Kant's System Research Articles

The Three Postulate Idea: Between Limits and Metaphysical Beliefs in Immanuel Kant's System of Philosophy

In the history of Western philosophy, debates about truth and error have continued to develop, reflecting diverse views that have emerged over time. The question of human nature became the center of intellectual attention, expanding philosophical study from speculation to fundamental thinking. Amid this context, Immanuel Kant emerged as a key figure who brought a new approach to philosophical inquiry. Although he spent his life in Koningsberg, his ideas in epistemology, anthropology, ethics, and education gained global recognition and made him one of the most influential philosophers of the modern era. However, his views have also drawn criticism, especially for the inconsistencies that are perceived to support dogmatism, although he originally intended to criticize it. This research analyzes Kant's thought, especially about the limits of human knowledge, metaphysics, and criticism of dogmatism. The method used is qualitative text analysis, which examines Kant's main work, "Critique of Pure Reason," as well as the views of other philosophers. Primary and secondary literature is reviewed to identify inconsistencies in Kant's arguments. The results show that although Kant's philosophical system has made an outstanding contribution, there are significant areas for improvement in the handling of metaphysical concepts and the limits of knowledge, which ultimately has the potential to fall into dogmatism. This study concludes that Kant's thought remains relevant and essential, but it needs to be reread critically to fully understand its impact on modern philosophy.

Kant's Tribunal of Reason: Legal Metaphor and Normativity in the Critique of Pure Reason by Sofie Møller

Reviewed by: Kant's Tribunal of Reason: Legal Metaphor and Normativity in the Critique of Pure Reason by Sofie Møller Jessica Tizzard Sofie Møller. Kant's Tribunal of Reason: Legal Metaphor and Normativity in the Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. Pp. 208. Hardback, $105.00. Even those with a passing knowledge of Kant's system will recognize his sustained use of legal metaphor and his appeal to lawfulness as a beacon of philosophical progress. He famously begins one of the most important (and impermeable) sections of the Critique of Pure Reason with the juridical distinction between quid juris (what is the law) and quid facti (what is the fact) (A 84/B 116), insisting—against the empiricists—that the critique of our cognitive faculty must speak to the former and requires a Transcendental Deduction of the categories. In her book, Sofie Møller delves into the historical context and philosophical significance of such legal metaphors to reveal that their roots spread to the deepest foundations of Kant's project. In doing so, she contends that we should understand "philosophical systematicity as legal systematicity" (15). According to Møller, to accept this reading of Kant is to acknowledge that the legal system provides not just one helpful type [End Page 332] of metaphor to be appreciated alongside many others, but the only proper symbol of the abstract nature of reason itself (173). For those interested in Kant's engagement with the natural-rights theory that prevailed during his lifetime, or in his familiarity with the concrete legal practices of eighteenth-century European courts, Møller's book proves to be thoroughly researched and informative. As the first English-language book-length study providing a comprehensive account of the legal aspects influencing Kant's system, it should serve as a valuable catchall resource. There are limits to its accessibility, however, as familiarity with basic legal distinctions—e.g. between civil and criminal codes—is assumed, and Latin terms and phrases often go untranslated. At times, this makes for a difficult intersection between the arduousness of Kant's own prose and the equally technical legal terminology that is meant to explain it. However, this barrier is mitigated by Møller's own interpretive work, which cautions that we should not let indeterminate legal terminology fix too much in our reading of Kant's texts, especially when considering the Transcendental Deduction and its reliance on the quid juris/quid facti distinction. As she concludes at the end of chapter 3, the procedure of legal deduction that Kant invokes "could be an investigation, an exposition, a thorough consideration, a review, explanation, description, account, dispute or procedure" (64). Thus, despite Kant's historically demonstrable familiarity with legal-deduction writings, on their own, they "do not present a sufficiently uniform argument structure to settle the question of the structures of the two versions of the transcendental deduction" (64). This observation serves both as a general warning as well as a criticism of Dieter Henrich's approach to Kant's system, which popularized attention to legal metaphor in Kant scholarship in the twentieth century. For Møller, little philosophical insight is won through Henrich's approach, since it "places too much weight on the importance of an origin" (60), taking its cue from a particular type of legal deduction whose assumption is unsupported, and which cannot be accurately projected onto Kant's text. As Møller argues, "The validity of the categories is not only grounded in their origin in pure apperception but in their being the necessary structures in the synthesis which creates objects of experience, which is an act of pure apperception" (60). Møller's suggestion, instead, is to read the Deduction as adopting the twofold structure of "judicial imputation," which does a more faithful job of capturing the structuring activity that Kant accords to the understanding. With the latter reading, emphasis shifts from whether the categories' application to objects of experience is valid because of their a priori origin, to the spontaneous activity of the judging subject as the originator of experience (75). Part of what is unique about this approach is that it does not read the...

