Christian August Crusius

As far as treatments of causation are concerned, the pre-Kantian 18th century German context has long been dismissed as a period of uniform and unrepentant Leibnizian dogmatism. While there is no question that discussions of issues relating to causation in this period inevitably took Leibniz as their point of departure, it is certainly not the case that the resulting positions were in most cases dogmatically, or in some cases even recognizably, Leibnizian. Instead, German theorists explored a range of positions regarding (...) the nature of causal powers, the appropriate systems to explain the observed agreement between the states of substances, and the ground of free actions, or so I will argue in this chapter. Focusing on these three issues, I will here sketch the development of the debates relating to causation and trace the evolution of positions among the philosophers within the so-called Leibnizian-Wolffian philosophy as well as among its many opponents. (shrink)

Ernst Mayr argued that the emergence of biology as a special science in the early nineteenth century was possible due to the demise of the mathematical model of science and its insistence on demonstrative knowledge. More recently, John Zammito has claimed that the rise of biology as a special science was due to a distinctive experimental, anti-metaphysical, anti-mathematical, and anti-rationalist strand of thought coming from outside of Germany. In this paper we argue that this narrative neglects the important role played (...) by the mathematical and axiomatic model of science in the emergence of biology as a special science. We show that several major actors involved in the emergence of biology as a science in Germany were working with an axiomatic conception of science that goes back at least to Aristotle and was popular in mid-eighteenth-century German academic circles due to its endorsement by Christian Wolff. More specifically, we show that at least two major contributors to the emergence of biology in Germany—Caspar Friedrich Wolff and Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus—sought to provide a conception of the new science of life that satisfies the criteria of a traditional axiomatic ideal of science. Both C.F. Wolff and Treviranus took over strong commitments to the axiomatic model of science from major philosophers of their time, Christian Wolff and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, respectively. The ideal of biology as an axiomatic science with specific biological fundamental concepts and principles thus played a role in the emergence of biology as a special science. (shrink)

This article aims to highlight the extent to which Kant’s account of belief draws on the views of his contemporaries. Situating the non-evidentialist features of Crusius’s account of belief within his broader account, I argue that they include antecedents to both Kant’s distinction between pragmatic and moral belief and his conception of a postulate of pure practical reason. While moving us closer to Kant’s arguments for the first postulate, however, both Crusius’s and Meier’s arguments for the immortality of the soul (...) fail to anticipate the most important aspect of their Kantian counterparts. Developing the non-evidentialist features of Basedow’s account of belief, I distinguish it from its Pascalian and Jamesian relatives and argue that it is the clearest antecedent to Kant’s arguments for the first and second postulates. Finally, I consider the development of Kant’s account of belief after the first Critique in light of the foregoing, and discuss the broader implications of my analysis. (shrink)

The extent of the originality and relevance of Kant's ethics is undeniable. But it is not so evident the fact that the Kant's moral philosophy as a whole was not suddenly built, but it was dependent on a profound debate with the philosophical tradition, especially with the German scholastic tradition, a debate which led to the assimilation or appropriation of several of its aspects. With special regard to the history of the development of the categorical imperative, it is not possible (...) to be indifferent to the influence of the practical philosophy of the Enlightenment German philosopher and theologian, Christian August Crusius. The aim of this article is thus to try to identify, taking into account the distinction of praxis in problematic and moral and the contrast between prudence and morality, some points of intersection between the moral philosophy of Crusius and Kant in its origin. (shrink)

Early Modern German Philosophy (1690-1750) makes some of the key texts of early German thought available in English, in most cases for the first time. The translations range from texts by the most important figures of the period, including Christian Thomasius, Christian Wolff, Christian August Crusius, and Georg Friedrich Meier, as well as texts by consequential but less familiar thinkers such as Dorothea Christiane Erxleben, Theodor Ludwig Lau, Friedrich Wilhelm Stosch, and Joachim Lange. The topics covered range across a number (...) of areas of theoretical philosophy, including metaphysics (the immortality of the soul, materialism and its refutation, the pre-established harmony), epistemology (the principle of sufficient reason, the limits of reason with respect to matters of faith), and logic (the role of prejudices in cognition and the doctrine of truth). (shrink)

