Kant's Correspondence

: The article provides an introduction to an autograph draft of a letter on dietetics Kant wrote to the physician Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland and uses it as a springboard for the critical discussion of Kant’s dietetics as well as its systematic place in his philosophy. The final draft of Kant’s letter to Hufeland became the third part of The Conflict of the Faculties. The article argues that Kant assigns dietetics, understood as the regulation of the traditional nonnaturals, to philosophy and (...) not to medicine; that he regards moral health as the basis for physical health; and that his view of the systematic place of dietetics in his philosophy is inconsistent. (shrink)

This paper presents the correspondence in the year 1799 between Jeronimo de Bosch, the curator of the university of Leiden, and Kant or rather F. Th. Rink, who obviously was writing on behalf of Kant. The correspondence was initiated by a letter that de Bosch sent on 6 July 1799 to Kant accompanied by a lengthy poem on Kant's ethics. This paper presents two critically-edited, hitherto unknown letters by Rink to De Bosch and an autograph by Kant. These letters provide (...) us with new materials pertaining to the development of and Kant's involvement in Rink's edition of Mancherley zur Geschichte der metacritischen Invasion, the so-called „Gedächtniszettel“ and Kant's activities in the summer of 1799 while editing his so-called Opus postumum. It also sheds new light on the reception of Kant's philosophy in Holland, mainly with respect to De Bosch's Kantian sources. (shrink)

146 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 34:1 JANUARY 1996 thought that the two were incompatible and opted for one or the other. Others, most notably Robert Boyle, "the Christian Virtuoso," thought that the two were compatible. The most reliable kind of person was the Christian gentleman, because he was a supposedly disinterested spectator. Physicians, chemists, schoolmen, priests, and pro- fessional authors all had professional or mercenary interests that made their testimony suspect. A large part of the book, especially chapters (...) 4 through 8, become a social and intellectual biography of Boyle. Since even gentlemen make mistakes, it became important for philosopher- scientists to devise criteria for reliable testimony. John Locke summarized these condi- tions within the dimensions of "multiplicity, plausibility, directness, knowledgeability, and the like." Part of being a gentleman was engaging in civil conversation. The rules of such conversation prohibited "the notions of truth, certainty, rigor, and precision" that were appropriate to "scholarly inquiry but out of place in civil conversation." One conse- quence of this was that Boyle was uneasy with the use of mathematics in experimental sciences. The requirements of civil conversation also excluded technicians from the scientific community proper. Although they in fact did much of the work upon which scientific progress depended, the gentlemen who employed these technicians spoke for them and took.. (shrink)

Der Kantische Briefwechsel stellt für die Kantforschung eine profunde Quelle dar: eine Quelle sowohl für Kants äußeren Lebensweg wie auch für die Entstehung seines Werks und dessen unmittelbare Wirkungsgeschichte. Nicht nur Versuche, Kants Lebensgeschichte und Persönlichkeit darzustellen, stützen sich ganz maßgeblich auf die erhaltene Korrespondenz. Auch für unsere Kenntnis der inneren und äußeren Entwicklung der kritischen Philosophie, des wachsenden Erfolgs des Kritizismus, aber auch der damit im Zusammenhang stehenden Konflikte ist Kants Briefwechsel eine unschätzbare Quelle.Der Band enthält alle bis dato (...) bekannt gewordenen Briefe Kants und die wichtigsten Antwortschreiben seiner Briefpartner nach dem Text der Akademie-Ausgabe. Die Korrespondenz erstreckt sich über die gesamte zweite Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts und umfaßt u.a. die Briefe von und an Mendelssohn, Lambert, Sulzer, Lavater, Herz, Maimon, Garve, Reinhold, Schiller und Fichte. (shrink)

Drawn from the Prussian Academy edition of Kant's collected works, these letters make it possible to trace the development of Kant's thought from his earliest worries about the topics discussed in the Critique of Pure Reason to his attempts ...

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 article argues for a distinction between reticence and lying, on the basis of what Kant says about reticence in his correspondence with Maria von Herbert, as well as in his other ethical writings, and defends this distinction against the objections of Rae Langton ("Duty and Desolation", 1992). I argue that lying is necessarily deceptive, whereas reticence is not necessarily deceptive. Allowing another person to remain ignorant of some matter is a form of reticence that is not deceptive. This form (...) of reticence may be ethically permissible. (shrink)

Kant's correspondence includes a short letter from a well-wisher named Bertram. The content of the letter is as harmless as it is uninteresting: Bertram invites Kant to visit his brother's estate. ‘Do come,’ he says, ‘because the weather is so beautiful and such travel so beneficial’ . The interest of the letter is entirely exhausted by the date: 20 May 1775. For Kant used the letter to scribble down ideas, some suggestive of themes later to emerge in the first Critique. (...) Similarity of handwriting and train of thought suggests that these scribbles are part of a whole bundle of papers collectively known as the Duisburg Nachlaβ . It was supposedly Kant's practice to use letters as scrap paper shortly after receiving them. If this is true, we can date the Bertram scribbles - and, in all likelihood, the bundle as a whole - to some time in 1775. That would make the Duisburg Nachlaβ one of the few pieces of philosophical writing in Kant's own hand to come down to us from the 1770s, and the only extended piece in his hand from the middle of the decade. It offers a rare glimpse of Kant at work on immediate ancestors of central ideas in the first Critique and might therefore be expected to shed light on an important chapter in Kant's philosophical development. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to make sense of the immediate philosophical aftermath of Kant's Inaugural Dissertation. I will try to show what Kant himself took to be the problems left unsettled in the dissertation, and how he tried to deal with them. At the end of the paper, I will briefly sketch how he may have proceeded after the famous letter to Marcus Herz of 1772, and what path he would have had to take to recognize the need (...) for a transcendental deduction. (shrink)