Understanding and Imagination. A Kantian Interpretation of Hegel's “Inverted World”

In this article, I discuss an interpretation of Hegel's concept of the “Inverted World” (verkehrte Welt), which is present in the final part of the chapter on Force and Understanding in the Phenomenology of Spirit. Other than my own reading of the chapter, I also summarize the three most important interpretations of the verkehrte Welt from the last century: those of Jean Hyppolite, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Joseph Flay. I have chosen these three due to the typology of interpretation within them: the first one adopts a Christian reading of Hegel, the second a Hellenistic phenomenological interpretation, and the last one, which is closest to the interpretation I also propose, a reading consistent with the thought of Immanuel Kant. The article ends with a possible interpretation of Hegel's verkehrte Welt through Kant's “Schematism of the Pure Concepts of Understanding” from his Critique of Pure Reason, where I argue that Kant's fundamental faculty of imagination and its object, schemata, play the same role in Kant's system that Hegel's verkehrte Welt does in the development of natural consciousness.

The Noise of Time

The ‘I’ fractured by time – if Deleuze returns repeatedly to this seemingly minor moment in Kant's system, it is not simply to sound anew the theme of ‘difference’ (this time, with an a priori accent). No, Deleuze turns to this ‘interior drama’ for the same reason that Kant, in the Opus Postumum, returns to it: it presents the most direct passage from ‘interior’ (self) to ‘exterior’ (Nature). But Kant's late complication of the transcendental field undermines several of his most cherished theses – in particular, the fixity of the table of categories, the homogeneity of the forms of intuition (Space and Time) and the rights of logical determinacy. It is left to Deleuze to radicalise Kant's critique along the lines of time. In contending with this fissure, Deleuze inaugurates nothing less than a truly genetic philosophy of Nature – one that would think with Nature rather than of it. Only one caught in this labyrinthine flow could inquire into the possibility of radical metamorphosis.

Kant and the Second Person

AbstractAccording to Stephen Darwall's second-personal account, moral obligations constitutively involve relations of authority and accountability between persons. Darwall takes this account to lend support to Immanuel Kant's moral theory. Critics object that the second-personal account abandons central tenets of Kant's system. I respond to the three main challenges that critics offer by showing that they rest on misunderstandings of the second-personal account. Properly understood, this account is not only congenial to Kant's moral theory, but also illuminates aspects of that theory which have hitherto received scant attention. In particular, it motivates a fresh perspective on the relationship between respect, persons, and the law.

The Ambiguity of Kant's Concept of the Highest Good: Finding the Correct Interpretation

The aim of this paper is to resolve the tension between Kant's doctrine of the highest good and his entire philosophical system. The concept of the highest good is the first major ambiguity of the doctrine. There are three pairs of ambiguities: immanent‐transcendent; justice‐perfection; and individual‐community. They are able to form eight combinations. Corresponding to the various combinations and conceptions of the highest good, interpreters also conceive different reasons for the necessity of the doctrine as well as various conditions of its applicability. For example, some emphasize its religious dimension, whereas others understand it in the political sense. In this paper, I adopt a different approach in understanding the highest good's systematic meaning as the moral confirmation, and suggest that only a transcendent, perfect and communal concept of the highest good can provide the most consistent doctrine. Additionally, it explains the importance of the different branches (such as philosophies of religion and of politics) of Kant's system.

