David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Dissertation, Boston College (2006)
In what follows, I will detail Kant's criticism of the Leibnizian conception of mind as it is presented in key chapters of the Kritik der reinen Vernunft . Approaching Kant with such a focus goes against the current predominant in contemporary Kant scholarship. Kant's engagement with Leibniz in the KrV is often taken as limited to the refutation of the latter's relational theory of space and time in the Aesthetic and the general criticism presented in the Amphiboly chapter, inasmuch as Kant is taken to be primarily concerned with addressing empiricist opponents (a focus particularly evident in the English-language commentary). In addition, the argument against rational psychology in the Paralogisms is taken as challenging an essentially Cartesian position. The first two chapters of this project will introduce the Leibnizian conception of the mind, contrasting it with its Cartesian predecessor, and consider the career of the Leibnizian conception in the schools of 18th century Germany. As I will show, it was the Leibnizian conception of mind that held sway, despite scattered challenges, and that would have primarily been on Kant's mind when he turned to consider the extravagant claims of metaphysical psychology. In chapters 3-5, I turn to Kant's criticism of this conception as presented in the Transcendental Analytic of the KrV . There, I show how the subjective and objective deductions, in addition to the Amphiboly chapter, all address the Leibnizian claim of a parallelism between the investigations of the mental and the physical. In chapters 6-8, I consider the case against the Leibnizian conception of mind as presented in the Transcendental Dialectic, claiming that the doctrine of transcendental illusion plays an important (though largely ignored) role in explaining the grounds of the Leibnizian conception as it is transmitted in the rational psychology of Wolff, Baumgarten, Crusius, and Kant himself in the 1770's. Moreover, I argue that the limits Kant sets to empirical psychology are consistent with his criticism of the Leibnizian conception of mind, and, significantly, are motivated by deeper practical concerns.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Anja Jauernig (2008). Kant's Critique of the Leibnizian Philosophy : Contra the Leibnizians, but Pro Leibniz. In Daniel Garber & Béatrice Longuenesse (eds.), Kant and the Early Moderns. Princeton University Press 41-63.
Corey W. Dyck (2014). Kant and Rational Psychology. Oxford University Press.
Corey W. Dyck (2009). The Divorce of Reason and Experience: Kant's Paralogisms of Pure Reason in Context. Journal of the History of Philosophy 47 (2):pp. 249-275.
Thomas Sturm (2001). How Not to Investigate the Human Mind: Kant on the Impossibility of Empirical Psychology. In Eric Watkins (ed.), Kant and the Sciences. Oxford University Press
Markku Roinila (2013). Kant and Leibniz on the Singularity of the Best of All Possible Worlds. In Stefano Bacin, Alfredo Ferrarin, Laudio La Rocca & Margit Ruffin (eds.), Kant und die Philosophie in weltbürgerlicher Absicht. Akten des XI. Kant-Kongresses 2010. De Gruyter 381-390.
Eric Watkins (2004). Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality. Cambridge University Press.
Randy Wojtowicz (1997). The Metaphysical Expositions of Space and Time. Synthese 113 (1):71-115.
E. Watkins (2003). Forces and Causes in Kant's Early Pre-Critical Writings. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 34 (1):5-27.
Edward MacKinnon (1978). The Development of Kant's Conception of Scientific Explanation. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1978:18 - 30.
Thomas Sturm (2006). Is There a Problem with Mathematical Psychology in the Eighteenth Century? A Fresh Look at Kant’s Old Argument. . Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 42:353-377.
Melissa McBay Merritt (2011). Kant's Argument for the Apperception Principle. European Journal of Philosophy 19 (1):59-84.
Corey W. Dyck (2011). Turning the Game Against the Idealist: Mendelssohn's Refutation of Idealism and Kant's Replies. In R. W. Munk (ed.), Mendelssohn's Aesthetics and Metaphysics.
Antonio-Maria Nunziante & Alberto Vanzo (2009). Representing Subjects, Mind-Dependent Objects: Kant, Leibniz, and the Amphiboly. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 17 (1):133-151.
Henry E. Allison (1996). Idealism and Freedom: Essays on Kant's Theoretical and Practical Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Adrian M. S. Piper (1993). Xenophobia and Kantian Rationalism. Philosophical Forum 24 (1-3):188-232.
Added to index2010-09-08
Total downloads36 ( #112,971 of 1,907,654 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #340,539 of 1,907,654 )
How can I increase my downloads?