Kant’s account of practical justification for belief has attracted much attention in the literature, especially in recent years. In this context, scholars have generally emphasized the originality of Kant’s thought about belief (Glaube), and Kant indeed offers a definition of belief that is very different from views that were prevalent in eighteenth-century Germany. In this article, however, I argue that it is very likely that Christian August Crusius exerted influence on Kant’s definition of belief and his account of practical justification. (...) In turn, acknowledging this influence has relevant consequences for how we understand the phenomenology of Kantian belief. (shrink)

The ethics of Kant and the ethics of Crusius are strikingly similar. This is manifested in a whole range of principles and concepts. Crusius’ moral teaching hinges on the rigorous moral law which has to be obeyed absolutely, and which makes it different from other prescriptions that are binding only to a relative degree. This is very close to the Kantian distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Another salient feature of Crusius’ moral teaching is the stress laid on the sphere (...) of internal motives. It is the inner motive that determines the morality of an act, rather than the external form of the act. These and some other features of Crusius’ ethics suggest a possible influence of Crusius on Kant. The possibility of such influence has repeatedly come under close scrutiny. The first works devoted to this problem date to the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Pointers to the possibility of such influence are semantic and structural similarities of the two thinkers’ systems. Besides, it is an unchallengeable fact that Kant was fairly familiar with the main theses of Crusian philosophy. Some scholars proceed from the study of Kantian vocabulary. Some of the terms Kant uses, especially in his early works which later formed the basis of his ethical teaching in the critical period, can be traced to the terms of Crusian philosophy. However, an alternative view is that Kant was primarily influenced by Wolffian philosophy, while the direct influence of Crusius remains unproven. I examine both points of view and propose my own solution to the problem. (shrink)

There are two rival models on how to interpret causal chains in Kant. Traditional event-event models take it that events are causes of events, which are in turn causes of other events. Watkins’s causal powers interpretation, on the contrary, has it that substances have unchangeable grounds, and the series of events is only a series within the effect. By comparing Kant to Crusius, I argue that, to some extent, both approaches can be combined. For the powers of substances are made (...) active by other powers, but, at the same time, powers belong to the nature of a substance and are unchangeable. Moreover, non-causal properties that resemble Crusian existential grounds contribute to the effect as well. Finally, I give an account of the mereology of events by drawing on Kant’s resolution of the Second Antinomy. (shrink)

In the history of philosophy, voluntarists—that is, philosophers committed to some version of the freedom of indifference—have worried about its metaphysical credentials, but only a few, at least to my knowledge, have attempted to argue for more than its mere existence. Freedom of indifference is the option to choose between opposites in a given situation. In this paper, I present the ambitious attempt of the German pre-Kantian philosopher Christian August Crusius (1715–1775) to argue for the claim that we have freedom (...) of indifference as a matter of hypothetical necessity. The point is that, in his view, there can be no actual world without freedom of indifference. This is not a logical but a metaphysical truth. I argue that a possible (motivational) reason for Crusius’s choice to tread this slippery path is that he attempts to bestow some metaphysical dignity on the freedom of indifference. As a consequence, this metaphysical value of freedom of indifference shapes the relation between the divine and free, rational agents in a way that is completely different from a rationalist’s conception such as Leibniz’s. In this paper, I give a plausible interpretation of a metaphysical argument that has been neglected in the relevant literature. (shrink)

What is it that makes a mental state conscious? Recent commentators have proposed that for Kant, consciousness results from differentiation: A mental state is conscious insofar as it is distinguished, by means of our conceptual capacities, from other states and/or things. I argue instead that Kant’s conception of state consciousness is sensory: A mental state is conscious insofar as it is accompanied by an inner sensation. Interpreting state consciousness as inner sensation reveals an underappreciated influence of Crusius on Kant’s view, (...) solves some long-standing puzzles concerning Kant’s difficult doctrine of self-affection, and sheds light on his theory of inner experience. (shrink)

