Kant: Metaphysics

Review of Gabriele Gava's Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and the Method of Metaphysics.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is a towering figure of modern Western philosophy, someone whose thought continues to exert an influence across all areas of the discipline. His work is characterized by both breadth and unity: he writes powerfully about mind, epistemology, metaphysics, logic, mathematics, natural science, ethics, politics, aesthetics, education, and more. And across those areas, his work is concerned with defending a view of human beings and their place in nature according to which our own reason enables us to discover (...) and uphold the laws of nature and freedom, that is, to think for ourselves. The Oxford Handbook of Kant provides an up-to-date account of recent scholarship on Kant's philosophy, taking in all areas of his writings. It will be essential reading for students and researchers who want to think for themselves about the topics he wrote with such insight. The individual chapters to this Handbook each provide a scholarly analysis and assessment of some aspect of Kant's thought, and the collection ranges across all the areas to which Kant contributed. It collectively presents a picture of where the study of Kant's philosophy finds itself at this point in the twenty-first century. (shrink)

El presente escrito traza el camino del logos en tres figuras centrales de la filosofía clásica alemana. Luego de recorrer el problema de los antecedentes, es planteada la querella ante la cual quedó puesto el logos moderno. Se trata, en primer lugar, de poner de manifiesto la función del logos en la respuesta kantiana a la cuestión del fundamento del saber, tematizada principalmente en los Paralogismos de la segunda edición de la Crítica de la razón pura. En segundo lugar, será (...) reconstruida la respuesta de Fichte a dicha pregunta, desarrollada de manera específica en la Primera y Segunda Introducción a la Doctrina de la Ciencia. En tercer lugar, será tematizado el sentido del logos expuesto en la Introducción y la División General de la Ciencia de la lógica de Hegel. A lo largo de este derrotero, será formalizada de tres modos la energía fundante de toda objetividad. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that the early Kant’s Physical Monadology (1756)—which attempts to solve the philosophical problem of reconciling the infinite divisibility of space with the substantial status of material bodies—is best understood within the framework of substance–accident ontology. I begin by showing how Kant relies on that ontology when arguing that composition as a relation can be taken away, leaving us with simple substances or monads. After this, I discuss apparently conflicting two interpretative camps considering the “force by (...) which the simple element of a body occupies its space” (1:482). Given that neither of them is satisfactory, I explain the way in which Kant’s theory of grounds, positing, and determinations draws on the Aristotelian theory of substances, essences, and necessary and non-necessary accidents. In causal terms, this framework amounts to a theory of powers in which both the internal determinations constitutive of a substance and the accidents they posit are causally efficacious. This enables us to see that the existing interpreting camps result from highlighting different aspects of Kant’s quite nuanced theory of monadic powers. To express that theory economically, it can be called a dual layer theory of power: monads are (1) essentially powerful substances that bring about (2) three kinds of powers—repulsive, attractive, and inertial—as accidents; from these accidents, in turn, result such properties as impenetrability, volume, shape, and cohesion. In virtue of the latter type of powers, a monad most importantly has a determinate sphere of influence by which it occupies space and prevents other things penetrating the space it fills—thereby entering in the mechanical world of bodies. The defended interpretation can thus reveal the full nature of the early Kant’s fine-grained theory of monadic powers and show it to be quite understandable in its ingenious use of a time-honored ontological framework in a post-Newtonian setting. (shrink)

Gabriele Gava's new monograph makes sense of Kant's obscure claim that the Critique of Pure Reason is a "doctrine of method" for the science of metaphysics. Gava does this by offering a reading of the whole Critique as aiming to show that metaphysics can become an "architectonic" science. The book shows impressive range; it covers diverse topics throughout the Aesthetic, Analytic, Dialectic, and Method, brings out appealing parallels between them, and relates them to the task of exhibiting metaphysic's architectonic unity. (...) But, I argue, it stops short of a full explanation of how the Critique is meant to outline or anticipate the whole of metaphysics in advance of actually completing that science. (shrink)

For Kant, inquiry into nature properly requires seeking to explain all material wholes merely mechanically, in terms of their parts. There is no consensus on how he justifies this Principle of Mechanism. I argue that Kant seeks to derive this claim about part and wholes neither from his laws or mechanics, nor from the mere discursivity of our understanding (two standard options in the literature), but instead from a priori principles laid out in the first Critique, which govern parts, wholes, (...) and magnitudes. These principles are also fundamental to Kant’s account of mathematics. Therefore, Kant’s Principle of Mechanism and his philosophy of mathematics have common foundations. (shrink)

My response to Gabriele Gava’s Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and the Method of Metaphysics (2023) focuses on Kant’s conception of the role of critique in the Critique of Pure Reason. On my account, Gava’s emphasis on the constructive elements of the Critique downplays the critique of former metaphysics elaborated in all three parts of the Transcendental Doctrine of Elements. After some comments on Kant’s conception of the Critique as a doctrine of method, I support this view by discussing the (...) relation between transcendental philosophy and transcendental critique, Kant’s analysis of the faculties, and his transcendental deduction of space. (shrink)