The stage on which our ingenious play is performed: Kant's epistemology of Weltkenntnis

This paper focuses on Kant's account of physical geography and his theory of the Earth. In spelling out the epistemological foundations of Kant's physical geography, the paper examines 1) their connection to the mode of holding-to-be-true, mathematical construction and empirical certainty and 2) their implications for Kant's view of cosmopolitan right. Moreover, by showing the role played by the mathematical model of the Earth for the foundations of Kant's Doctrine of Right, the exact relationship between the latter and physical geography is highlighted. Finally, this paper shows how, in Kant's view, the progress of physical geography can be assured if and only if the free circulation of human beings is established and regulated by law. Therefore, examining the mutual relationship between the theory of Earth and the foundations of right opens new perspectives on the relationship between epistemology and practical philosophy within Kant's system.

It's Not about Race: Good Wars, Bad Wars, and the Origins of Kant's Anti-Colonialism

This article offers a new interpretation of Kant's cosmopolitanism and his anti-colonialism inToward Perpetual Peace. Kant's changing position has been the subject of extensive debates that have, however, not recognized the central place of colonialism in the political, economic, and military debates in Europe in Kant's writings. Based on historical evidence not previously considered alongsidePerpetual Peace, I suggest that Kant's leading concern at the time of writing is the negative effect of European expansionism and intra-European rivalry over colonial possessions on the possibility of peace in Europe. Because of the lack of affinity between colonial conflict and his philosophy of history, Kant must adjust his concept of antagonism to distinguish between war between particular dyads, in particular spaces, and with particular non-state actors. I examine the implications of this argument for Kant's system of Right and conclude that his anti-colonialism co-exists with hierarchical views of race.

Hegel's Pragmatic Critique and Reconstruction of Kant's System of Principles in the 1807Phenomenology of Spirit.

Peirce's study of Kant, and later of Hegel, and Dewey's (1930) retention of much of Hegel's social philosophy are recognised idealist sources of pragmatism. Here I argue that the transition from idealism to pragmatic realism was already achieved by Hegel. Hegel's ‘Objective Logic’ corresponds in part to Kant's ‘Transcendental Logic’ (WdL,GW21:47.1-3). Hegel faults Kant for relegating concepts of reflection to an Appendix to his Transcendental Logic (WdL,GW12:19.34-38), and for treating reason as ‘only dialectical’ and as ‘merely regulative’ (WdL,GW12:23.12, .16-17). I present three important yet neglected features of Kant'sCritique of Pure Reasonwhich are key enthymemes undergirding Hegel's critical reconstruction of Kant's Critical philosophy (§2). I then summarise some features of the philosophical context within which Hegel begins to re-assess and reconstruct Kant's Transcendental Logic (§3), and review several key steps in this direction Hegel undertook in the 1807Phenomenology(§4). (A related paper extends these results to Hegel'sLogicandEncyclopaedia.) These points show that Hegel's reanalysis of Kant's Critical philosophy is the first and still one of the most sophisticated and adequate pragmatic — specifically pragmatic realist — accounts of thea priori.

Rehabilitating the regulative use of reason: Kant on empirical and chemical laws

In his Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Kant asserts that laws of nature “carry with them an expression of necessity” (A159/B198). There is, however, widespread interpretive disagreement regarding the nature and source of the necessity of empirical laws of natural sciences in Kant's system. It is especially unclear how chemistry—a science without a clear, straightforward connection to the a priori principles of the understanding—could contain such genuine, empirical laws. Existing accounts of the necessity of causal laws unfortunately fail to illuminate the possibility of non-physical laws. In this paper, I develop an alternative, ‘ideational’ account of natural laws, according to which ideas of reason necessitate the laws of some non-physical sciences. Chemical laws, for instance, are grounded on ideas of the elements, and the chemist aims to reduce her phenomena to these elements via experimentation. Although such ideas are beyond the possibility of experience, their postulation is necessary for the achievement of reason's theoretical ends: the unification and explanation of the cognitions of science.