Kant scholars have rarely addressed the notion of optimism as it was interpreted by the Königsbergian philosopher in the mid-18th century. The notion originates from Leibniz’s Theodi­cy and from debates over whether the actual world is the best of all possible worlds. The first of a two-part series, this article studies the historical context in which appeared Kant’s 1759 lecture advertisement leaflet entitled An Attempt at Some Reflections on Optimism. The study describes the requirements of the 1755 Berlin Academy of (...) Sciences’ competition for a comparison of G. W. Leibniz’s and A. Pope’s systems and an assessment of optimism. Another focus is the philological difficulties of translating Pope’s proposition “Whatever is, is right” into the French language — which was part of the competition task. The author considers the ways the proposition was translated into the Russian and German languages. The article shows the contribution of Voltaire and his Poem on the Lisbon Disaster and Candide: or, Optimism to the post factum changes in the perception of the competition results and to the emergence of new shades of meaning in the concept of optimism. The Lisbon earthquake of 1755 had a profound effect on Europe and on the perception of optimism and of the idea that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds. However, Kant’s epistolary legacy leads one to the conclusion that the philosopher examined the problem in the framework of a polemic on Crusian philosophy. This article presents Crusius’s arguments against the theory that this is the best of all possible worlds and in favour of the theory that there are several good worlds. God’s choice of the actual world owes therefore to the freedom of contradiction (libertas contradictionis) and to the freedom of contrariety (libertas contrarietatis), which are eliminated in the teaching of optimism. (shrink)

The chapter provides a brief survey of the moral views of some of the main writers advocating rationalist conceptions in philosophical ethics in Eighteenth-Century Britain and Germany, prior to Reid and Kant: Samuel Clarke, William Wollaston, John Balguy, Richard Price, Christian Wolff (along with his adversary Christian August Crusius), Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten.

Kant’s introduction in the Kritik der reinen Vernunft (KrV) of a spontaneity proper to the understanding is often thought to be one of the central innovations of his Critical philosophy. As I show in this paper, however, a number of thinkers within the 18th century German tradition in the time before the KrV (including the pre-Critical Kant himself) had already developed a robust conception of the spontaneity of the mind, a conception which, in many respects lays the groundwork for Kant’s (...) later, rather more influential account. To illustrate this, I consider three accounts of the spontaneity of the mind—those of Crusius, the pre-Critical Kant, and Tetens—which, while distinct, nonetheless relate to and explicitly draw upon one another in important ways, forming as it were the interconnected and, thus far, largely overlooked pre-Critical context for Kant’s discussion of the spontaneity of the understanding in the KrV. As I conclude, while Kant’s own account of the spontaneity of the understanding, and particularly of the I think clearly departs from these accounts, it nonetheless continues to connect in significant ways with the trailblazing discussions of his immediate predecessors. (shrink)

Resumo O principal ponto de desacordo entre as filosofias emergentes e desenvolvidas no início do século XVIII na Alemanha é, indiscutivelmente, a alegação da possibilidade da metafísica a partir do princípio de razão suficiente. Este trabalho é dividido em duas partes. Inicialmente, apresenta-se o debate empreendido entre a tentativa de Wolff de justificação do princípio de razão suficiente – enquanto derivado do princípio de contradição – e a descrença de Crusius acerca de tal justificação. Defende-se que a posição desses filósofos (...) sobre a justificação do princípio de razão suficiente especifica as suas concepções de filosofia. Ao passo que Wolff argumenta que a filosofia, enquanto “ciência das coisas possíveis”, deve seguir o método da matemática, Crusius assegura que, ao dar conta da tarefa de considerar “as coisas realmente existentes”, a filosofia deve possuir o seu método próprio de investigação. Num segundo momento, considera-se o empreendimento kantiano de justificação do princípio de razão suficiente, de modo a dar conta das exigências tanto de Wolff como de Crusius. Argumenta-se que a busca kantiana de justificação do princípio na Nova dilucidatio de 1755 compreende os seguintes momentos: a garantia de uma equivalência lógica entre o princípio de contradição e o princípio de razão suficiente; o estabelecimento do princípio de razão suficiente como uma razão de existência do que existe de modo contingente. Palavras-chave : dedução, ontologia, metafísica alemã, princípio de contradição, princípio de razão suficienteThe fundamental point of disagreement among philosophies born and developed in Germany in the beginning of the XVIII century is, unquestionably, the defense of the possibility of metaphysics by means of the justification of the so called principle of sufficient reason. This paper is divided into two parts. Initially, the debate that ensued from Wolff’s attempt at a justification of the principle of sufficient reason as derived from the principle of contradiction in face of Crusius’ disbelief of such a justification is pointed out. It is sustained that the position of both philosophers concerning the justification of the principle of sufficient reason points to the specificity of their conception of philosophy. While Wolff argues that philosophy as a “science of possible things” should follow the method of mathematics, Crusius assures that, at holding the task of accounting for “truthfully existent beings”, philosophy must have its own method of investigation. Secondly, Kant’s undertaking at justifying the principle of sufficient reason accounting for the requirements of both Wolff and Crusius is taken into account. It is argued that Kant’s search for a justification in the 1755 Nova dilucidatio holds the following moments: the assurance of a logical equivalence between the principle of contradiction and the principle of sufficient reason; the establishment of the principle of sufficient reason as a reason of existence of that which exists in a contingent way. Keywords : deduction, ontology, German metaphysics, principle of contradiction, principle of sufficient reason. (shrink)