The article addresses some aspects of Gava’s book, highlighting two main points: (1) the notion of philosophy in a cosmic sense; (2) its connection with the meaning of the concept of method. Regarding (1) I show how Gava’s interpretation of the systematic concept of philosophy does not account adequately for the scholastic concept. This has consequences for the notion of philosophy in a cosmic sense itself; its nature as an objective archetype and its personification in the ideal of a master (...) of wisdom are not properly emphasized. These features are closely related to Kant’s claim that philosophy cannot be learned, which is connected with Kant’s peculiar idea of method. Regarding (2), I argue that ‘method’ for Kant does not concern only the construction of scientific systems, but also the establishment of a way of thinking, a stance embracing thought and action. The meaning of the postulates and the notion of ‘faith’ thus acquire a ‘weaker’ connotation, as an attitude, habitus, aimed at the establishment and promotion of a ‘life-structuring’ rationality, and not as an alternative route to a theoretical ‘commitment’. (shrink)

In this paper I argue for the following two related claims. First, the science of phoronomy from Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science is grounded in the duplication of space. Second, this duplication is made possible through the self-localization of the subject, as Kant shows in the "Gegnden-Schrift". The thesis of this paper is that the self-localization transforms space into an object that can be cinematically moved and that this action sets the ground for a science of phoronomy, which presupposes (...) the existence of at least two spaces. In the end, the other endpoint of the Kantian determination of space is discussed, namely space understood as an idea of reason. (shrink)

Der Kosmologe von Königsberg Vor 300 Jahren wurde Immanuel Kant geboren. Der Philosoph war auch ein kühner Vordenker in den Naturwissenschaften. Schon 1755 schrieb Kant über Gezeitenreibung, Saturns Ringpartikel, ferne Planeten und außerirdische Intelligenzen. Er spekulierte über die Entstehung von Planetensystemen, über andere Galaxien und Universen. Kosmologie und Hirnforschung lassen seine Philosophie von Raum und Zeit heute in neuem Licht erscheinen.

Hinging on a metaphysical examination of the concept of newness and Paul Guyer’s notion of the temporally extended self, this article analyzes what it means that we are a temporally extended being that is fashioned in time, which is none other than a transcendental object = newness, and argues that (fashioned) bodies can be things in themselves and mere phenomena simultaneously. Kant’s doctrine of self-positing assists us in decoding how the subject obtains an embodied experience while a thing in itself, (...) as well as how both a non-empirical affection and an empirical affection are at play, casually affecting the subject. By looking into how double affection is in operation, this article aims to broaden our understanding of Kant’s theory of self-consciousness. (shrink)

This paper examines the development of the modern concept of substance from Leibniz to Hegel. I will focus primarily on the problem of the inner and outer nature of substance. I will show that if one considers Hegel’s discussion of substance against the background of the controversy between Leibniz and Kant about the inner and outer nature of substance, it becomes clear that for Hegel both Leibniz and Kant grasped the whole concept of substance only partially and in its abstract (...) moments. This is because they both concentrate on one aspect of substance and absolutize it. Hegel, on the other hand, not only overcomes the fundamental difference between the inner and outer of substance, but also develops the connection between the different moments of substance, causality and interaction from the rationalist concept of substance itself. (shrink)

The Latin American philosopher Ernesto Mayz Vallenilla published the first study of Kant's concept of nothingness in 1965. This translation of Mayz Vallenilla's ground-breaking work makes it available in English for the first time. -/- Mayz Vallenilla's interpretation is deeply informed by Heidegger's reading of Kant, against the background of the early 20th century neo-Kantian tradition. He offers a detailed interpretation and critique of “nothing” as it appears in the Amphiboly chapter of the Critique of Pure Reason and presents an (...) analysis of Kant's Table of Nothing which understands temporality as the horizon of all possible cognition, including cognition of real nothings. -/- Accompanied by translator's notes and a glossary, Addison Ellis' translation includes extensive commentary and an introduction providing historical context and references to the original sources in German. He preserves key terminology and phrasing from the original text and allows an often-neglected connection to be made between the Kantian tradition in Latin America and the tradition in the Anglophone world. (shrink)

본 연구는 칸트의 선험철학에 대한 체계론적 방법론으로 ‘사이로서의 형식’을 제안한다. 요컨대 사이로서의 형식은 규정들의 병존 관계에 대한 반성을 유기적으로 수행할 수 있는 사유 조건이다. 사이로서의 형식은 규정 관계들의 간격을 통일성 있게 반성할 (reflektierend) 수 있다는 점에서 하나의 ‘인식원리’로 작용한다. 사이성 형식을 매개로 칸 트의 주요 개념들이 임의적 간극을 형성하는 가운데 ‘공존’에 관한 규정문제가 앎의 인식 론적 지평에서 재고되고 숙고될 수 있다. 구체적으로 본 연구는 ‘칸트의 사이와 공존’을 불일치 개념들의 사이성 속에서 논한다. 칸트의 주요 철학 개념들 간에 환치될 수 없는 규정들의 (...) 경계들을 찾아, 그 사이에 ‘공존’의 의미를 체계론적으로 재사유한다. 첫 번째로 다룰 개념들은 칸트의 1770년 『교수 취임논문』에서의 ‘감성계’와 ‘지성계’의 사이성이다. 이 두 규정항들의 불일치하는 지점들 을 분석하여, 양자의 벌어진 거리 속에 공존의 가능 조건들을 반성한다. 다음으로 칸트의 ‘형이상학’과 ‘순수이성’ 간의 사이성과 공존에 관해 논구한다. 『순수이성비판』을 토대로 두 규정항들의 간극을 분석하고, 그 불일치의 사이에서 공동체 앎에 관한 인식론적 의미를 반추한다. 마지막은 ‘선험철학’과 ‘아프리오리’의 불일치와 공존이다. 마찬가지로 『순수이 성비판』에 기반하여 양자의 사이성을 고찰하고 공존의 현대적 의미를 재확립한다. (shrink)

