Abstract
Why does Kant say that a “skeptical satisfaction of pure reason” is “impossible” (A758/B786)? I answer this question by giving a reading of “The Discipline of Pure Reason in Respect of Its Polemic Employment.” I explain that Kant must address skepticism in this context because his warning against developing counterarguments to dogmatic attacks encourages a comparison between the critical and the skeptical methods. I then argue that skepticism fails to “satisfy” [befriedigen] reason insofar as it cannot “pacify” reason’s tendency to go beyond its own boundaries. The skeptical method reveals the past failures of dogmatic metaphysics but cannot rule out future successes. Only critical knowledge of reason’s proper bounds can do this, thereby pacifying our restless reason. I close by arguing that Kant’s discussion implies that a skeptic must feel dissatisfied with her renunciation of metaphysics, and that this dissatisfaction can lead her to take interest in Kant’s critical philosophy.
References
Alberg, J. 2023. “Did Rousseau Teach Kant Discipline?” Kantian Review 28 (1): 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1369415422000516.Search in Google Scholar
Allais, L. 2010. “Transcendental Idealism and the Transcendental Deduction.” In Kant’s Idealism: New Interpretations of a Controversial Doctrine, edited by D. Schulting, and J. Verburgt, 91–107. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-90-481-9719-4_5Search in Google Scholar
Ameriks, K. 1978. “Kant’s Transcendental Deduction as a Regressive Argument.” Kant-Studien 69 (1–4): 273–87, https://doi.org/10.1515/kant.1978.69.1-4.273.Search in Google Scholar
Baghai, F. 2020. “The Disciplinary Conception of Enlightenment in Kant’s Critical Philosophy.” Critical Horizons 21 (2): 130–52, https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2020.1759282.Search in Google Scholar
de Boer, K. 2019. “Kant’s Response to Hume’s Critique of Pure Reason.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 101 (3): 376–406, https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2019-3003.Search in Google Scholar
Carson, E. 1999. “Kant on the Method of Mathematics.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 37 (4): 629–52, https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2008.0905.Search in Google Scholar
Chance, B. 2011. “Sensibilism, Psychologism, and Kant’s Debt to Hume.” Kantian Review 16 (3): 325–49, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1369415411000185.Search in Google Scholar
Chance, B. 2012. “Scepticism and the Development of the Transcendental Dialectic.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (2): 311–31, https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2012.664025.Search in Google Scholar
Chance, B. 2013. “Kant and the Discipline of Reason.” European Journal of Philosophy 24 (2): 87–110, https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12064.Search in Google Scholar
Chignell, A., and C. McLear. 2010. “Three Skeptics and the Critique: Review of Michael Forster’s Kant and Skepticism.” Philosophical Books 51 (4): 228–44, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0149.2010.00513.x.Search in Google Scholar
Empiricus, S. 2000. Outlines of Scepticism, transl. by J. Annas, and J. Barnes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ertl, W. 2002. “Hume’s Antinomy and Kant’s Critical Turn.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 10 (4): 617–40, https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2002.10383082.Search in Google Scholar
Forster, M. 2010. Kant and Skepticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gava, G. 2018. “Kant, Wolff and the Method of Philosophy.” Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy 8: 271–303.10.1093/oso/9780198829294.003.0009Search in Google Scholar
Guyer, P. 1987. “The Failure of the B Deduction.” Southern Journal of Philosophy 25 (S1): 67–84, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1987.tb01652.x.Search in Google Scholar
Guyer, P. 2003. “Kant on Common Sense and Scepticism.” Kantian Review 7: 1–37, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1369415400001722.Search in Google Scholar
Grimm, J., and W. Grimm. 1854. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Digitalisierte Fassung im Wörterbuchnetz des Trier Center for Digital Humanities. Version 01/21. https://www.woerterbuchnetz.de/DWB (accessed December 29, 2022).Search in Google Scholar
Goldhaber, C. (Forthcoming). “Kant’s Offer to the Skeptical Empiricist.” Journal of the History of Philosophy.Search in Google Scholar
Hatfield, G. 2001. “The Prolegomena and the Critiques of Pure Reason.” In Kant und die Berliner Aufklärung: Akten des IX Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, edited by V. Gerhardt, R. P. Horstmann, and R. Schmacher, 185–208. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110874129.185Search in Google Scholar
Hatfield, G. 2003. “What Were Kant’s Aims in the Deduction?” Philosophical Topics 31 (1/2): 165–98, https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics2003311/216.Search in Google Scholar
Henrich, D. 1989. “Kant’s Notion of a Deduction and the Methodological Background of the First Critique.” In Kant’s Transcendental Deductions: The Three Critiques and the Opus Postumum, edited by E. Förster, 29–46. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.10.1515/9781503621619-006Search in Google Scholar
Hume, D. 1739–40/2007. In A Treatise of Human Nature, edited by D. F. Norton, and M. Norton. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/oseo/instance.00046221Search in Google Scholar
Hume, D. 1748/2000. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, edited by T. Beauchamp. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/oseo/instance.00032980Search in Google Scholar
