Kant: Metaphysics and Epistemology, Misc

Book Reviews Paul Abela, Kantian Review, FirstView Article.

Paul Abela presents a powerful, experience-sensitive form of realism about the relation between mind and world, based on an innovative interpretation of Kant. Abela breaks with tradition in taking seriously Kant's claim that his Transcendental Idealism yields a form of empirical realism, and giving a realist analysis of major themes of the Critique of Pure Reason. Abela's blending of Kantian scholarship with contemporary epistemology offers a new way of resolving philosophical debates about realism.

In the preface to the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason Kant explicitly states that his motivation for writing this work is to make room for faith or the practical employment of reason . How does Kant accomplish this? The topics of God and the immortality of the soul do not arise until the conclusion of the antinomies. How does Kant get from the desire to make room for faith to its fulfilment in the latter parts of the (...) first Critique? A common response to this question is a discussion of the constitutive and regulative employment of the ideas of reason. It is this distinction that sustains Kant's attempt at reconciling empirical knowledge and moral discourse. The constitutive and regulative analysis, however, has its roots deep within the initial stages of the Critique of Pure Reason. It is, in fact, the mathematical/dynamical distinction, which Kant introduces early in the analytic, that makes possible the constitutive/regulative distinction. Not only has the mathematical/ dynamical distinction itself been disregarded, but the relation between the mathematical/dynamical and the constitutive/ regulative has been almost universally ignored by commentators. If a commentator does mention the mathematical/dynamical distinction, it is usually in a dismissive tone. Walsh, for example, calls the distinction ‘hard to interpret’ and ignores it for the rest of his commentary. (shrink)

SummaryThis paper is divided into two parts. The first sketches an interpretation of the thing in itself, the noumenon and the transcendental object which clarifies the connection between these conceptions and shows that each has a “critical” function. This is accomplished by linking them with transcendental reflection. It is shown that such reflection requires the distinction between two ways of considering an object and that “noumenon” and “transcendental object” characterize alternative descriptions of an object considered as it is in itself. (...) The second part deals with the problem of affection. Although the theory of “transcendental” or “double affection” is rejected, it is argued that affection, like objects, can be considered from two points of view . Thus, while there is no distinct event entitled “transcendental affection”, there is a transcendental consideration of affection. Moreover since such a consideration involves analytic judgments about how the affecting object must be thought, the appeal to categories such as causality does not violate “critical” structures. (shrink)

Kant's Elliptical Path explores the main stages and key concepts in the development of Kant's Critical philosophy, from the early 1760s to the 1790s.

The author explores the differing forms of unity in the transcendental conditions for the synthesis of experience.

In the Critique of Fure Reason Kant distinguishes two sorts of conditions of knowledge. First, there are the space and time of pure intuition, introduced in the Transcendental Aesthetic. They are grounded in our dependence on a special sort of perceptual field for the location of objects. Second, there are pure concepts of the understanding, or categories, introduced in the Analytic. In one respect these are grounded in the logical function of the understanding in judgements, introduced in the first chapter (...) of the analytic of concepts: Clue to the Discovery of All Pure Concepts of the Understanding; in another respect, they are grounded in transcendental unity of apperception, which is introduced in the second chapter: Deduction of the Pure Concepts of the Understanding, or Transcendental Deduction. I shall be concerned with the latter and its contribution to the overall strategy of argument in the analytic. Within the Analytic, Kant distinguishes between an Analytic of Concepts and an Analytic of Principles. This corresponds to a traditional distinction between a doctrine of concepts and judgement. It is arguable that Kant's theory of concepts undermines this distinction. However, I shall not deal with that general issue, but with a more specific issue related to the first two chapters of the Analytic of Principles: the Schematism and the System of Principles. (shrink)

The interpretation of Kant's Critical philosophy as a version of traditional idealism has a long history. In spite of Kant's and his commentators’ various attempts to distinguish between traditional and transcendental idealism, his philosophy continues to be construed as committed (whether explicitly or implicitly and whether consistently or inconsistently) to various features usually associated with the traditional idealist project. As a result, most often, the accusation is that his Critical philosophy makes too strong metaphysical and epistemological claims.