Kant criticizes Plato for his interest in positing ideas that are entirely purified from any sensible elements, but which, nonetheless, exist in some supra-sensible reality. I argue that Kant’s criticism can be repositioned and even countered if, in our assessment of Plato, we assign a wider scope of significance and greater value to the senses. In order to lend focus to my article, I analyze Socrates’ presentation of what I translate as the “look of the Good” (τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέαν, 508e) (...) in theRepublicso as to show the proximity between Plato and Kant on the question of sensibility. I also draw on thePhaedoand extant literature that goes against the traditional view regarding the status of Ideas or Forms, including the Idea of the Good. I further discuss an affinity between the Good that is “beyond being” (ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας, 509c) in theRepublicand Kant’s view of God as an Ideal of Reason. Given my articulation of the importance of the sensible dimension in Plato, there is a continuity between Kant and Plato on the question of the illegitimacy of certain ideas. In other words, in my reading (and contrary to Kant’s view of Plato), Kant does not so much overturn Plato’s metaphysics, but develops further the view that is already inscribed in Plato. (shrink)

Kann es sein, dass unser Denken unauflösliche Widersprüche enthält? Die Paradoxien des Unendlichen sind ein guter Kandidat dafür. Kant hat in seiner transzendentalen Dialektik behauptet, dass wir das Unendliche nicht konsistent denken können. Hegel hält mit einer faszinierenden positiven Dialektik dagegen, die das Unendliche widerspruchsfrei denken will. Bei Cantor jedoch, der die moderne Auffassung des Unendlichen revolutioniert hat, kehren die Paradoxien wieder zurück. Guido Kreis zeigt, dass unsere Begriffe vom Unendlichen relativ zu unseren besten Theorien tatsächlich inkonsistent sind, und führt (...) anhand dieser negativen Dialektik zugleich in die Grundformen der modernen Dialektik ein. (shrink)

Kann Spaltung oder Abgrund zwischen Subjekt und Objekt das letzte Wort sein? Nicht, wenn beides doch von dieser Welt ist als der einen. Und auch nicht, wenn jene Sachen selbst, mit denen Kant gerungen hatte, wie mit Zeit und Raum oder Bewusstsein, immer ratselhafter werden, auch fur Mathematiker und Physiker: Warum denn ausgerechnet solche zwei wie Zeit und Raum der einen Welt? Warum nicht mehr, doch auch nicht weniger? Warum der Raum als Ausdehnung denn ausgerechnet drei-, die Zeit jedoch anscheinend (...) eindimensional? Warum nicht mehr, doch auch nicht weniger? Sind Zeit und Raum als Ausdehnung auf ihrem Grund diskret oder kontinuierlich? Geht es an, sie kurzerhand zur Punktmenge diskret zu machen, nur um ihre Ausdehnung durch Zahlen berechenbar zu machen? Kann verwundern, dass Mathematik und mathematische Physik mit dem Kontinuum von Ausdehnung in Schwierigkeiten kommen, wenn sie demgemass punktmengentheoretisch mit ihm umgehen mussen? Steht laut Quantentheorie nicht langst schon fest, auf seinem Grund gehorche unser Kosmos nicht der Mengentheorie? In welchem Grundverhaltnis stehen Punkt und das Kontinuum von Ausdehnung ursprunglich zueinander? Und was ist denn Zeit- und Raum-Bewusstsein, wenn Objekte von Subjekten als Bewusstsein abhangig sind, wie nach Kant und nach der Quantentheorie? Ist es vielleicht verfehlt, wenn Mathematiker und Physiker, doch auch so manche Philosophen die Philosophie als strenge Wissenschaft verabschieden, weil sie als solche angeblich etwas Unmogliches wie Ursprungs- oder Erste Philosophie sei? Zumindest gilt es, allen diesen ratselhaften Sachen selbst mit Kant noch einmal auf den Grund zu gehen. (shrink)

In this critical review of Robert Hanna's ingenious book (2006), I aim to support Hanna‟s main insightful reading of Kant, namely what he calls “a priori truth with a human face," without appealing to Kant's divide between a priori and a posteriori and analytic and synthetic truths. My suggestion is that transcendental propositions are necessary neither in the usual epistemological sense that analytic propositions are, let alone in the metaphysical sense that some empirical propositions are. Instead, they are necessary in (...) the theoretical domain in the weak alternative sense that they make possible the empirical recognition of appearances as an object as an indispensable condition of our self-consciousness experience, and they are a priori in the practical domain in the sense that their truth is vital for our self-comprehension as human beings. (shrink)

