Kant: Opus Postumum

This essay explores the undervalued methodological elements underpinning Kant’s Transition from Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science to Physics in Opus postumum. I do this by drawing...

I have two main goals in this paper. The first is to argue for the thesis that Kant gave up on his highest good argument for the existence of God around 1800. The second is to revive a dialogue about this thesis that died out in the 1960s. The paper is divided into three sections. In the first, I reconstruct Kant’s highest good argument. In the second, I turn to the post-1800 convolutes of Kant’s Opus postumum to discuss his repeated (...) claim that there is only one way to argue for the existence of God, a way which resembles the highest good argument only in taking the moral law as its starting point. In the third, I explain why I do not find the counterarguments to my thesis introduced in the 1960s persuasive. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Kant-Studien Jahrgang: 108 Heft: 1 Seiten: 166-170.

In his Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft (MAN), Kant claims that chemistry is an improper, though rational science. The chemistry to which Kant confers this status is the phlogistic chemistry of, for instance, Georg Stahl. In his Opus Postumum (OP), however, Kant espouses a broadly Lavoiserian conception of chemistry. In particular, Kant endorses Antoine Lavoisier's elements, oxygen theory of combustion, and role for the caloric. As Lavoisier's lasting contribution to chemistry, according to some histories of the science, was his emphasis on (...) quantitative methods, Kant's assimilation of the chemical revolution raises the question: did Kant continue to think of chemistry as an improper, though rational, science in OP? In this paper, I answer this question affirmatively. I explain that a proper science requires a priori laws for the mathematical construction of its objects: the mere use of quantitative measurements is insufficient for the satisfaction this requirement. Further, I argue, contra Burkhard Tuschling, that in OP Kant retains a central role for mathematical construction in the foundations of proper natural science. Finally, I contend that the prominent a priori components of chemistry discussed in OP—the aether and the enumeration of the elements—do not make chemistry into a proper science. (shrink)

Biology in the Critical Philosophy and the Opus postumum Hein van den Berg. Parts of Chap. 2 have been previously published in Hein van den Berg (2011), “ Kant's Conception of Proper Science.” Synthese 183 (1): 7–26. Parts of Chap.

Friedrich Paneth’s conception of “chemical element” has functioned as the official definition adopted by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry since 1923. Paneth maintains a distinction between empirical and “transcendental” concepts of element; furthermore, chemical science requires fluctuation between the two. The origin of the empirical-transcendental split is found in Immanuel Kant’s classic Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1787). The present paper examines Paneth’s foundational concept of element in light of Kant’s attempt, late in life, to revoke key distinctions (...) made in his Critique, including that of regulative and constitutive functions of reason. In a section of his Opus postumum devoted to the “Transition from the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science to Physics,” Kant bends his philosophical system to address the newly emerging sciences of matter of his time. Specifically, he tried, without success, to develop the transcendental ground for microscale motions of bodies encountered in physical, electrical and chemical processes. Paneth’s discussion of chemical element does not take the Opus postumum into account, which is why it begins with a rejection of Kant’s rejection (in his earlier writings) of chemistry’s status as science. I make the case that Paneth’s definition of element effectively maintains something very like Kant’s critical separation of regulative and constitutive principles, while a advancing the concept of chemical science. (shrink)

Hanna proposes a version of non-conceptualism he closely associates with Kant. This paper takes issue with his proposal on two fronts. First, there are reasons to dispute whether any version of non-conceptualism can be rightly attributed to Kant. In addition to pointing out passages that conflict with Hanna's interpretation, I also suggest ways in which the Kant of the Opus Postumum could integrate key insights of non-conceptualism into a basically conceptualist framework. In Part Two of the paper, I turn to (...) a more systematically oriented critique of Hanna's nonconceptualism. Drawing on work by Gareth Evans, John McDowell, Sonia Sedivy, and Alva Noë, I argue that conceptualism is in a position to integrate the points which are taken by Hanna to speak most strongly in favor of non-conceptualism. In particular, I argue for the deep compatibility of conceptualism and direct realism. At the same time, I point to what I see as weaknesses in Hanna's defence of non-conceptualism. (shrink)