The majority of Kant scholars has taken it for granted that for Kant the soul is in some sense present in space and that this assumption is by and large unproblematic. If we read Kant’s texts in the context of debates on this topic within 18th century rationalism and beyond, a more complex picture emerges, leading to the somewhat surprising conclusion that Kant in 1770 can best be characterised as a Cartesian about the mind. The paper first develops a framework (...) for describing the various positions on the place of the soul in space as varieties of ‘localism’, since German philosophers of the 18th century all agreed on the fact that the soul is in some sense present in space. Strong localists (Crusius, Knutzen) maintain that the soul occupies a place that cannot at the same time be occupied by a material substance. The Königsberg Wolffian Christian Gabriel Fischer is an ‘epistemic localist’ defending the view that our knowledge about the presence of the soul in space is limited. Bilfinger holds that the soul only represents itself as being present in space, he is a ‘representational localist’. The Cartesians, including Leonhard Euler and his teacher Samuel Werenfels, assume that the soul is effective in a region of space without truly being present there. They are ‘virtual localists’. Kant’s attitude towards this problem before the 1760s is a bit unclear. But his writings in this period are at least compatible with the strong localism defended by Knutzen. In the Herder transcripts (1762-1764) and other texts after 1760, Kant begins to distance himself from this view, but he does not articulate clearly his own position. This trend culminates in Dreams of a Spirit Seer (1766), where Kant oscillates somewhat uneasily between epistemic and virtual localism and criticises explicitly the Cartesian thesis that the soul’s presence in the body is limited to a determinate region. The dissertation from 1770 marks another radical change in Kant’s views on the place of the soul. Here, he subscribes to virtual localism and its concomitant thesis that the soul itself is, properly speaking, nowhere. Together with the thesis that the soul knows that it belongs to the mundus intelligibilis this makes Kant in 1770 a Cartesian about the mind. (shrink)

The 18th century philosophy actively used the notion of machine in its extended meaning, especially when describing both the world as a whole and its constituent bodies. Consequently, the initial meaning of that notion underwent peculiar changes: not only an artificial mechanism but also a natural organic body were defined as machines. A metaphysical comprehension of the notion of machine was developed predominantly in the framework of cosmology.

The current dissertation, which is based on documented sources, elucidates the fact that the Kantian claim of the legitimacy of the cognitive process, as this claim is expressed in the Kantian “Transcendental Philosophy”, had its precursor in three major elements of the philosophical evolution in the German Enlightenment: a)The shifting of the philosophical problematic in the German Enlightenment from the “harmony”-thinking of the Wolffians and their detractors, to Tetens’ posit of the “realization” of concepts, according to which a human being (...) is proven as a meaning-establishing entity; b) The “empiriorationalistic” element in Thomasius, which finds parallels in Kantian formulations, remains active during the whole controversy surrounding the Wolffian teaching, and then acquires a new form in Lambert (a priori through experience); c) The understanding of “conceivability” as “communicability”, which is already present in the early German Enlightenment, implicitly in Thomasius and explicitly in Tschirnhaus, does not come under discussion in the era of Wolff. However, this element comes under the spotlight by Kant’s contemporaries, especially highlighted in Tetens’ question of intersubjectivity (the objective as the “unchangeably subjective”). The representatives of German Enlightenment Philosophy after 1760 freed from the metaphysical shudder caused by the “scientific revolution”, are the very first to comprehend the human intellect, not as “intellectus ectypus”, but as the legislator of nature. In this way, German philosophical thought is to abandon once and for all the baroque world-view. The systems of Lambert and Tetens show clearly that Kant elaborated on questions that they had already posed in an elementary form. (shrink)