This review article responds to a biography of Fichte and a collection of essays on German Idealism stressing the plurality of types of idealism that were presented at the close of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century.

o objetivo deste artigo é , em primeiro lugar, reconstruir o chamado "problema de Hume", analisando-o como dois problemas distintos (causalidade e inducao), embora intimamente relacionados -a contar, sobretudo, pela propria tentativa humeana de soluciona-los mediante uma concepcao unitaria de necessidade. Em segundo lugar, o objetivo é analisar a resposta de Kant a Hume, compreendendo-a, do mesmo modo, como duas respostas distintas: a primeira (causalidade) contida na "Segunda Analogia da Experiencia" da Critica da Razao Pura e a segunda (induçáo), principalmente, (...) nos prefacios e na segunda parte ("Critica da Faculdade de Juizo Teleologica") da Critica da Faculdade do Juizo. Isso denotaria uma certa assimetria entre as determinacoes decorrentes de cada uma das duas solucoes, pois enquanto a necessidade imposta pelo principio dos juizos de causa e efeito possui vinculos imediatos com as condicces da realidade objetiva dos fenomenos, a necessidade imposta pelo principio dos juizos teleologicos possui vinculos apenas indiretos com as mesmas condicoes, po is decorrem tao-somente das condicoes subjetivas da experiencia. A duvida seria em que medida, nesse ultimo caso, a solucao transcendental kantiana distingue-se da solucao empirista humeana, cuja deficiencia, apontada por Kant, foi justamente fazer "passar uma necessidade subjetiva, isto e, urn habito, par uma necessidade objetiva". A doutrina kantiana dos fins essenciais da razáo parece ser o único elemento a justificar uma distinçáo substantiva entre ambas as soluções. (shrink)

It is commonly thought that the distinction between subjectively valid judgements of perception and objectively valid judgements of experience in the Prolegomena is not consistent with the account of judgement Kant offers in the B Deduction, according to which a judgement is ‘nothing other than the way to bring given cognitions to the objective unity of apperception’. Contrary to this view, I argue that the Prolegomena distinction maps closely onto that drawn between the mathematical and dynamical principles in the System (...) of Principles: Kant’s account of the Prolegomena distinction strongly suggests that it is the Analogies of Experience that make it possible for judgements of perception to give rise to judgements of experience. This means that judgements of perception are objectively valid with regard to the quantity and quality of objects, and subjectively valid with regard to the relation they posit between objects. If that is the case, then the notion of a judgement of perception is consistent with the B Deduction account of judgement. (shrink)

Book Reviews Graham Bird, Kantian Review, FirstView Article.

The paper seeks to refute Skorupski's claim in _English-Language Philosophy 1750-1945 that Kant's philosophy was consciously antinaturalist. Skorupski has two related views: (1) that Kant consciously recognised steps from naturalism to empiricism and then to scepticism, and rejected naturalism; (2) that the rejection of naturalism issues in a transcendental account of the mind as outside nature. (1) Is vulnerable to the textual point that Kant never associates naturalism explicitly with the argument Skorupski notes. Indeed the textual references to naturalism do (...) not indicate a clear, single, view of that doctrine in Kant. (2) Is vulnerable to the by now well-known objections to such a traditionalist picture of the mind 'making nature' and so being quite distinct from it. The paper shows that such a naive traditionalist account is over-simple. (shrink)

The question of Kant's relation to Spinozist thought has been virtually ignored over the years. I analyze Kant's pre-critical 'possibility-proof' of God's existence, elaborated in the Beweisgrund, as well as the echoes that this proof has in the first Critique, in beginning to uncover the connection between Kant's thought and Spinoza's. Kant's espousal of the Principle of Sufficient Reason [PSR] for the analysis of modality during the pre-critical period committed him, I argue, to Spinozist substance monism. Much textual evidence suggests (...) that he was aware of this commitment. However, by transforming the PSR into a regulative principle the critical Kant has transformed his pre-critical proof into a regulative ideal. He is thereby (consciously) committed, I argue, to regulative Spinozism. (shrink)

In his first critique Kant shows why ideas in contrast to categories do not refer to adequate empirical objects. How can he claim at the same time that ideas be indispensable? Kant's answer to this problem is ambiguous. In this article I demonstrate that neither his attempt of a transcendental deduction of ideas nor his confirmation that ideas are useful for systematical unity of knowledge is convincing. The only solution is: a foundation of ideas by empirical knowledge in relation to (...) its systematical form. Finally I will point out that all this is not possible without the aid of practical reason. (shrink)