In this essay, I call attention to Kant’s and Whewell’s attempt to provide bridging principles between a priori principles and scientific laws. Part of Kant’s aim in the Opus postumum (ca. 1796-1803) was precisely to bridge the gap between the metaphysical foundations of natural science (on the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786) see section 1) and physics by establishing intermediary concepts or ‘Mittelbegriffe’ (henceforth this problem is referred to as ‘the bridging-problem’). I argue that the late-Kant attempted to show (...) that the concept of ‘moving force’, an intermediary concept derived from a priori principles, could be given empirical content so that concrete scientific knowledge is arrived at. Thus, the late-Kant wished not only to show that proper scientific laws are necessary a priori (as he had shown in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science) but also that intermediary concepts could be derived from a priori principles which, when interpreted empirically, resulted in the specific forces as established by physics (see section 2). Of course, William Whewell never knew about Kant’s Opus postumum and his attempt to bridge the gap between the metaphysical foundations of science and physics. However, it is striking that Whewell had similar concerns about the Critique of Pure Reason and the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science as Kant himself. According to Whewell, the Kantian project was incomplete because it did not show how ‘modifications’ (in the sense of concretizations) of a priori principles could result in empirical laws (section 3). Next, it will be argued, by taking into account several of Whewell’s philosophical notebooks which have scarcely been studied systematically, that Whewell’s doctrine of Fundamental Ideas grew out of his dissatisfaction with the Kantian project with respect to the bridging problem and that his own philosophical position should be seen as an attempt to bypass the bridging-problem. (shrink)

This paper poses a dilemma for applying the category of substance given Kant's different conceptions of substance in the Critique of Pure Reason. Briefly stated, if the category of substance applies to an omnipresent and sempiternal substance, then although this would ensure that all experiences of empirical objects take place in a common spatiotemporal framework, one could not individuate these empirical objects and experience their alterations. If the category of substance applies to ordinary empirical objects, however, then although one could (...) individuate these substances and experience their alterations, the category would not pick out a common spatiotemporal framework for these experiences. I will argue that this dilemma can be overcome by examining the development of Kant's conception of substance in his final work, the Opus postumum. (shrink)

»Vom leeren Raum kan es keine Erfahrung, auch keinen Schlus auf das Object derselben geben. [... ] Der Satz [... ]: es giebt leere Räume kan nie ein weder mittelbarer noch unmittelbarer Erfahrungssatz seyn«, so hält Kant im Opus postumum fest, jenem unvollendeten >Werk<, an dem er in den letzten Lebensjahren gearbeitet hatte und das dem »Übergang von den metaphysischen Anfangsgründen der Naturwissenschaft zur Physik« gelten sollte. Für diesen Übergang nun ist es eine der entscheidenden Annahmen, dass es keine Erfahrung (...) vom leeren Raum geben könne - eine bemerkenswerte Behauptung, die sich nicht von selbst versteht, insbesondere, wenn man beachtet, dass Kant dem leeren Raum nicht nur abspricht, unmittelbar wahrnehmbar zu sein, sondern auch bestreitet, dass die Existenz leeren Raumes auf Grund von Erfahrung indirekt erschlossen werden könne. In diesem Aufsatz gehe ich den Gründen für diese Annahme Kants nach, um im Anschluss daran nach anderen Auffassungen räumlicher Erfahrung zu fragen, die den leeren Raum im Gegensatz zu Kant als erfahrbar bestimmen. Die Form der Einheit der Erfahrung erweist sich dabei als entscheidend dafür, ob und in welcher Weise leerer Raum zu einem Gegenstand der Erfahrung werden kann. (shrink)

In Kant's theoretical philosophy substance is not only constitutive for objects as one of the categories of pure reason, but also functions as a substrate for the unity of time. Result of these different functions is an ambiguity in the meaning of Kant's notion of substance. Is there only one or are there many individual substances? This paper traces the ways in which Kant uses substance not only in the Critique of Pure Reason, but also in the draft „Transition 1–14“ (...) of the Opus postumum to find a solution for this problem. (shrink)

