David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 72 (1):111–130 (1998)
[Michael Friedman] This paper considers the extent to which Kant's vision of a distinctively 'transcendental' task for philosophy is essentially tied to his views on the foundations of the mathematical and physical sciences. Contemporary philosophers with broadly Kantian sympathies have attempted to reinterpret his project so as to isolate a more general philosophical core not so closely tied to the details of now outmoded mathematical-physical theories (Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics). I consider two such attempts, those of Strawson and McDowell, and argue that they fundamentally distort the original Kantian impulse. I then consider Buchdahl's attempt to preserve the link between Kantian philosophy and the sciences while simultaneously generalizing Kant's doctrines in light of later scientific developments. I argue that Buchdahl's view, while not adequate as in interpretation of Kant in his own eighteenth century context, is nonetheless suggestive of an historicized and relativized revision of Kantianism that can do justice to both Kant's original philosophical impulse and the radical changes in the sciences that have occurred since Kant's day. ***********[Graham Bird] Michael Friedman criticises some recent accounts of Kant which 'detach' his transcendental principles from the sciences, and do so in order to evade naturalism. I argue that Friedman's rejection of that 'detachment' is ambiguous. In its strong form, which I claim Kant rejects, the principles of Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics are represented as transcendental principles. In its weak form, which I believe Kant accepts, it treats those latter principles as higher order conditions of the possibility of both science and ordinary experience. I argue also that the appeal to naturalism is unhelpful because that doctrine is seriously unclear, and because the accounts Friedman criticises are open to objections independent of any appeal to naturalism.
|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
Graham Bird (2011). Replies to My Critics. Kantian Review 16 (2):257-282.
Similar books and articles
Scott Tanona (2000). The Anticipation of Necessity: Kant on Kepler's Laws and Universal Gravitation. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):421-443.
Amit Hagar (2008). Kant and Non-Euclidean Geometry. Kant-Studien 99 (1):80-98.
Sami Pihlström & Arto Siitonen (2005). The Transcendental Method and (Post-)Empiricist Philosophy of Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 36 (1):81 - 106.
Jonathan Y. Tsou (2003). A Role for Reason in Science. Dialogue 42 (3):573-598.
Michael Friedman (1992). Kant and the Exact Sciences. Harvard University Press.
Béatrice Longuenesse (2001). Synthesis, Logical Forms, and the Objects of Our Ordinary Experience: Response to Michael Friedman. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 83 (2):199-212.
Peter Ospald (2010). Michael Friedmans Behandlung Des unterschieDes Zwischen Arithmetik Und Algebra Bei Kant in Kant and the Exact Sciences. Kant-Studien 101 (1):75-88.
Michael Friedman (2001). Dynamics of Reason: The 1999 Kant Lectures at Stanford University. Csli Publications.
Paul Redding (2010). Two Directions for Analytic Kantianism : Naturalism and Idealism. In Mario de Caro & David Macarthur (eds.), Naturalism and Normativity. Columbia University Press.
Michael Friedman (2002). Kant, Kuhn, and the Rationality of Science. Philosophy of Science 69 (2):171-90.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads89 ( #15,413 of 1,101,746 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #24,761 of 1,101,746 )
How can I increase my downloads?