Turnabout is Fair Play: A New Humean Response in the Old Debate with Kant

Kant claims that Hume failed to see that mathematics provides us with synthetic a priori knowledge; had he done so, Kant argues, Hume would have to admit the possibility of such knowledge in causal judgments as well. Instead, Kant insists that Hume treats mathematics as analytic, and so missed the key insights of the Critical philosophy. I argue that it is rather Kant who is mistaken: Hume, in fact, endorses a position very similar to the view that mathematics is synthetic and a priori, and arrives at an account of mathematical necessity that stands as a plausible alternative to Kant's. More importantly, recognizing this Humean account of mathematics exposes a potentially grave vulnerability in Kant's system that Hume might exploit: while mathematics can be seen as synthetic a priori knowledge, Hume can argue that this gives us good reason to think that causal judgments cannot meet this standard of necessity.

NEO-KANTIANISM AND GEORG SIMMEL'S INTERPRETATION OF KANT

This essay explores the development of Georg Simmel's interpretation of Immanuel Kant's philosophy in the context of neo-Kantianism and its preoccupation with the question of unity in modern diversity. It argues that the neo-Kantian movement can be divided into two periods: in the first, unity was addressed with regard to Kant's epistemology; in the second period, the main issue was the overall coherence of Kantian teaching. Simmel, who belonged to the younger generation of neo-Kantians, absorbed the conclusions of the previous generation that purged Kantian epistemology from its metaphysical foundations related to the noumenal world. Yet he did not share the views of his peers who considered Kant to be the philosopher of cultural plurality. On the contrary, he argued that Kant's system is thoroughly intellectualistic, and that ethics, aesthetics and religion within it are subordinated to logic. At the same time, his own philosophy presupposed cultural plurality akin to that of other neo-Kantians. In other words, Simmel abandoned Kant in order to develop his own version of neo-Kantianism.

Kant on the Inapplicability of the Categories to Things in Themselves

This paper addresses the question of what we can legitimately say about things in themselves in Kant's critical doctrine. Many Kant scholars believe that Kant allows that things in themselves can be characterized through the unschematized or ‘pure’ concepts of our understanding such as ‘substance’ or ‘causality’. However, I show that on Kant's view things in themselves do not conform to the unschematized categories (given their standard discursive meaning): the pure categories, like space and time, are merely subjective forms of finite, discursive cognition. I then examine what this interpretation might entail for central aspects of Kant's system such as his doctrine of noumenal freedom.

Can Kantian Laws Be Broken?

In this paper I explore Kant's critical discussions of the topic of miracles (including the important but ne- glected fragment from the 1780s called On Miracles) in an effort to answer the question in the title. Along the way I discuss some of the different kinds of in Kant's system, and also the argument for his claim that, even if empirical miracles do occur, we will never be in a good position to identify instances of them. I conclude with some tentative remarks about the notorious suggestion that intelligible finite agents, too, might have some sort of influence over the laws of nature. The goal throughout is to show that exploring Kant's answer to a traditional question in philosophical theology can deepen our under- standing of his metaphysics and epistemology of nature generally.

Idealizm transcendentalny w perspektywie Kantowskiego pojęcia realności

The main aim of this paper is to try to answer the question of the nature of Kantian project of the transcendental philosophy. Is it, in real, as Kant by himself says, that his philosophy, as the critic of the pure theoretical reason presupposes, is merely the preparation the ground under the metaphysics, and merely asks the question of the possibility of metaphysics at all, or rather Kant's system of the theoretical philosophy called by Kant as formal or transcendental idealism can be classified as one of the main ontological systems: ontological realism or idealism, in the classical sense. I think the crucial notion, which can help to solve this problem, is the notion of reality used by Kant in several meanings and contexts which I am going to examine in this article.