L’article se propose d’analyser le rôle joué par la pensée de Christian August Crusius dans la genèse et l’articulation de la Preisschrift kantienne de 1762. Décidément anti-wolffien, Kant opte pour la méthode analytique comme seule capable d’assurer la scientificité de la philosophie. Dans un double mouvement de rapprochement et de prise de distance par rapport à certaines thèses crusiennes centrales, il entend démontrer que la certitude atteignable en métaphysique est suffisante pour la conviction, qu’elle est toute aussi « sûre » (...) et « complète » que la certitude mathématique. Ne pouvant fonder cette certitude sur une simple conviction subjective, selon le principe de Crusius, Kant s’éloignera définitivement de ce dernier, non sans avoir intégré dans sa propre doctrine des éléments crusiens fondamentaux. (shrink)

This article provides an account of the Enlightenment dispute over hermeneutical skepticism with particular reference to the idea of hermeneutical probability in the philosophical work of Christian August Crusius. The essay sheds new light on the hermeneutical issues addressed in the philosophical school of the so-called Thomasians based mainly in Leipzig in the first half of the eighteenth century. The paper deals with Crusius’ wide-ranging efforts to cope with the uncertain character of most parts of human knowledge and his attempts (...) to construct a workable theory of hermeneutical probability. This raises points of central interest relating to probabilism in the methodology of textual interpretation and connects Crusius to contemporary discussions of hermeneutical skepticism. (shrink)

This volume provides English translations of texts that form the essential background to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Presenting the projects of Kant's predecessors and contemporaries in eighteenth-century Germany, it enables readers to understand the positions that Kant might have identified with 'pure reason', the criticisms of pure reason that had developed prior to Kant's, and alternative attempts at synthesizing empiricist elements within a rationalist framework. The volume contains chapters on Christian Wolff, Martin Knutzen, Alexander Baumgarten, Christian Crusius, Leonhard Euler, (...) Johann Lambert, Marcus Herz, Johann Eberhard, and Johann Tetens. Each chapter includes a brief introduction that provides succinct biographical and bibliographical information on these authors, a concise account of their projects, and information on the importance of these projects to Kant's First Critique. Extensive references to the First Critique, brought together in a concordance, highlight the potential relevance of each text. (shrink)

Tra le diverse proposte ermeneutiche capaci di dare valore alla critica che Christian August Crusius rivolge al razionalismo leibniziano-wolffiano ce n’è una che pone al centro dell’attenzione la relazione che intercorre tra antropologia e teodicea. Il discorso crusiano intorno all’uomo svolge al suo interno il ruolo di fondamento esplicativo della risposta alla questione del male in un mondo voluto da Dio. La teodicea viene così considerata per quello che è in primo luogo: l’espressione di una visione incentrata sull’essere razionale finito, (...) sulla creatura umana. (shrink)

Richard Kroner hat 1921 sein bekanntes Werk Von Kant bis Hegel veröffentlicht. Das Gegenstück dazu, eine Darstellung unter dem Titel Von Wolff bis Kant, ist dagegen leider bis heute ein Desiderat der Forschung geblieben. Zumindest für einen wichtigen Teilaspekt, die Geschichte des Weltbegriffs, die schließlich in Kants Antinomienlehre kulminiert, leistet diese Arbeit eine bedeutsame Vorarbeit. Zugleich werden am Leitfaden dieses Schlüsselproblems aber auch Grundlinien der Gesamtentwicklung von Wolff bis Kant zumindest in Umrissen sichtbar.

Christian Thomasius and his school, including Andreas Rüdiger and Christian Crusius influenced Kant in the development of his Pragmatic Anthropology. They all shared a common concern that philosophy ought to be useful to students who have a role to play in the world.

