Kant e as mídias sociais:: uma interpretação normativa a partir da razão pública e do Esclarecimento

Keberson Bresolin

doi:10.15448/1984-6746.2026.1.47642

Authors

Keberson Bresolin Federal University of Pelotas (UFPEL), Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5773-3270

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-6746.2026.1.47642

Keywords:

Kant, public reason, Enlightenment, sensus communis, epistemic and moral normativity, echo chambers

Abstract

This essay examines Kant’s conception of the public use of reason, analyzing its relationship with Enlightenment and its epistemic and moral normativity. Grounded in Was ist Aufklärung?, Logik, Kritik der Urteilskraft, and Anthropologie, the argument posits that the exercise of public reason requires the transcendence of the private horizon and the adoption of a universal horizon, characterized by sensus communis. This analysis enables a discussion on the conditions for the realization of freedom of expression as a fundamental principle of public reason, demonstrating that, in Kant, such freedom is not absolute but conditioned by ethical and epistemic normativity. In the contemporary context, the article problematizes the crisis of public reason in light of echo chambers in digital media, which undermine the universality of judgment by reinforcing sensus privatus. Drawing on Kantian normative structures, the study offers a critique of epistemic closure and digital polarization, highlighting the urgency of reclaiming the principles of public reason in a pluralistic democratic environment.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Keberson Bresolin, Federal University of Pelotas (UFPEL), Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

He holds degrees in Philosophy from the University of Caxias do Sul (2005) and Law from the Federal University of Pelotas (2020). He completed his master's degree (2007) and a joint-supervision doctorate (2012)—the latter in collaboration with the University of Tübingen, Germany, under the supervision of Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Otfried Höffe—at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul. From 2013 to 2014, he conducted postdoctoral research at the University of Tübingen with Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Otfried Höffe, supported by a scholarship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Currently, he is a professor in the Graduate Program in Philosophy at the Federal University of Pelotas (UFPel) and a collaborating professor in the Graduate Program in Philosophy at the Federal University of Rondônia. He also serves as the coordinator of the Distance Learning (EaD/UAB/UFPel) Philosophy Licentiate Degree Program and as the deputy coordinator of the Graduate Program in Philosophy at UFPel. He is a member of the Evaluator Pool for the National Higher Education Assessment System (BASis) of INEP/MEC. His research interests include Kantian philosophy and the contemporary intersection of political philosophy and the philosophy of law.

References

BRESOLIN, K. Kant e a ideia da Aufklärung. Studia Kantiana, Curitiba, v. 18, n. 19, p. 19-36, 2015.

CHUN, W. H. K. Queerying Homophily. Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft, Zürich, v. 18, n. 1, p. 132-148, 2018.

CINELLI, M.; MORALES, G. D. F.; GALEAZZI, A.; QUATTROCIOCCHI, W.; STARNINI, M. The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C, v. 118, n. 9, e2023301118, 2021.

DELIGIORGI, K. Dissatisfied Enlightenment: Certain Difficulties Concerning the Public Use of One’s Reason. Hegel Bulletin, Cambridge, v. 18, n. 01, p. 39-53, 1997.

FLEISCHACKER, S. What is Enlightenment? Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge, 2013. (Kant’s Questions).

GOLDENBAUM, U. Die öffentliche Debatte in der deutschen Aufklärung 1697-1796. In: GOLDENBAUM, U. (ed.). Appell an das Publikum: die öffentliche Debatte in der deutschen Aufklärung 1687-1796. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2004. p. 1-118.

HABERMAS, J. Überlegungen und Hypothesen zu einem erneuten Strukturwandel der politischen Öffentlichkeit. In: HABERMAS, Jürgen. Ein neuer Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit und die deliberative Politik. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2022. p. 9-68.

HÖFFE, O. Kants Kritik der praktischen Vernunft: Eine Philosophie der Freiheit. München: C. H. Beck, 2012.

KANT, I. Kants gesammelte Schriften. Hrsg. von der Königlich preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Bd. 1-22), von der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (Bd. 23), und von der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen (ab Bd. 24). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1900-.

KEIENBURG, J. Immanuel Kant und die Öffentlichkeit der Vernunft. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 2011. (Kantstudien. Ergänzungshefte).

MUNZEL, G. F. Kant on Moral Education, or “Enlightenment” and the Liberal Arts. The Review of Metaphysics, Washington, D.C., v. 57, n. 1, p. 43-73, Sept. 2003.

MUNZEL, G. F. Kant’s Conception of Moral Character: The “Critical” Link of Morality, Anthropology, And Reflective Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

O’NEILL, O. The Public Use of Reason. Political Theory, California, v. 14, n. 4, p. 523-551, Nov. 1986.

PASQUARÈ, R. On Kant’s concept of the public use of reason: a rehabilitation of orality. Estudos Kantianos, Marília, v. 8, n. 1, p. 101-110, 2020.

SAMARŽIJA, H. The Epistemology of Fanaticism: Echo Chambers and Fanaticism. In: TOWNSEND, L.; TIETJEN, R. R.; SCHMID, H. B.; STAUDIGL, Mi (org.). The Philosophy of Fanaticism: Epistemic, Affective, and Political Dimensions. New York: Routledge, 2023. p. 79-86.

SENSEN, O. Kant on Public Reason. TURNER, P. N.; GAUS, G. (ed.). Public Reason in Political Philosophy: Classic Sources and Contemporary Commentaries. New York: Routledge, 2018. p. 282-299.

TERREN, L.; BORGE, R. Echo Chambers on Social Media: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Review of Communication Research, Madrid, v. 9, p. 99-118, 2021.

ZÖLLER, Günter. Aufklärung über Aufklärung. Kants Konzeption des selbständigen, öffentlichen und gemeinschaftlichen Gebrauchs der Vernunft. In: KLEMME, Heiner F. (org.). Kant und die Zukunft der europäischen Aufklärung. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. p. 82-99.