The cinematographic frame is a boundary which separates the image from the external world. From an ontological viewpoint which dates back to Greek philosophy, the boundary of a thing separates it from other things, thus leading to its ontological independence from other things. But, according to this point of view, the being of things as external objects is considered to be free from the impact of subjective interference and the experience of the viewer. This idea was radically changed with Kant’s (...) Copernican revolution. By separating the Thing in Itself from the Phenomena, Kant, on the one hand, announced that the object of human cognition is only the Phenomena, and on the other hand, that they are knowable only to the extent that they are known under the a priori subjective factors, i.e. the forms of intuition and the categories of understanding. The first purpose of this paper is to show the limitations of the traditional concepts of the cinematographic frame according to the subjective perception of the viewer. The second objective is to ask how it is possible not to regard this perception as just a mental perception, but a corporeal one. Finally, the results of this investigation are considered in the analysis of the corporeal perception of the cinematographic frame. (shrink)

The deduction of categories in the 1781 edition of the Critique of the Pure Reason (A Deduction) has “two sides”—the “objective deduction” and the “subjective deduction”. Kant seems ambivalent about the latter deduction. I treat it as a significant episode of Kant’s thinking about categories that extended from the early 1770s to around 1790. It contains his most detailed answer to the question about the origin of categories that he formulated in the 1772 letter to Marcus Herz. The answer is (...) that categories are generated a priori through a kind of intellectual “epigenesis”. This account leaves unexplained why precisely such and such categories should be generated. While this observation caused Kant to worry about the hypothetical status of the subjective deduction in 1781, he would come to acquiesce in the recognition that the ground of the possibility of categories is itself inscrutable. I call this his “methodological skepticism”. (shrink)

This book develops a textually grounded reconstruction of Kant’s argument in the Metaphysical Deduction. The argument proceeds in three steps, developing, first, a concept of judgment on which to base the table of logical functions, next a concept of synthesis of intuition that explains the content of the categories, and finally a concept of the understanding on which the categories belong a priori to the same capacity through which we judge. -/- The investigation presented here is an argumentative reconstruction of (...) Kant’s text. The text in question is the "Guiding Thread to the Discovery of all Pure Concepts of the Understanding" in both the 1781 (A) and 1787 (B) editions of the Critique of Pure Reason (A64-83/B89-113). To illuminate Kant’s considerations in this chapter, the reconstruction also draws on passages from elsewhere in the Critique, from Kant’s writings after the Critique, as well as notes from his Nachlass and student transcriptions of lectures he held during and subsequent to writing the Critique. Four passages, in particular, are of central importance: (i) the retrospective description of the task of the Metaphysical Deduction at B159, (ii) the retrospective description of the procedure of the "Guiding Thread" at A299/B355f., (iii) the section "On the A Priori Grounds for the Possibility of Experience" in the A-edition Transcendental Deduction of the Categories (A95-110), and (iv) §§15-21 in the B-edition Transcendental Deduction (B128-148). -/- The present interpretation of the Metaphysical Deduction thus emerges from a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the "Guiding Thread" that draws on related passages from the indicated portion of Kant’s corpus and, especially, on the aforementioned four passages from the Critique. Viewing these texts together and in a specific relation to one another suggests a reading which leaves little room for doubt. This sort of textually sensitive but charitable reconstruction helps to bring out the enduring force and interest of Kant’s philosophical position. [For Dennis Schulting's review for "Kantian Review" see under "External Links" below.] -/- -- -/- Wie hier durch textnahe und argumentative Rekonstruktion erstmals gezeigt wird, entwickelt Kant in der Metaphysischen Deduktion in drei Schritten: (i) einen Begriff des Urteils, auf dem die Tafel logischer Funktionen beruht; (ii) einen Begriff der Synthesis der Anschauung, der die Inhalte der Kategorien erklärt; und (iii) einen Begriff des Verstandes, demzufolge die Kategorien a priori zu demselben Vermögen gehören, durch das wir auch urteilen. -/- Die vorliegende Untersuchung ist eine argumentative Rekonstruktion von Kants Text. Der rekonstruierte Text ist der „Leitfaden der Entdeckung aller reinen Verstandesbegriffe" auf A 64 bis 83 / B 89 bis 113 der Kritik der reinen Vernunft in ihren beiden Auflagen von 1781 (A) und 1787 (B). Zudem werden andere, für ein Verständnis der Überlegungen in diesem Kapitel erforderliche oder zumindest erhellende Textstellen aus der Kritik herangezogen; aus Schriften, die Kant nach der Kritik geschrieben hat; sowie schließlich aus Kants Nachlass-Notizen und aus Nachschriften zu seinen Vorlesungen jeweils seit der Entstehungszeit der Kritik. Von entscheidender Bedeutung sind dabei vor allem vier weitere Passagen der Kritik selbst: i) die rückblickende Beschreibung der Aufgabe der Metaphysischen Deduktion auf B 159, ii) die rückblickende Beschreibung des Vorgehens im „Leitfaden" auf A 299/B 355 f., iii) der Abschnitt „Von den Gründen a priori zur Möglichkeit der Erfahrung" auf A 95 bis 110 der Transzendentalen Deduktion der Kategorien in der ersten Auflage und schließlich iv) die §§ 15 bis 21 auf B 128 bis 148 der Transzendentalen Deduktion der Kategorien in der zweiten Auflage der Kritik. -/- Vor dem Hintergrund einer umfassenden und detaillierten Analyse des „Leitfadens", bei Hinzuziehung verwandter Stellen aus dem umgrenzten Textbestand und nicht zuletzt bei Berücksichtigung des Verhältnisses des „Leitfadens" zu den genannten vier Passagen der Kritik legt sich eine Interpretation der Metaphysischen Deduktion nahe, die sich nur schwer bestreiten lässt, sobald diese Texte einmal gemeinsam betrachtet und auf eine bestimmte Weise zueinander ins Verhältnis gesetzt werden. Dabei kann eine durchgehend wohlwollende, argumentative Rekonstruktion dazu beitragen, auch die philosophische Überzeugungskraft der Position Kants deutlich zu machen. [Für Dennis Schultings Rezension für "Kantian Review" siehe unten unter "External Links".]. (shrink)