Kant's Practical Postulates and the Limits of the Critical System

The topic that I wish to consider is the significance, both systematic and historical, for Kant's system as a whole, of the postulates of pure practical reason, more specifically, of the two theological postulates concerning the existence of God and personal immortality which form the basis of Kant's moral theology. My discussion will focus on the problems of Kant's moral theology in the eyes of his early contemporaries, for whom it constituted a crux in Kant's project. Different views were taken by Kant's contemporaries of what exactly these problems signified regarding the future of Critical philosophy. For the thinkers I will be looking at here, the miscarriage of the moral theology constituted a fatal fault in the Kantian project. For the German Idealists, the moral theology instead provided a vital clue as to how the Kantian system could be transformed into a more radical idealism, while confirming that it needed to be. The role of the practical postulates in the development of German Idealism demands a separate treatment; what I will argue here is simply that the practical postulates do indeed represent a point at which Kant's philosophical system displays a deep and interesting tension, in light of which both historical responses are prima facie intelligible.

Deleuze

(Justin S. Litaker interviewed Daniel W. Smith. Mr. Litaker focused his questions on continuous variation of concepts in Deleuze). JSL: How did you come to be interested in the work of Gilles Deleuze, and what sustains your interest? [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] DWS: I first became interested in Deleuze when I was in graduate school. I was reading Nietzsche when the English translation of Deleuze's Nietzsche and Philosophy came out. So I read the book and was amazed at the way Deleuze had systematized Nietzsche's thought. At the time, there weren't many translations of Deleuze's works available, so I went to the library at the University of Chicago and discovered Difference and Repetition on the shelves. I thought it must contain the secret of Deleuze's work, which was only hinted at in Nietzsche and Philosophy. So right at the start, Nietzsche and Philosophy instilled in me a kind of conviction that Deleuze was worth reading, and that there was much more in his work that I needed to find out about. I had also been reading Vincent Descombes' book Modern French Philosophy, and he had isolated Derrida and Deleuze as the focal points of contemporary French philosophy. So I knew that Deleuze was more than a historian of philosophy, and that he had a project of his own, which was, at the very least, oriented around the concept of difference. There and then, I decided that I needed to learn French in order to read Difference and Repetition. You asked what has sustained my interest in Deleuze through the years. For one, I've never tired of reading Deleuze. Even now, I don't think I have a complete sense of what Deleuze is up to. I think this is partly because of his manner of writing, which has been described as free indirect discourse. Deleuze has written numerous monographs in the history of philosophy-on Hume, Nietzsche, Kant, Leibniz, Bergson, and so on-but in each book he is also reading and using these thinkers toward his own philosophical ends, so that in Nietzsche and Philosophy, for instance, there is a becoming-Nietzsche of Deleuze as well as a becoming-Deleuze of Nietzsche. Readers are thus caught up in what Deleuze would call a becoming, or a zone of indiscernibility. Reading Deleuze is more like following a trajectory or a continuous movement that you never have done with, rather than arriving at a set of doctrines or positions that would lie at the heart of Deleuze's thought. JSL: Has this process of becoming or continuous movement affected your own reading of Deleuze? DWS: Absolutely. Right now I'm trying to write a book on Deleuze. At one point, Deleuze says that he still believes in philosophy as a system, and I initially thought, well great, I'll try to elucidate Deleuze's system of philosophy. I thought I'd approach Deleuze's system using Kant as a model, since Kant has a very architectonic idea of what philosophy is. So I borrowed five rubrics from Kant's system: aesthetics (the theory of space and time, the theory of art, the theory of sensibility), analytics (the theory of concepts in the Transcendental Deduction), Dialectics (the theory of the idea), ethics, and politics. I figured I would start from Kant, then show how Deleuze modifies Kant, and in the process of doing that I would be able to produce some version of what Deleuze's system is. That, at least, was my initial idea for the book. But of course it has all turned out to be much more complicated than that. Although Deleuze says he is interested in philosophy as a system, he also says he thinks of his own system as being heterogenetic, that is, it is itself a genesis of the heterogeneous, the production of the new, the production of difference. What this means is that Deleuze's own system modifies itself over the course of its development. Deleuze gives an example of this in his preface to the Italian translation of his book Logic of Sense, where he takes as one of his examples his own concept of intensity. …

