Abstract
This article challenges three widespread assumptions about Kant’s argument for the antithesis of the Second Antinomy. The first assumption is that this argument consists of an argument for the claim that “[no] composite thing in the world consists of simple parts”, and a logically independent argument for the claim that “nothing simple exists anywhere in the world”. The second assumption is that when Kant argues that “[no] composite thing in the world consists of simple parts”, he is making a claim about the mereological structure of spatially extended things in particular, as opposed to a claim about the mereological structure of things in general. And the third assumption is that Kant’s argument for this part of the antithesis is based on a claim about the relationship between the size of the extension of a composite thing and the sizes of the extensions of the things of which this composite thing consists.
Broad, C. 1954. “Kant’s Mathematical Antinomies”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55, 1–22.Search in Google Scholar
Buroker, J. 2006. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: An Introduction. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511809545Search in Google Scholar
Ehrlich, P. 2014. “An Essay in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum’s Ninetieth Birthday: A Reexamination of Zeno’s Paradox of Extension”. Philosophy of Science 81, 654–675.10.1086/677978Search in Google Scholar
Engelhard, K. 2005. Das Einfache und die Materie: Untersuchungen zu Kants Antinomie der Teilung. Berlin.10.1515/9783110891812Search in Google Scholar
Falkenburg, B. 2000. Kants Kosmologie: Die wissenschaftliche Revolution der Naturphilosophie im 18. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main.Search in Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 2013. Kant’s Construction of Nature: A Reading of the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9781139014083Search in Google Scholar
Grier, M. 2001. Kant’s Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511498145Search in Google Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1952. “A Consistent Conception of the Extended Linear Continuum as an Aggregate of Unextended Elements”. Philosophy of Science 19, 288–306.10.1086/287213Search in Google Scholar
Guyer, P. 1987. Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511624766Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1991. Parts of Classes. Oxford.Search in Google Scholar
Malzkorn, W. 1999. Kants Kosmologie-Kritik: Eine formale Analyse der Antinomienlehre. Berlin.10.1515/9783110814514Search in Google Scholar
Radner, M. 1998. “Unlocking the Second Antinomy: Kant and Wolff”. Journal of the History of Philosophy 36, 413–441.10.1353/hph.2008.0812Search in Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. 2009. “Spacetime the One Substance”. Philosophical Studies 145, 131–148.10.1007/s11098-009-9386-6Search in Google Scholar
Schmiege, O. 2006. “What is Kant’s Second Antinomy About”. Kant-Studien 97, 272–300.10.1515/KANT.2006.019Search in Google Scholar
Strawson, P. 1966. The Bounds of Sense: An Essay on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. London.10.4324/9780429447075Search in Google Scholar
Uzquiano, G. 2011. “Mereological Harmony”. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics 6, 199–224.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199603039.003.0007Search in Google Scholar
Van Cleve, J. 1999. Problems from Kant. Oxford.Search in Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. 1990. Material Beings. Ithaca/London.10.7591/9781501713033Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