Our aim in this chapter is to shed light on Kant’s account of the pure forms of sensibility by focusing on a somewhat neglected issue: Kant’s restriction of his claims about space and time to the case of human sensibility. Kant argues that space and time are the pure forms of sensibility for human cognizers. But he also says that we cannot know whether space and time are likewise the pure forms of sensibility for all discursive cognizers. A great deal (...) of attention has focused on the first of these claims, both on how Kant argues for it and how it relates to transcendental idealism. But a satisfactory interpretation must also account for the second claim, and it must account for the fact that Kant endorses both of them. What we need is an explanation of why Kant thinks our knowledge that space and time are the pure forms of sensibility extends to all human beings but no further. (shrink)

The paper analyzes Kant's pre-critical (1759) argument against the opponents of Leibniz's mundus optimus. Its main purpose is to specify the grounds which allow Kant to say that the opponents of optimism both misconceive the conditions for comparison between realities as well as conflate intensive with extensive magnitudes.

In this issue of Studies in Transcendental Philosophy five scholars enquire about the theoretical aspects of Kant’s transcendental philosophy related to the notions of subject, self-consciousness, and self-knowledge. Andrew Brook examines Kant’s views on transcendental apperception at the end of the Critical Period, focusing on Opus Postumum which contains some of Kant’s most important reflections on the subjective dimension. As is known, the self-conscious act designated by the proposition ‘I think’ is an act of spontaneity, and this spontaneity is the (...) reason that the subject calls itself an intelligence. In his article Addison Ellis examines the theoretical and practical dimension of spontaneity, calling into question the distinction between a merely ‘relative’ spontaneity and one that is ‘absolute’. Luca Forgione points to two forms of self-consciousness introduced by Kant: inner sense, based on a sensory form of self-awareness, and transcendental apperception. Through the notion of inner sense, Kant also allows for an introspective account of self-awareness; nonetheless, Kant holds an utterly sophisticated notion of basic self-consciousness provided for by the notion of transcendental apperception. Roberto Horácio de Sá Pereira’s article presents a systematic and a historical approach, linking the contemporary debate on transcendental argument to Kant’s philosophy. It addresses both Stroud’s objection and Strawson’s perspective on transcendental argument and introduces a new reconstruction of Kant’s Refutation as successful truth-directed transcendental argument. In contrast to the contemporary movement of transhumanism and its claims that creatures like us can exist independently of our bodies, Robert Hanna develops a generalist perspective on the subjective dimension, according to which all rational human creature are synthetic a priori necessarily, essentially embodied Kantian selves. I would like to thank the authors for participating in this issue and for helping to make it really special. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Kant-Studien Jahrgang: 110 Heft: 2 Seiten: 321-323.

Human reason demands ultimate explanation; it demands a Because that admits of no further Because –something unconditioned. Pace dogmatic rationalist metaphysics, Kant concludes that theoretical reason must remain modest; it cannot know or cognize the existence of particular unconditioned entities (e.g. God or Leibnizian monads). The prevailing view goes even further; it maintains that theoretical reason cannot even know that something or other unconditioned exists. Yet I argue that Kant’s critique contains an ambitious conclusion: reason can know that something unconditioned (...) exists among things in themselves, even if it cannot know which particular unconditioned entities exist. I reconstruct Kant’s argument for this ambitious conclusion. On my reconstruction, the argument turns on a key metaphysical assumption about things in themselves: that they are completely determinate. And far from undermining Kant's case for modesty, I suggest, this assumption partly underlies it. (shrink)

