u00e7imi \u00f6nerir, bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme bi\u00e7iminde idealar\u0131n d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flevinin beraberinde getirdi\u011fi dinamik, pratik akl\u0131n niyetlerinin ve kapasitelerinin a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131ndan ba\u015fka bir \u015fey de\u011fildir\u201d. Bu \u00f6\u011fretinin bize \u00f6\u011fretti\u011fi en \u00f6nemli \u015fey belki de \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011funda insan\u0131n \u201cd\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme ihtiyac\u0131n\u0131n bilme ihtiyac\u0131ndan daha derin\u201d[2]<\/a> oldu\u011fudur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Elbette Kant\u2019ta bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme ihtiyac\u0131n\u0131n somut \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fme deneyimlerinden kopuklu\u011funa, Hegel\u2019in formel \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck ele\u015ftirisini takip eden teorilerin yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, itiraz edilebilir. Ancak bu itiraz, belirlenimsizli\u011fin normatif olan\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131y\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 olan toplumsal kurum ve pratikler yoluyla a\u015f\u0131labilece\u011fini savunmakla ayn\u0131 anlama gelmez. Claude Lefort demokrasilerin ve insan haklar\u0131n\u0131n toplumsal biraradal\u0131\u011f\u0131n anlam\u0131 \u00fczerinde yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131klarken, Kant\u00e7\u0131 \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n vazge\u00e7ilemez olan y\u00f6n\u00fcn\u00fc de hat\u0131rlat\u0131r bize. S\u00f6z konusu d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcmde hukuk \u201cher bireyde mevcut olan bir insan do\u011fas\u0131\u201d d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda hi\u00e7bir ilkeye ba\u011flanmaz ve iktidar\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda yer al\u0131r. Lefort\u2019a g\u00f6re demokratik toplumlar, insan haklar\u0131n\u0131n sembolik boyutu sayesinde bir \u201cbo\u015fluk\u201dtan hareketle kendilerini tesis eder ve d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fcrler. Di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle, haklar\u0131 tesis etmekle yetkili makam\u0131 s\u00fcrekli olarak doldurmaya meyilli olan totaliter rejimlerin aksine, demokrasilerde \u201cDevlet, Toplum, Halk ve Ulus\u201d gibi b\u00fct\u00fcnler \u201cbir insan ideas\u0131n\u0131n damgas\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131rlar\u201d ve bu sayede ele ge\u00e7irilemez, cisimle\u015ftirilemez, \u201ctan\u0131mlanamaz\u201d olarak kal\u0131rlar[3]<\/a>. Toplumun s\u00fcrekli olarak kendi \u00fczerine, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla tesis edilmi\u015f olan haklar \u00fczerine bir sorgulama ve yeni haklara a\u00e7\u0131lan bir d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm dinami\u011finin mek\u00e2n\u0131 olmas\u0131 bu sayede m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. \u00d6yleyse \u0131zd\u0131rap, bazen tam da teorinin i\u015faret etti\u011fi ilkeye k\u00f6r bir prati\u011fin, \u201cbo\u015fluk\u201dun ele ge\u00e7irilmesinin yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0131zd\u0131rap de\u011fil midir?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kaynak\u00e7a:<\/p>\n\n\n\n