‘On Hegel’s Early Critique of Kant’s Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science’.
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In S. Houlgate (ed.), Hegel and the Philosophy of Nature. SUNY (1998)
In 1801 Hegel charged that, on Kant’s analysis, forces are ‘either purely ideal, in which case they are not forces, or else they are transcendent’. I argue that this objection, which Hegel did not spell out, reveals an important and fundamental line of internal criticism of Kant’s Critical philosophy. I show that Kant’s basic forces of attraction and repulsion, which constitute matter, are merely ideal because Kant’s arguments for them are circular and beg the question, and they have no determinate connection to any of the basic forces of Newtonian physics. Hence they are mere Gedankendinge. I argue further, that real physical forces transcend Kant’s analysis by showing that his proof of Newton’s law of inertia is unsound. I then show that this apparently specific disagreement underlies the enormous philosophical shift from Kant’s anti-naturalist transcendental idealism to Hegel’s naturalistic use of regressive, quasi-transcendental arguments.
|Keywords||causal realism transcendental idealism Kant's theory of matter Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science|
|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
Kenneth R. Westphal (1995). Does Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science Fill a Gap in the Critique of Pure Reason? Synthese 103 (1):43 - 86.
Kenneth R. Westphal (1995). ‘Kant’s Proof of the Law of Inertia’. In H. Robinson (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International Kant Congress. Marquette University Press.
Kenneth R. Westphal (2004). Kant's Transcendental Proof of Realism. Cambridge University Press.
Kenneth R. Westphal (1995). Kant's Dynamic Constructions. Journal of Philosophical Research 20:381-429.
Sally S. Sedgwick (ed.) (2000). The Reception of Kant's Critical Philosophy: Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. Cambridge University Press.
Toni Kannisto (2010). Three Problems in Westphal's Transcendental Proof of Realism. Kant-Studien 101 (2):227-246.
Kenneth R. Westphal (1996). ‘Kant, Hegel, and the Transcendental Material Conditions of Possible Experience’. Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 33:23-41.
Kenneth R. Westphal (1997). Affinity, Idealism and Naturalism: The Stability of Cinnabar and the Possibility of Experience. Kant-Studien 88 (2):139-189.
Michael Friedman (2012). Newton and Kant: Quantity of Matter in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (3):482-503.
Immanuel Kant (2004). Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Cambridge University Press.
Kenneth R. Westphal (2009). ‘Does Kant’s Opus Postumum Anticipate Hegel’s Absolute Idealism?’. In E.-O. Onnasch (ed.), Kants Philosophie der Natur. Ihre Entwicklung bis zum Opus postumum und Nachwirkung. deGruyter.
Randy Wojtowicz (1997). The Metaphysical Expositions of Space and Time. Synthese 113 (1):71-115.
Howard Duncan (1984). Inertia, the Communication of Motion, and Kant's Third Law of Mechanics. Philosophy of Science 51 (1):93-119.
John Hund (1998). Hegel's Break with Kant: The Leap From Individual Psychology to Sociology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 28 (2):226-243.
Dennis Schulting (2010). Kant's Idealism: The Current Debate. In Dennis Schulting Jacco Verburgt (ed.), Kant's Idealism. Springer.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-03-25
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?