Human reason demands ultimate explanation; it demands a Because that admits of no further Because –something unconditioned. Pace dogmatic rationalist metaphysics, Kant concludes that theoretical reason must remain modest; it cannot know or cognize the existence of particular unconditioned entities (e.g. God or Leibnizian monads). The prevailing view goes even further; it maintains that theoretical reason cannot even know that something or other unconditioned exists. Yet I argue that Kant’s critique contains an ambitious conclusion: reason can know that something unconditioned (...) exists among things in themselves, even if it cannot know which particular unconditioned entities exist. I reconstruct Kant’s argument for this ambitious conclusion. On my reconstruction, the argument turns on a key metaphysical assumption about things in themselves: that they are completely determinate. And far from undermining Kant's case for modesty, I suggest, this assumption partly underlies it. (shrink)

Human reason demands ultimate explanation; it demands a Because that admits of no further Because –something unconditioned. Pace dogmatic rationalist metaphysics, Kant concludes that theoretical reason must remain modest; it cannot know or cognize the existence of particular unconditioned entities (e.g. God or Leibnizian monads). The prevailing view goes even further; it maintains that theoretical reason cannot even know that something or other unconditioned exists. Yet I argue that Kant’s critique contains an ambitious conclusion: reason can know that something unconditioned (...) exists among things in themselves, even if it cannot know which particular unconditioned entities exist. I reconstruct Kant’s argument for this ambitious conclusion. On my reconstruction, the argument turns on a key metaphysical assumption about things in themselves: that they are completely determinate. And far from undermining Kant's case for modesty, I suggest, this assumption partly underlies it. (shrink)

This is an updated version of an essay originally written for a special issue of Philosophical Topics on the links between Kant and analytic philosophy. It explores these links by focusing on: Wittgenstein’s Tractatus; the logical positivism endorsed by Ayer; and the (very different) variation on that theme endorsed by Quine. The claim defended is that in all three cases we see analytic philosophers trying to attain and express a general philosophical understanding of why the bounds of sense should be (...) drawn where they should—but thereby confronting the aporia, which Kant too confronted, that it is impossible to do this without transgressing those very bounds. The paper closes by suggesting that the problem is in trying to attain and express such an understanding; in other words, that such an understanding is attainable, but not expressible. (shrink)

Esta edição contém a única transcrição estudantil sobrevivente das Lições de Metafísica de Kant da década de 1770. A Lição foi ministrada o mais tardar no inverno de 1779/80 e, portanto, antes mesmo da publicação da Crítica da Razão Pura (1781). Um exceção é, contudo, a parte sobre a ontologia que seguramente se remonta a uma Lição que Kant ministrou depois de 1781. Estas transcrições de Lições são de valor inestimável para a história do desenvolvimento da filosofia de Kant e, (...) em especial, para a gênese de sua Crítica da Razão Pura . Elas representam também um complemento importante para suas outras Lições, como por exemplo, as de antropologia, nas quais Kant também se ocupou com as questões da psicologia empírica e racional. É interessante observar que Kant se serve de métodos distintos, nas Lições de Antropologia e de Metafísica, para demonstrar a substancialidade e a imortalidade da alma. Embora Kant ainda leve a doutrina da alma da psicologia racional muito a sério na Metafísica-Pölitz, ele rejeitará de fato suas pretensões de conhecimento pouco tempo depois na Crítica na seção sobre os paralogismos da doutrina pura da alma. Aquele que deseja se aprofundar na filosofia de Kant e conhecer seu contexto histórico-filosófico não pode deixar de ler as Lições de Metafísica-Pölitz. Heiner F. Klemme Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. (shrink)

The first half of this article is critical: it develops an interpretation of Kant as trying, and failing, to limit our judgments to phenomena and abstain from making claims about noumena, and an interpretation of Wittgenstein as trying, and failing, to develop a theory of meaning that abstains from attempting to say the unsayable. On the reading offered, both Kant and Wittgenstein find themselves saying things that by their own lights cannot be said: in Kant’s case, claims about noumena, and (...) in Wittgenstein’s case, structural claims. While Kant attempts a solution of the problem which also fails, Wittgenstein bites the bullet and leaves his Tractatus, for the most part, void and meaningless. The suggested response is a dialetheic approach—either as an alternative or, potentially, as an amendment to a Kantian or Wittgensteinian theory. According to this approach, certain problems in philosophy arise from true contradictions and thus require a theory that makes sense of contradiction. A subgroup of these problems (among them the noumenal and structural issues in Kant and Wittgenstein) are about things that both are and are not ineffable. The second half of the paper develops a dialetheic account of ineffability and a concise formal theory to ensure that contradiction at the limits of language does not spread to other areas. (shrink)

In recent years, nonconceptual content theories have seen Kant as a reference point for his notion of intuition (§§ 1-3). This work aims to dismiss the possibility that intuition is provided with an autonomous function of de re knowledge. To this end, it will explore certain epistemological points that emerge from Garroni’s reading of the Third Critique in the conviction that they provide a suitable context to verify the presence of autonomous, epistemically nonconceptual content in the transcendental system (§§ 4-5). (...) It is here, in fact, that Kant discusses those cases where intuition is given without bringing into play the conceptual component. As Garroni posits, in this frame of reference, such content cannot subsist without the interplay between aesthetic and conceptual dimensions (§§ 6-7). Long before the development of the debate on Kantian nonconceptualism, and during the period in which the Kantian debate on the epistemic considerations contained in the Third Critique was developing deeply for the first time, Garroni had already identified a theoretical position on these issues, which can be labelled aesthetic conceptualism, thanks to his fundamentally epistemological reading of the Third Critique. (shrink)

