David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Southern Journal of Philosophy 47 (4):403-431 (2009)
The goal of this paper is to articulate a new solution to Kant’s third antinomy of pure reason, one that establishes the possibility ofincompatibilist freedom—the freedom presupposed by our traditional conceptions of moral responsibility, moral worth, and justice—without relying on the doctrine of transcendental idealism (TI). A discussion of Henry Allison’s “two-aspect” interpretation of Kant’s TI allows me both to criticize one of the best defenses of TI today and to advance my own TI-free solution to the third antinomy by appeal to a thesis of epistemic modesty based on Paul Guyer’s realist interpretation of Kant’s theory of experience. According to this interpretation, the a priori forms of our sensibility and understanding are not forms that the mind imposes on a material whose real properties are unknowable to us but are instead forms that limit or filter the kinds of things we can experience and know. In particular, being causally determined is a real feature of things as they are in themselves, but the necessity and universality of our deterministic claims are relative, restricted to the objects of possible experience. Consequently, though a causally determined event cannot be free, the necessity and universality of determinism does not entail that free events (choices) cannot exist but that they cannot constitute objects of possible experience. After arguing that freedom is possible, I outline an argument for the reality of freedom, based on therequirements of morality. Finally, I argue that my view, though opposed to metaphysical naturalism, is consistent with scientific realism and methodological 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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Simon Shengjian Xie (2009). What is Kant: A Compatibilist or an Incompatibilist? A New Interpretation of Kant's Solution to the Free Will Problem. Kant-Studien 100 (1):53-76.
Iuliana Corina Vaida (2014). The Problem of Agency and the Problem of Accountability in Kant's Moral Philosophy. European Journal of Philosophy 22 (1):110-137.
Henry E. Allison (1990). Kant's Theory of Freedom. Cambridge University Press.
Timo Jütten (2012). Adorno on Kant, Freedom and Determinism. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (4):548-574.
Vance G. Morgan (1994). Foreknowledge and Human Freedom in Augustine. Journal of Philosophical Research 19:223-242.
Patrick Frierson (2010). Two Standpoints and the Problem of Moral Anthropology. In James Krueger & Benjamin Bruxvoort Lipscomb (eds.), Kant's Moral Metaphysics. Walter Degruyter. 83.
Elif Çirakman (2007). Heidegger's Concept of Human Freedom. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 11:41-47.
Susanne Bobzien (1988). Die Kategorien Der Freiheit Bei Kant (Kant's Categories of Freedom). Kant 1:193-220.
William S. Wilkerson (2009). In the World but Not Of the World. Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 14 (1):113-129.
Iain Morrisson (2007). Moral and Nonmoral Freedom in Kant. Southern Journal of Philosophy 45 (1):129-148.
Lara Denis (2010). Review: McCarty, Kant's Theory of Action. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Philosophy 48 (4):533-535.
Kenneth R. Westphal (2001). Freedom and the Distinction Between Phenomena and Noumena: Is Allison's View Methodological, Metaphysical, or Equivocal? Journal of Philosophical Research 26:593-622.
Added to index2010-09-14
Total downloads23 ( #79,922 of 1,101,939 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #306,569 of 1,101,939 )
How can I increase my downloads?