This is an appreciative critical comment on Hannah Ginsborg’s book, The Normativity of Nature. The comment expresses agreement with the book’s general theme that normativity is a broad feature of human experience that cannot be explained by attention to prior rules, but it also suggests that this view may be compatible with some ideas that Kant has with respect to to what can be regarded as objectively aesthetic features of nature.

Regardless of one’s particular philosophical interests and convictions, it is evident that the notion of autonomy is an important one. However, agreement about the nature of autonomy and about what it requires has proven elusive in contemporary discussions. In Kant and the Fate of Autonomy Karl Ameriks addresses this impasse by going back to the historical roots of this notion in Kant and arguing that many contemporary conceptions of autonomy are based on misunderstandings of Kant’s position, misunderstandings that first (...) arose in his immediate successors, Reinhold, Fichte, and Hegel. However, Ameriks does not aim merely to set the historical record straight; he wants to suggest that Kant’s actual position on autonomy is much more attractive philosophically than either what he refers to as “pure Kantian” conceptions or positions that are similar in basic respects to those of Rorty, Taylor, Larmore, and other post-Kantians. That Ameriks is able to combine remarkable sensitivity toward an extremely broad range of obscure texts with striking clarity and philosophical sophistication in evaluating the positions and arguments laid bare by his exegetical analyses makes his book an extraordinarily rich contribution to our contemporary philosophical landscape. (shrink)

Karl Ameriks has recently devoted an entire volume to defending what he calls "orthodox" Kantianism against what he judges to be the "errors" of such post-Kantian idealists as K. L. Reinhold and J. G. Fichte and to exposing what he claims is the frequently unnoticed but always deleterious influence of post-Kantianism upon certain prominent strands of contemporary philosophy. In response, this paper challenges Ameriks' interpretation of Kantianism itself and of the "post-Kantian project", as well as his construal of (...) transcendental idealism. This is followed by some remarks concerning Reinhold's and Fichte's actual "arguments" for transcendental idealism and a rejection of Ameriks' characterizations of the same. Ameriks' interpretation of "the primacy of the practical" within Fichte's philosophy is also analyzed and criticized, as are his unsubstantiated claims concerning the powerful "indirect" influence of the writings of Reinhold and Fichte upon contemporary philosophy. (shrink)

Karl Ameriks has recently devoted an entire volume to defending what he calls "orthodox" Kantianism against what he judges to be the "errors" of such post-Kantian idealists as K. L. Reinhold and J. G. Fichte and to exposing what he claims is the frequently unnoticed but always deleterious influence of post-Kantianism upon certain prominent strands of contemporary philosophy. In response, this paper challenges Ameriks' interpretation of Kantianism itself and of the "post-Kantian project", as well as his construal of (...) transcendental idealism. This is followed by some remarks concerning Reinhold's and Fichte's actual "arguments" for transcendental idealism and a rejection of Ameriks' characterizations of the same. Ameriks' interpretation of "the primacy of the practical" within Fichte's philosophy is also analyzed and criticized, as are his unsubstantiated claims concerning the powerful "indirect" influence of the writings of Reinhold and Fichte upon contemporary philosophy. (shrink)

In his rich and complex narrative of the different routes of Anglo-American philosophy in the past decades, Karl Ameriks diagnoses a recent and growing “interest in the metaphysical side of German philosophy.” What is more, he embraces this “metaphysical turn,” arguing that there is “no responsible way” to approach the merits of the classical German tradition without engaging such metaphysical questions. Since both the content of his diagnosis and his plea for a renewed engagement with ‘metaphysics’ depend on his (...) specific use of this term, I will make two comments meant to clarify Ameriks’ understanding of this concept. I will suggest that, if we abide by his specific conception, much of the ‘new desire for metaphysics’ that the editors of this volume see at work in contemporary philosophy will remain unsatisfied. The first indication of this lies in the fact that, (I) it seems far from obvious that ‘metaphysical’ philosophy as Ameriks understands it is actually opposed to a number of self-proclaimed ‘post-metaphysical’ projects in contemporary philosophy. The second, more substantive point I want to highlight (II) is the specifically modest, defensive, and reflexive understanding of metaphysics that underlies Ameriks’ account. (shrink)