|Abstract||Contemporary Kantian ethics has given a wide berth to Kant's analyses of reason and the self in the Critique of Pure Reason.2 Perhaps this can be ascribed to P. F. Strawson's influential fulminations against Kant's transcendental psychology in The Bounds of Sense.3 Strawson's view was an expression – one of many – of a postwar behaviorist sensibility, in which the best conceptual analysis of interior mental life was no analysis at all. In recent years this sensibility has become increasingly anachronistic, both in ethics and in philosophy of mind, and is in need of reappraisal on these grounds alone. The neglect by contemporary Kantian ethicists of Kant's first Critique has been particularly unfortunate. It forecloses a deeper understanding of Kant's own ethical views, and robs us of valuable resources for addressing contemporary issues in metaethics and applied moral philosophy. It is virtually impossible to understand Kant's conception of the categorical imperative in isolation from his account of reason in the first Critique's Transcendental Dialectic; or his distinction between autonomy and heteronymy in isolation from his inchoate but suggestive formulation of the Two Standpoints Thesis in the Solution to the Third Antinomy; or his elaboration of that thesis itself in Chapter III of the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals4 in isolation from the chapter on Noumena and Phenomena, the Refutation of Idealism, and the Fourth Paralogism in the A Edition of the Critique. Of course this is not to deny that these concepts can be put to excellent and fruitful use independently of ascertaining what Kant himself meant by them. Moreover, the first Critique offers a developed conception of the self that provides a needed resource for defending Kantian ethics against Anti-Rationalist criticisms, such as that it is too abstract, alienating, altruistic, or detached from ordinary personal concerns to guide actual human behavior. The conception of the..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Sanford Budick (2010). Kant and Milton. Harvard University Press.
Kenneth R. Westphal (2004). Kant's Transcendental Proof of Realism. Cambridge University Press.
Avery Goldman (2010). An Antinomy of Political Judgment: Kant, Arendt, and the Role of Purposiveness in Reflective Judgment. [REVIEW] Continental Philosophy Review 43 (3):331-352.
Owen Ware (2010). Kant, Skepticism, and Moral Sensibility. Dissertation, University of Toronto
Andrea Rehberg, Becoming-Body: The Repetition of Kantian Critique in the Physiological Thinking of Nietzsche.
Avery Goldman (2002). The Metaphysics of Kantian Epistemology. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 76:239-252.
Sebastian Gardner (1999). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason. Routledge.
Randolph C. Wheeler (2008). Kantian Imperatives and Phenomenology's Original Forces: Kant's Imperatives and the Directives of Contemporary Phenomenology. Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads40 ( #33,678 of 722,764 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,764 )
How can I increase my downloads?