The Kantian Grounding of Einstein’s Worldview

Recent perspectival interpretations of Kant suggest a way of relating his epistemology to empirical science that makes it plausible to regard Einstein's theory of relativity as having a Kantian grounding. This first of two articles exploring this topic focuses on how the foregoing hypothesis accounts for various resonances between Kant's philosophy and Einstein's science. The great attention young Einstein paid to Kant in his early intellectual development demonstrates the plausibility of this hypothesis, while certain features of Einstein's cultural-political context account for his reluctance to acknowledge Kant's influence, even though contemporary philosophers who regarded themselves as Kantians urged him to do so. The sequel argues that this Kantian grounding probably had a formative influence not only on Einstein's discovery of the theory of relativity and his view of the nature of science, but also on his quasi-mystical, religious disposition. 1. Kant's System of Perspectives as the Grounding for Modern Scientific Revolutions In the course of defending Albert Einstein's revolutionary approach to physics, and perhaps also as an implicit affirmation of Einstein's religious worldview, Sir Arthur Eddington boldly asserted: There are things in the world but you must look deeply for them (Eddington, 1928/1935, p. 34). What are these absolute things, in terms of Einstein's theory of relativity? Are they explicable or necessarily mysterious? Moreover, what led young Einstein to his revolutionary convictions regarding these that govern the natural world? The suggestion that Einstein's worldview was essentially Kantian might seem unwarranted for two reasons. First, Kant is often regarded more as an enemy of the metaphysical belief in deep absolutes and of quasi-religious appeals to mystery (whether physical or theological) than as a philosopher who might engender such convictions. Second, Einstein himself tended to downplay Kant's relevance to his own thinking; if some of the deepest convictions informing his worldview appear to be grounded in Kant's philosophy, we must explain why Einstein did not

'Spirit' and 'Letter' of the moral law: Text and commentary in the hermeneutics of German idealism II

The first part of this paper, published in the previous issue of the review was intended to expose the religious origins of the duality between 'Spirit' and 'Letter' as well as its meaning in the general philosophical context of early German idealism. This second and final part of the paper is focused on the ethical implications of this question, since the opposing of the 'Spirit' of Kant's System to its 'Letter', backed by frequent references to the Christian fulfillment of the Mosaic Law through love or faith, represented one of the principal resources of contemporary critiques of his moral philosophy. The final consequence of this line of criticism of Kant lies in the suppression of the authority of a transcendent moral norm. This step which at the same time abolishes the authority of the text, and hence the reverent attitude of the commentary as a literal genre, can be observed as early as in Hegel's theological youth writings, which advocate the suppression of the transcendent moral law by means of its integration in free subjectivity which exists in the community of believing Christians.

Intuition and Nature in Kant and Goethe

: This essay addresses three specific moments in the history of the role played by intuition in Kant's system. Part one develops Kant's attitude toward intuition in order to understand how ‘sensible intuition’ becomes the first step in his development of transcendental idealism and how this in turn requires him to reject the possibility of an ‘intellectual intuition’ for human cognition. Part two considers the role of Jacobi when it came to interpreting both Kant's epistemic achievement and what were taken to be the outstanding problems of freedom's relation to nature; problems interpreted to be resolvable only via an appeal to ‘intellectual intuition’. Part three begins with Kant's subsequent return to the question of freedom and nature in his Critique of Judgment. With Goethe's contemporaneous Metamorphoses of Plants as a contrast case, it becomes clear that whereas Goethe can embrace the role of an intuitive understanding in his account of nature and within the logic of polarity in particular, Kant could never allow an intuition of nature that in his system would spell the very impossibility of freedom itself.