Abstract

Kant was never satisfied with the version of his “Refutation” published in 1787 (KrV, B 275-279). His dissatisfaction is already evident in the footnote added to the preface of the second edition of the Critique in 1787. As a matter of fact, Kant continued to rework his argument for at least six years after 1787. The main exegetical problem is to figure out who is the target of the “Refutation”: a non-sceptic idealist or a global sceptic of Cartesian provenance or both. In this last case, a related problem is to know whether either of them is the Cartesian sceptic of the first Meditation, the idealist sceptic of the second Meditation and first part of the third Meditation, or some other non-sceptic idealist. I present and defend a new reconstruction of Kant’s “Refu­tation” as a successful argument against Mendelssohnian idealism of Cartesian provenance. This defence is based on a simple logical sketch of the proof provided by Dicker, but essentially modified in the light of Dyck’s insight about Kant’s opponent. How shall I support my reading? First, by appealing to overwhelming textual evidence according to which the proof is of the existence of mind-independent things, showing that Kant’s main opponent is Mendelssohn’s idealism of Cartesian provenance. Finally, I support my reading by showing that Kant’s “Refutation” is doomed to fail against all forms of global scepticism, but is quite successful against Mendelssohn’s idealism.

Highlights

  • Kant was never satisfied with the version of his “Refutation” published in 1787 (KrV, B 275-279)

  • How shall I support my reading? First, by appealing to overwhelming textual evidence according to which the proof is of the existence of mind-independent things, showing that Kant’s main opponent is Mendelssohn’s idealism of Cartesian provenance

  • Kant himself was never satisfied with the version published in the second edition of 1787

Read more

Summary

Introduction

«Опровержение идеализма» (KrV, B 275—279; Кант, 2006а, с. 369—373) представляет собой прибавление ко второму изданию первой «Критики», включенное в главу «Постулаты эмпирического мышления вообще». В своих поздних размышлениях, зафиксированных в рукописных фрагментах 1788— 1793 гг., Кант объявляет, что его «Опровержение» метит по меньшей мере в пять различных мишеней: скептицизм, идеализм, спинозизм, а также материализм и предетерминизм A related problem is to know whether Kant’s problematic idealism is the Cartesian sceptic of the first Meditation, the idealist sceptic of the second Meditation and first part of the third Meditation, or some other non-sceptic idealist.4 This question is of the utmost importance because we know that Kant was not directly acquainted with Descartes’ work, but knew it only through the works of Wolf and Leibniz. Если кантовский аргумент лучше рассматривать как опровержение идеализма Мендельсона, необходима новая реконструкция его логической формы, что я и намерен сделать. I support my reading by showing that Kant’s “Refutation of Idealism” is doomed to fail against all forms of global scepticism, but is quite successful against Mendelssohn’s idealism. According to the “Refutation”, consciousness of alterations of mental states in time always requires something persistent that in itself cannot be explained by another mental state

Against the Cartesian Scepticism of the first Meditation7
Против скептического идеалиста
Mendelssohnian Idealism
Against Mendelssohnian Idealism
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call