There is a confounding issue at the very heart of philosophical reflection. It is the question of where, and in what sense, the bounds of intelligible thought, knowledge, and speech are to be drawn. To inquire into these limits is to acknowledge that we are “finite thinking beings,” as Kant puts it. Indeed, one way of understanding our essentially problematic position in the world which leads us into philosophy is to view it as a position of being fated to the (...) perpetual attempt to reckon with the limits of intelligibility: we are creatures for whom it can become a live question how to make sense of thought, action, knowledge, the good life, the nature of self-consciousness, mortal existence, and so forth – and where this sense-making gives out. This introductory essay puts special emphasis on the ways in which we might fall prey to a confused and pernicious kind of self-deception or self-alienation in seeking a philosophical remedy to the limits of intelligibility. In modern times, no other thinkers have faced up to this troubling possibility of self-alienation with the same rigor and in such depth as Kant and Wittgenstein. (shrink)

Immanuel Kant: The Very Idea of a Critique of Pure Reason is a study of the background, development, exposition, and justification of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Instead of examining Kant's arguments for the transcendental ideality of space and time, his deduction of the pure concepts of the understanding, or his account of the dialectic of human reason, J. Colin McQuillan focuses on Kant's conception of critique. By surveying the different ways the concept of critique was used during the eighteenth (...) century, the relationship between Kant's critique and his pre-critical experiments with different approaches to metaphysics, the varying definitions of a critique of pure reason Kant offers in the prefaces and introductions to the first Critique, and the way Kant responds to objections, McQuillan is able to highlight an aspect of Kant's critical philosophy that is too often overlooked—the reason that philosophy is critical. (shrink)

The deduction of categories in the 1781 edition of the Critique of the Pure Reason (A Deduction) has “two sides”—the “objective deduction” and the “subjective deduction”. Kant seems ambivalent about the latter deduction. I treat it as a significant episode of Kant’s thinking about categories that extended from the early 1770s to around 1790. It contains his most detailed answer to the question about the origin of categories that he formulated in the 1772 letter to Marcus Herz. The answer is (...) that categories are generated a priori through a kind of intellectual “epigenesis”. This account leaves unexplained why precisely such and such categories should be generated. While this observation caused Kant to worry about the hypothetical status of the subjective deduction in 1781, he would come to acquiesce in the recognition that the ground of the possibility of categories is itself inscrutable. I call this his “methodological skepticism”. (shrink)

European Journal of Philosophy, Volume 30, Issue 1, Page 448-451, March 2022.

Much recent attention has been paid to Kant’s account of the unity of space in the Critique of Pure Reason, not least because of the significant implications of that view for other key critical-period doctrines. But far less attention has been paid to the development of Kant’s account of the unity of space. This paper aims to offer a systematic account of Kant’s pre-critical account of the unity of space. On the view presented herein, Kant’s early account of the unity (...) of space is deeply rooted in his pre-critical cosmological views. In particular, I argue that Kant sees the unity of space as grounded in the cosmological unity of the world of substances, which is itself rooted in the divine conservation of all substances in relations of mutual causal dependence. I contend that the seeds of this view are present in the late 1740s and 1750s, but that this view receives its fullest and most complete expression in the 1770 Inaugural Dissertation. The final section of the paper considers the fate of Kant’s pre-critical account of the unity of space. I contend that the theory is excluded from the Critique of Pure Reason in light of the strict epistemological strictures adopted in that text. But considerable textual evidence shows that Kant continues to aver the theory throughout the 1770s and 1780s in the looser epistemic context of his lectures. I contend, then, that this theory is not abandoned at all. Rather, like Kant’s 1763 proof of the existence of God, it is epistemically demoted: it is Kant’s preferred view, but one that falls short of the demanding epistemic standards of the critical philosophy. (shrink)

This paper argues that in both Kant and Heidegger the relation between thought and the world is possible only by means of the transcendental mediation of time. Where is the difference, then, between Kant’s and Heidegger’s temporal ontology? Whereas for Kant the schema is a “product of the imagination”, and thus a product of a transcendental faculty of the subject, for Heidegger the three temporal ecstases of transcendence are simply a neutral, structural articulation of the relation between Dasein and world. (...) They are not a product of subjectivity – least of all can they be brought back to the transcendental constitution of a consciousness. (shrink)

In this chapter, I will address the philosophical ambivalence of the concept of Willkür in and after Kant. The aim of my chapter is to defend it against the charge of irrationality and mere chance, and to rehabilitate it from a historical and analytic point of view. I will analyze Kant’s use of the word “Willkür”, and chronologically follow the semantic and systematic changes in his philosophical work. Finally, I address recent attempts to revitalize the concept of Willkür in the (...) analytic debate by referring to the work of Harry Frankfurt and Robert Kane. I shall argue that we need to distinguish between two kinds of libera arbitria. Whereas the liberum arbitrium indifferentiae can be interpreted in terms of the pejorative sense of “Willkür”—as mere chance—the liberum arbitrium voluntatis equals a reflective kind of Willkür—literal Will-kür —which involves freedom of the will. (shrink)