Hume, D. 1751/1998. In An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, edited by T. Beauchamp. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/oseo/instance.00037977Search in Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1764/2007. “Essay on the Maladies of the Head.” In Anthropology, History, and Education, trasnl. by R. Louden, and G. Zöller, 63–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791925.005Search in Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1781–7/1929. Critique of Pure Reason, transl. by N. K. Smith. New York: Palgrave Macmillon.Search in Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1783/2004. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics: That Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science, transl. by G. Hatfield. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511808517Search in Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1788/1996. “Critique of Practical Reason.” In Practical Philosophy, trasnl. by M. Gregor, 133–271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813306.010Search in Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1796/2002. “Proclamation of the Imminent Conclusion of a Treaty of Perpetual Peace in Philosophy.” In Theoretical Philosophy after 1781, trasnl. by H. Allison, P. Heath, G. Hatfield, and M. Friedman, 451–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1798/2007. “Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View.” In Anthropology, History, and Education, trasnl. by R. Louden, and G. Zöller, 227–429. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791925.018Search in Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1997 In Lectures on Metaphysics, trasnl. by N. Ameriks, and S. Naragon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107049505Search in Google Scholar
Kemp Smith, N. 1918. A Commentary to Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1990. Kant’s Transcendental Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195059670.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kuehn, M. 1983a. “Hume’s Antinomies.” Hume Studies 9 (1): 25–45, https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2011.0520.Search in Google Scholar
Kuehn, M. 1983b. “Kant’s Conception of ‘Hume’s Problem’.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 21 (2): 175–93, https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.1983.0051.Search in Google Scholar
Macbeth, D. 2014. Realizing Reason: A Narrative of Truth and Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198704751.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Moore, A. W. 2010. “The Transcendental Doctrine of Method.” In The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, edited by P. Guyer, 310–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CCOL9780521883863.014Search in Google Scholar
Møller, S. 2020. Kant’s Tribunal of Reason: Legal Metaphor and Normativity in the Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108682480Search in Google Scholar
Munzel, G. F. 2012. Kant’s Conception of Pedagogy: Toward Education for Freedom. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Nunez, T. 2014. “Definitions of Kant’s Categories.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 44 (5/6): 631–57, https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2014.974469.Search in Google Scholar
Piper, A. 2012. “Kant’s Two Solutions to the Free Rider Problem.” Kant Yearbook 4 (1): 133–42, https://doi.org/10.1515/kantyb.2012.113.Search in Google Scholar
Proops, I. 2003. “Kant’s Legal Metaphor and the Nature of a Deduction.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 41 (2): 209–29, https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2003.0019.Search in Google Scholar
Saner, H. 1973. Kant’s Political Thought: Its Origins and Development, Transl. E. B. Ashton. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Schafer, K. 2022. “The Beach of Skepticism: Kant and Hume on the Practice of Philosophy and the Proper Bounds of Skepticism.” In Kant’s Prolegomena: A Critical Guide, edited by P. Thielke, 111–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108677776.007Search in Google Scholar
Schafer, K. Forthcoming. “Kant on Method.” In The Oxford Handbook of Kant, edited by A. Stephenson, and A. Gomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sommerlatte, C. 2016. “Empirical Cognition in the Transcendental Deduction: Kant’s Starting Point and His Humean Problem.” Kantian Review 21 (3): 437–63, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1369415416000273.Search in Google Scholar
Stern, R. 2006. “Metaphysical Dogmatism, Humean Scepticism, Kantian Criticism.” Kantian Review 11: 102–16, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1369415400002260.Search in Google Scholar
Stern, R. 2008. “Kant’s Response to Skepticism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism, edited by J. Greco, 265–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195183214.003.0013Search in Google Scholar
Stroud, B. 1968/2000. “Transcendental Arguments.” In Understanding Human Knowledge: Philosophical Essays, 9–25. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0199252130.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Stroud, S. 2015. Kant and the Promise of Rhetoric. University Park: Penn State University Press.10.1515/9780271061115Search in Google Scholar
Sutherland, D. 2021. Kant’s Mathematical World: Mathematics, Cognition, and Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108555746Search in Google Scholar
Treloar, J. 1988. “The Polemical Employment of Pure Reason and Kantian Ethics.” Philosophy Research Archives 14: 183–92, https://doi.org/10.5840/pra1988/19891433.Search in Google Scholar
Walker, R. 1999. “Induction and Transcendental Arguments.” In Transcendental Arguments: Problems and Prospects, edited by R. Stern, 13–29. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238379.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Watkins, E. 2004. “Kant’s Model of Causality: Causal Powers, Laws, and Kant’s Reply to Hume.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 42 (4): 449–88, https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2004.0081.Search in Google Scholar
Watkins, E. 2005. Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511614217Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, C. 1993. “Interaction with the Reader in Kant’s Transcendental Theory of Method.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 10 (1): 83–97.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