Kants letzte Schrift Ueber die Buchmacherey ist von den Biographen Kants nur all zu oft ignoriert worden. Sogar so angesehene Gelehrte wie Friedrich Paulsen und Ernst Cassirer widmen dieser Schrift in ihren bekannten Darstellungen von Kants Leben und Denken kein Wort. Auch Manfred Kuehn geht in seiner jüngst veröffentlichten sehr lesbaren Biographie auf Kants Abrechnung mit Nicolai überhaupt nicht ein. Das ist bedauerlich; denn dieses Werk verdient mehr Aufmerksamkeit. Es weist nach, wie sehr es Kant an dem richtigen Verständnis seiner (...) Philosophie gelegen war und wie er bereit war, Verzerrungen, Verdrehungen, ja Mißverständnisse jeder Art hart zu bekämpfen. Friedrich Nicolai, obwohl kein Philosoph, konnte nicht völlig ignoriert werden. Denn er war ein mächtiger Verleger. Auch war er ein betriebsamer, erfolgreicher Schriftsteller und Publizist, dessen Werke gelesen wurden. (shrink)

Kants letzte Schrift Ueber die Buchmacherey ist von den Biographen Kants nur all zu oft ignoriert worden. Sogar so angesehene Gelehrte wie Friedrich Paulsen und Ernst Cassirer widmen dieser Schrift in ihren bekannten Darstellungen von Kants Leben und Denken kein Wort. Auch Manfred Kuehn geht in seiner jüngst veröffentlichten sehr lesbaren Biographie auf Kants Abrechnung mit Nicolai überhaupt nicht ein. Das ist bedauerlich; denn dieses Werk verdient mehr Aufmerksamkeit. Es weist nach, wie sehr es Kant an dem richtigen Verständnis seiner (...) Philosophie gelegen war und wie er bereit war, Verzerrungen, Verdrehungen, ja Mißverständnisse jeder Art hart zu bekämpfen. Friedrich Nicolai , obwohl kein Philosoph, konnte nicht völlig ignoriert werden. Denn er war ein mächtiger Verleger. Auch war er ein betriebsamer, erfolgreicher Schriftsteller und Publizist, dessen Werke gelesen wurden. (shrink)

Als zu Beginn des Jahrhunderts der Realismus wieder ernst genommen wurde, gab es viele Philosophen, die sich mit der Ontologie der Wahrheit befaßten. Unabhängig von der Bestimmung der Wahrheit als Korrespondenzbeziehung wollten sie herausfinden, inwieweit zur Erklärung der Wahrheit von Sätzen besondere Entitäten herangezogen werden müssen. Einige dieser Entitäten, so zum Beispiel Bolzanos ‘Sätze an sich’, Freges ‘Gedanken’ oder die ‘propositions’ von Russell und Moore, wurden als Träger der Eigenschaften Wahrheit und Falschheit aufgefaßt. Einige Philosophen jedoch, wie Russell, Wittgenstein im (...) ›Tractatus‹ und Husserl in den ›Logischen Untersuchungen‹, argumentierten, zusätzlich zu den Wahrheitsträgern bzw. an ihrer Stelle müßten Entitäten angenommen werden, auf Grund deren Sätze und/oder ‘Propositionen’ wahr sind. Solchen Entitäten gab man verschiedene Namen, insbesondere ‘fact’, ‘Tatsache’, ‘state of affairs’ und ‘Sachverhalt’. 1 Wir wollen einer Entscheidung über die Angebrachtheit dieser Ausdrücke nicht vorgreifen und daher zunächst eine neutralere Terminologie verwenden: Alle Entitäten, die für diese zweite Rolle in Frage kommen, wollen wir ‘Wahrmacher’ nennen. (shrink)

This paper presents the correspondence in the year 1799 between Jeronimo de Bosch, the curator of the university of Leiden, and Kant or rather F. Th. Rink, who obviously was writing on behalf of Kant. The correspondence was initiated by a letter that de Bosch sent on 6 July 1799 to Kant accompanied by a lengthy poem on Kant's ethics. This paper presents two critically-edited, hitherto unknown letters by Rink to De Bosch and an autograph by Kant. These letters provide (...) us with new materials pertaining to the development of and Kant's involvement in Rink's edition of Mancherley zur Geschichte der metacritischen Invasion, the so-called „Gedächtniszettel“ and Kant's activities in the summer of 1799 while editing his so-called Opus postumum. It also sheds new light on the reception of Kant's philosophy in Holland, mainly with respect to De Bosch's Kantian sources. (shrink)