In this paper we examine some passages of a logical treatise by Christian August Crusius. It seems that Crusius anticipated what might be called the circle of deduction, first discussed by Lewis Carroll. The question now emerges: why was it possible for Crusius to have deeper logical insights than his contemporaries, given that he was not a brilliant logician? The answer here proposed traces these insights back to his very peculiar philosophical premisses, which have been important for Kant's development in (...) his early career. (shrink)

Before the story can be told, however, some stage-setting is necessary. First, it is important to be clear about the most basic doctrines of Pre-established Harmony, Occasionalism, and Physical Influx. Physical Influx asserts intersubstantial causation amongst finite substances. For instance, when I appear to kick a ball, I really am the cause of the ball's motion. Pre-established Harmony denies intersubstantial causation, but affirms intrasubstantial causation. According to Pre-established Harmony, then, I am not the cause of the ball's motion, but rather (...) the ball is simply causing itself to move. Occasionalism, like Pre-established Harmony, denies intersubstantial causation, but, unlike Pre-established Harmony, it denies intrasubstantial causation as well. Occasionalism typically asserts that God alone, that is, an infinite substance, is the cause of all changes, and thus of the ball's motion. Though there are other ways of defining these causal theories, this way has the advantage that the causal theories form an exhaustive disjunction. (shrink)

Das Anliegen dieses Artikels besteht darin, ausgehend von einer an drei zentralen Themen orienterten Analyse des Verhältnisses von Kants Schriften 1762/63 zu Crusius auf bedeutsame Aspekte des frühen Kantischen Philosophierens hinzuweisen und daraus Plausibilitätsannahmen für eine systematische und ideengeschichtliche Standortbestimmung desselben zu erarbeiten.

Crusius est consideré comme l'un des plus importants critiques des théories philosophiques de Leibniz et de Wolff. Dans ce contexte, outre la critique de l'interprétation du principe de la raison telle que l'ont soutenue Leibniz et Wolff, il faut surtout citer le refus de l'utilisation de la méthode mathématique dans la philosophie. Le développement de la théorie des substances simples conçue par Crusius servira d'exemple pour démontrer le refus de cette méthode dans la métaphysique. La définition de la substance simple, (...) à laquelle Crusius parvient en ce fondant sur la distinction entre raison d'être et raison de connaître, s'offre à la pensée de Leibniz comme à la pensée de Wolff. Cependant, quand Crusius rejette l'interprétation de la substance simple comme point mathématique, il attaque surtout Leibniz. Ainsi la théorie de Crusius des substances simples doit être avant tout considéré comme une critique de la monadologie leibnizienne. (shrink)

On a recherché dans cet article à montrer l'nfluence de Thomasius et surtout de Crusius sur l'éthique de Kant. Une relation est avant tout évidente dans la doctrine de la primauté de la raison pratique sur la raison theorique et dans la définition de la liberté comme pouvoir de commencer soi-même un enchaînement causal. Malgré ces points communs, il ne faut pas oublier les différences. Pour Crusius la volonté n'est pas, comme pour Kant, une entité absolue et autonome car il (...) reçoit sa loi de la volonte de Dieu. (shrink)

In the Nova dilucidano Kant defines freedom as libertas spontaneitatis. Free acting is always determined acting. It differs from necessary acting by the fact that the determinating reasons are inherent in the acting subject. These reasons must not only be spontaneous but also rational ones. By this, Kant agrees in the main with the Leibnizian and Wolf fian conception of freedom. At the same time Kant refuses expressly the conception of freedom of Crusius. According to Crusius, free acting can not (...) be determined acting, because freedom is defined as unconditioned causality. This conception of freedom Kant postulates in the Critic of pure reason. The proof of the possibility of freedom given by Kant there differs however entirely from the proofs of freedom given by Crusius. According to Kant, it is not impossible to think freedom, because one and the same acting, one and the same phenomenon can be thought at the same time caused by laws of nature and by unconditioned causality, that is freedom, without any contradiction. This central argument of Kant's has an equivalent in the late Leibnizian theory of substance — not in the theory of freedom. Unconditioned causality as the causality of the vis activa primitiva and laws of nature as conditioned causality do not exclude each other at the same time in one and the same acting or phenomenon. Consequently already Leibniz postulates the Kantian thesis that the relation between unconditioned and conditioned causality is not a really disjunctive one. (shrink)