In Kant's theoretical philosophy substance is not only constitutive for objects as one of the categories of pure reason, but also functions as a substrate for the unity of time. Result of these different functions is an ambiguity in the meaning of Kant's notion of substance. Is there only one or are there many individual substances? This paper traces the ways in which Kant uses substance not only in the Critique of Pure Reason, but also in the draft „Transition 1–14“ (...) of the Opus postumum to find a solution for this problem. (shrink)

This paper analyzes, first, the reception of Schelling’s philosophy in the environment of Kant in Königsberg, and second in Kantian writings published by his students Jäsche and Rink. – The only two passages Kant mentions Schelling are to be found in the latest leaves of the Opus postumum. Here Schelling’s philosophy is characterized as transcendental idealism. In current research it became rather common to interpret these passages as a positive account of Schelling’s philosophy, moreover, that Kant recognized Schelling’s transcendental idealism (...) as an improvement of his own philosophy. However, in the latest leaves of the Opus postumum the term transcendental idealism is – remarkably – strongly linked with Spinozism. In this paper I argue, thirdly, that Kant in the Opus postumum employs transcendental idealism in a negative way in order to distinguish his own transcendental philosophy clearly from the wrong philosophical account transcendental idealism brings forward. (shrink)

Insbesondere die Naturphilosophie hat Kant zeitlebens beschäftigt. Ihre Begründung kulminiert in der Kritik der reinen Vernunft in den berühmten Fragen, wie Erfahrung überhaupt und wie synthetische Urteile a priori möglich sind. Seine Metaphysischen Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft liefern eine metaphysische Begründung der newtonschen Physik. Dieses Begründungsprogramm hat die damalige Debatte nachhaltig beeinflusst. Das vielleicht größte systematische Problem in diesem Werk ist der von Kant sehr eng gefasste Begriff von Naturwissenschaft, der etwa die Chemie oder Biologie ausschließt. Insbesondere was die Biologie betrifft, (...) entwickelt Kant jedoch in der Kritik der Urteilskraft eine Strategie, teleologische Naturbestimmtheit ins kritische Erkenntnisprogramm einzubauen. Etwa zeitgleich mit dieser Schrift entdeckt er eine Lücke in seinem System: Von den apriorischen Bestimmungen der Metaphysik der Natur kann nicht unmittelbar zu den Bestimmungen der Physik übergegangen werden. Diese Lücke sollte eine neue Schrift schließen, wie das umfangreiche Material des sogenannten Opus postumum bezeugt. Nun war Kant nicht der einzige, der gravierende Probleme in der kritischen Philosophie gesehen hat. Schellings und insbesondere Hegels kritische Umformung der kantischen Naturphilosophie ist deshalb nicht nur von historischem Interesse, sondern auch wichtig für das zeitgenössische Verständnis der kantischen Naturphilosophie. Die Beiträge in diesem Band diskutieren Kants zentrale Überlegungen zur Naturphilosophie jeweils im Kontext ihrer historischen Bedingungen und ihrer Weiterentwicklung. So soll die Bedeutung der kantischen Naturphilosophie für die Entwicklungen im 19. Jahrhundert erhellt werden. (shrink)

The three presumptions that Hegel’s idealism further develops or radicalises Kant’s transcendental idealism, that their respective versions of idealism are linked by Kant’s account of self-positing (Selbstsetzungslehre) in the late opus postumum and that the basic model of Hegel’s early idealism holds also for his mature system are wide-spread and largely unexamined. This paper examines several problems confronting these presumptions, including Hegel’s refutation of the basic premises of Kant’s transcendental idealism and Transzendentalphilosophie in the late opus postumum (§2), Hegel’s critical (...) rejection of intellectual intuition because it cannot escape Pyrrhonian scepticism (§3), and his critical rejection of the deductivist ideal of scientia, which undergirds Kant’s transcendental idealism and his late Transzendentalphilosophie (§4), the highly un-Kantian principles of Hegel’s mature idealism (§5) and finally Hegel’s thorough and incisive critique in the 1807 Phenomenology of Spirit of common philosophical views, concepts and presuppositions, including those which undergird the three presumptions noted above (§6). To understand properly Hegel’s philosophy of nature and hence also his philosophical system requires abandoning those three presumptions. (shrink)

