Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T20:48:20.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kant and the Enlightenment's Contribution to Social Epistemology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Axel Gelfert
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present paper argues for the relevance of Immanuel Kant and the German Enlightenment to contemporary social epistemology. Rather than distancing themselves from the alleged ‘individualism’ of Enlightenment philosophers, social epistemologists would be well-advised to look at the substantive discussion of social-epistemological questions in the works of Kant and other Enlightenment figures. After a brief rebuttal of the received view of the Enlightenment as an intrinsically individualist enterprise, this paper charts the historical trajectory of philosophical discussions of testimony as a source of knowledge, via such philosophers as C. Thomasius, C. A. Crusius, J. M. Chladenius, G. F. Meier, and finally Kant. Building on recent work on Kant's epistemology of testimony, the paper considers Kant's broader contributions to social epistemology. This includes an analysis of Kant's comments on the social basis of contingent epistemic standards, e.g. in the sciences, as well as on problems arising from the management of what Kant calls the growing ‘volume of knowledge’. Special attention is paid to the relation between Kant's views and contemporary problems arising both in the context of education and from our increased reliance on scientific experts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 79 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arnauld, A. and P, Nicole. 1662/1996. Logic or the Art of Thinking (Port-Royal Logic). Repr. Buroker, J. V. (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassirer, E. 1932. Die Philosophie der Aufklärung. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).Google Scholar
Chignell, A. 2007. “Belief in Kant.” Philosophical Review 116: 323–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chladenius, J.M. 1742/1969. Einleitung zur richtigen Auslegung vernünftiger Reden und Schriften. Leipzig: Bey Friedrich Lanckisches Erben. Repr. Geldsetzer, L. (ed.). Düsseldorf: Stern.Google Scholar
Coady, C. A. J. 1992. Testimony: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Crusius, C. A. 1747/1964. Weg zur Gewißheit und Zuverläßigkeit der menschlichen Erkenntniß. Leipzig: Gleditsch. Repr. Tonelli, G. (ed.). Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Danneberg, L. 1997. “Die Auslegungslehre des Christian Thomasius in der Tradition von Logik und Hermeneutik.” In Vollhardt, F. (ed.), Christian Thomasius (1655–1728): Neue Forschungen im Kontext der Frühaufklärung, pp. 253–316. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frei, H. W. 1974. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fricker, E. 1994. “Against Gullibility.” In Matilal, B. K. and Chakrabarti, A. (eds.), Knowing From Words: Western and Indian Philosophical Analysis of Understanding and Testimony, pp. 125–62. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, S. 1987. “On Regulating What is Known: A Way to Social Epistemology.” Synthese 73: 145–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfert, A. 2006. “Kant on Testimony.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 14: 627–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfert, A. 2010. “Hume on Testimony Revisited.” Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 13 (forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höffe, O. 2003. Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Die Grundlegung der modernen Philosophie. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1900–. Kant's gesammelte Schriften (Academy Edition, =AA). Berlin: Verlag von Georg Reimer, Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1998. Unveröffentlichte Nachschriften I. Logik Bauch (=BL). Pinder, T. (ed.). Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 2007. Anthropology, History, and Education (Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant in Translation). Zöller, G. and Louden, R. B. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, R. 2004. A History of Reasonableness: Testimony and Authority in the Art of Thinking. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kusch, M. 2002. Knowledge by Agreement: The Programme of Communitarian Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louden, R. B. 2002. Kant's Impure Ethics: From Rational Beings to Human Beings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meier, G. F. 1752/1914. Auszug aus der Vernunftlehre. Halle: Johann Justinus Gebauer. Repr., with Kant's notes as Vol. XVI, Handschriftlicher Nachlaß Bd. III: Logik. Academy Edition of Kant's works. Berlin: Verlag von Georg Reimer.Google Scholar
Meier, G. F. 1752/1997. Vernunftlehre. Halle: Johann Justinus Gebauer. Repr. Schenk, G. (ed.). Halle: Hallescher Verlag.Google Scholar
O'Neill, O. 1989. Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant's Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pozzo, R. 2005. “Prejudices and Horizons: G. F. Meier's Vernunftlehre and Its Relation to Kant.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 43: 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, T. 1764/1997. An Inquiry into the Human Mind. Brooks, D. R. (ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Rossi, P. J. 2005. The Social Authority of Reason: Kant's Critique, Radical Evil, and the Destiny of Humankind. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, F. 1987. “Justification, Sociality, and Autonomy.” Synthese 73: 43–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholz, O. R. 1994. “Die allgemeine Hermeneutik bei Georg Friedrich Meier.” In Bühler, A. (ed.), Unzeitgemäße Hermeneutik: Verstehen und Interpretation im Denken der Aufklärung, pp. 158–91. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
Scholz, O. R. 2001. “Autonomie angesichts epistemischer Abhängigkeit: Kant über das Zeugnis anderer.” In Gerhardt, V., Horstmann, R.-P. and Schumacher, R. (eds.), Kant und die Berliner Aufklärung (Proceedings of the IXth International Kant Congress, Vol. 2), pp. 829–39. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Scholz, O. R. 2009. “Von Rom, den Antipoden und von Wundern: Das Zeugnis anderer in Logiken der Neuzeit.” In Spoerhase, C., Werle, D. and Wild, M. (eds.). Unsicheres Wissen: Skeptizismus und Wahrscheinlichkeit 1550–1850, pp. 245–68. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Shell, S. M. 2009. Kant and the Limits of Autonomy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sprat, T. 1667/1958. History of the Royal Society. London: Royal Society. Repr. Cope, J. I. and Jones, H. Whitmore (eds.). St. Louis: Washington University Press.Google Scholar
Strömholm, S. 1978. “Legal Hermeneutics: Notes on the Early Modern Development.” Scandinavian Studies in Law 22: 213–41.Google Scholar
Thomasius, C. 1691/1968. Außübung der Vernunfft-Lehre. Halle: Salfeld. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Zammito, J. H. 2002. Kant, Herder, and the Birth of Anthropology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar