???? ??????? ??? ??? (Kant¡¯s radical Evil as the Limit Situation of Human Species)

??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??. ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????, ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???. ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????, ? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??. ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??. ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ? ???.
?? ???? ??? ? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????. 1) ¡®?? ??? ??? ???¡¯? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ? ??? ???? ??? ???. ??? ??? ? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???. ?? ?? ??? 2) ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???. ?? ??? ??? ??? ¡®????? ????¡¯?? ??? ???, ¡®???¡¯? ?? ??? ??? ¡®????? ????¡¯ ???, ? ??? ??? ?????? ? ??? ??? ? ? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ? ???. 3) ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??? ? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ? ???. ?? ??? ?? ??? ¡®???¡¯? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????, ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ¡®??? ???¡¯ ? ??? ? ??? ??? ??? ???.

Kant attempts to present a practical answer to the responsibility of malice by dealing with the problem of malice which is arbitrarily and insufficiently treated in the theodicy tradition as a human problem. To this end, Kant first excludes natural evil from the problem of evil, and deals with the problem of evil only with regard to human moral conduct. Kant seeks to establish that, through the fundamental concept, evil exists in all human actions, and that the ultimate responsibility of this evil is not of God or of nature, but of human being, a party to certain acts. Furthermore, Kant tries to establish human beings as the subject of responsibility for paying for evil, and at the same time, as the subject of historical progress which must be tried to escape from evil deeds. In order to examine the original meaning of Kant's fundamental concept, we will illuminate Kant's fundamental concept from an existential philosophical point of view and further interpret it from a historical philosophical point of view.
For this purpose, we have composed this essay as follows. 1) We will examine the validity of this argument by reconstructing Kant¡¯s argument about the universality of evil in which ¡®all human beings are evil in nature.¡¯ Here we will reveal the structure and limitations of this argument. Then we will define 2) the limits of Kant¡¯s argument about the universality of evil not as the limits of the argument itself but as the limits of the human being. In addition, we will interpret these limitations as ¡®the limit situation of human existence¡¯, and Kant¡¯s discussion of ¡®radical evil¡¯, while acknowledging the limits of human existence as a limit, I will interpret it as a Trying to present the best choices and goals that humans can do. 3) Furthermore, we will consider the contemporary significance and historical philosophical significance of this concept beyond the point of defending or countering Kant¡¯s radical evil as in the existing research. For the above work, we will suggest a hypothesis that the concept of ¡®the radicla evil¡¯ can be one of Kant¡¯s ¡®transcendental interpretation framework¡¯ in order to establish human beings as moral responsibility and historical progressive subject even before the limit situation of existence. In addition, it will suggest a hypothesis that Kant might be one of the ¡°transcendental interpretive frameworks¡± that Kant has envisioned human beings as a historical subject to lead a morally advanced life.