Contrary to Eckart Förster, I argue that the Opus postumum represents more of an evolution than a revolution in Kant's thought. Among other points, I argue that Kant's Selbstsetzungslehre, or theory of self-positing, according to which we cannot have knowledge of the spatio-temporal world except through recognition of the changes we initiate in it by our own bodies, does not constitute a radicalization of Kant's transcendental idealism, but is a development of the realist line of argument introduced by the "Refutation (...) of Idealism" of 1787-90; and I argue that Kant's concept of the highest good, which according to Förster was only revised to connect virtue to collective rather than individual happiness in 1790-93 and was then in any case withdrawn in the Opus postumum, was uninterruptedly focused on collective happiness from the first edition of the first Critique, and that there is no reason to believe that ever Kant retracted it. (shrink)

If Fichte influenced in Kant like a reagent so that this took conscience of thelast consequences of his unfinished system, Would it be necessary to say thesame of Schelling? In principle, everything leads us to a negative answers.During the nineties Schelling was considered as a mere pupil and until..

This is the first book in English devoted entirely to Kant's Opus postumum and its place in the Kantian oeuvre.

The period from Kant to Hegel is one of the most intense and rigorous in modern philosophy. The central problem at the heart of it was the development of a new standard of theoretical reflection and of the principle of rationality itself. The essays in this volume, published in 2000, consider both the development of Kant's system of transcendental idealism in the three Critiques, the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, and the Opus Postumum, as well as the reception and transformation (...) of that idealism in the work of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. (shrink)

The purpose of the Cambridge Edition is to offer translations of the best modern German edition of Kant's work in a uniform format suitable for Kant scholars. When complete (fourteen volumes are currently envisaged) the edition will include all of Kant's published writings and a generous selection from the unpublished writings such as the Opus postumum, handschriftliche Nachlass, lectures, and correspondence. This volume contains the first translation into English of notes from Kant's lectures on metaphysics. These lectures, dating from the (...) 1760s to the 1790s, touch on all the major topics and phases of Kant's philosophy. Most of these notes have appeared only recently in the German Academy Edition; this translation offers many corrections of that edition. As is standard with the volumes in the Cambridge Edition there is an extensive editorial apparatus, including extensive linguistic and explanatory notes, a detailed subject index, and glossaries of key terms. (shrink)

This volume is the first ever English translation of Kant's last major work, the so-called Opus Postumum, a work Kant himself described as his 'chef d'oeuvre' and as the keystone of his entire philosophical system. It occupied him for more than the last decade of his life. Begun with the intention of providing a 'transition from the metaphysical foundations of natural science to physics,' Kant's reflections take him far beyond the problem he initially set out to solve. In fact, he (...) reassesses a whole series of fundamental topics of transcendental philosophy: the thing in itself, the nature of space and time, the concept of the self and its agency, the idea of God, and the unity of theoretical and practical reason. Though never completed, the text reaches a logical albeit not fully developed, conclusion. (shrink)

This is one of the first volumes to appear in the projected fourteen-volume series, The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant, under the general editorship of Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. It is also the first translation ever into English of Kant's notorious late reflections on metaphysics and epistemology, dubbed "Opus postumum" by Kant's later editor, Erich Adickes. This is an excellent volume, in format, in content, and in physical presentation. Förster has provided a very clear, concise, and (...) judicious introduction, which describes the history of Kant's manuscript, its composition, its place in Kant's philosophy, and the development of Kant's views and argument contained in it. The body of the text is a generous and representative selection of substantial excerpts from Kant's opus postumum, which fills volumes 21 and 22 of Kant's Gesammelte Schriften, totalling about twelve hundred pages of text. Förster has provided headings for seven sections of this material: "Early leaves and Oktaventwurf," "Toward the Elementary System of the Moving Forces of Matter," "The Ether Proofs," "How is Physics Possible? How is the Transition to Physics Possible?" "The Selbstsetzungslehre," "Practical Self-Positing and the Idea of God," and "What is Transcendental Philosophy?" The body of the text is preceded by a brief but useful bibliography and is followed by factual notes on the excerpted passages, a detailed glossary, a concordance to Ak vols. 21 and 22, and very good indexes of names and subjects. The editorial apparatus makes this volume especially useful, and the translators have certainly achieved their aim of making their translation read at least like Kant wherever it cannot quite read like English. (shrink)