Kant holds that transcendental freedom of the will—“a faculty of absolutely beginning a state, and hence also a series of consequences”—is a necessary condition for moral imputation. The question of whether we are really free is a vexed issue. In this contribution, I pursue two aims: On the one hand, I provide an account of how, according to Kant, theoretical and practical reason work together in a way that allows us to affirm that we are free. On the other hand, (...) I bring Kant’s position into contact with the contemporary debate and defend Kant’s decidedly practical justification of freedom against objections. (shrink)

Im Zuge des Unterfangens, die Bedingungen der Möglichkeit von Erfahrung aufzudecken, entwickeln Immanuel Kant und Edmund Husserl je eine facettenreiche, dynamische Philosophie der Zeit. Für beide Denker entspringt die Zeitvorstellung einem Spannungsfeld von passiven und aktiven Strukturen des Erkenntnissubjekts. -/- Die Zentralgestalt der Aufklärung, Immanuel Kant, und den Begründer der Phänomenologie, Edmund Husserl, eint das Motiv, die Bedingungen der Möglichkeit von Erkenntnis zu ergründen, um Wissen zu legitimieren. Sie entwickeln dabei eine Philosophie der Zeit, die den Ursprung der Zeitvorstellung und (...) die Genese ihrer vielfältigen Aspekte auf das Zusammenwirken unterschiedlicher subjektiver Verhaltensformen und Strukturen zurückführt. Diese lassen sich mit den Begriffspaaren Rezeptivität und Spontaneität bei Kant und Passivität und Aktivität bei Husserl beschreiben. Beide Denker geben nicht nur eine Antwort darauf, wie Erfahrung von Zeitlichem möglich ist, sondern sind auch der Frage nach dem Wesen und dem Ursprung der Zeit selbst auf der Spur. (shrink)

This paper draws out and connects two neglected issues in Kant’s conception of a priori knowledge. Both concern topics that have been important to contemporary epistemology and to formal epistemology in particular: knowability and luminosity. Does Kant commit to some form of knowability principle according to which certain necessary truths are in principle knowable to beings like us? Does Kant commit to some form of luminosity principle according to which, if a subject knows a priori, then they can know that (...) they know a priori? I defend affirmative answers to both of these questions, and by considering the special kind of modality involved in Kant’s conceptions of possible experience and the essential completability of metaphysics, I argue that his combination of knowability and luminosity principles leads Kant into difficulty. (shrink)

The of aim of this paper is to enquire about some theoretical aspects of Kant’s philosophy that are connected to the representation ‘I’ and the question of self-identification in self-consciousness. The subjective capacity to represent itself through the representation ‘I’ will be articulated on the basis of the structure the so-called de se or I-thoughts developed by Perry and Recanati. In this regard, a contrast between Longuenesse’s view and my approach on self-identification and the different uses of I as subject (...) will be considered. (shrink)

In his 1786 essay on the pantheism controversy, ‘What Does It Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking?’, Kant implies that ‘the maxim of reason's self-preservation [Selbsterhaltung]’ is reason's first principle for orienting itself in thinking supersensible objects. But Kant does not clearly explain what the maxim or principle of reason's self-preservation is and how it fits into his larger project of critical philosophy. Nor does the secondary literature. This article reconstructs Kant's discussion of the principle of reason's self-preservation in ‘What (...) Does It Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking?’ It suggests that this principle is best understood as the discipline of pure reason. The principle of reason's self-preservation performs the same methodological function that Kant assigns to the discipline of pure reason. This principle establishes the rule of law in reason and subjects reason to its own laws. In so doing, it prevents reason's dialectical errors and also grounds reason's faith (Vernunftglaube), which in turn systematically conditions the practical use of reason. (shrink)

For Kant, the human cognitive faculty has two sub-faculties: sensibility and the understanding. Each has pure forms which are necessary to us as humans: space and time for sensibility; the categories for the understanding. But Kant is careful to leave open the possibility of there being creatures like us, with both sensibility and understanding, who nevertheless have different pure forms of sensibility. They would be finite rational beings and discursive cognizers. But they would not be human. And this raises a (...) question about the pure forms of the understanding. Does Kant leave open the possibility of discursive cognizers who have different categories? Even if other discursive cognizers might not sense like us, must they at least think like us? We argue that textual and systematic considerations do not determine the answers to these questions and examine whether Kant thinks that the issue cannot be decided. Consideration of his wider views on the nature and limits of our knowledge of mind shows that Kant could indeed remain neutral on the issue but that the exact form his neutrality can take is subject to unexpected constraints. The result would be an important difference between what Kant says about discursive cognizers with other forms of sensibility and what he is in a position to say about discursive cognizers with other forms of understanding. Kantian humility here takes on a distinctive character. (shrink)

A revised version of this paper became chapter I of Kant's Critical Religion.