I begin by arguing that, for Kant, the pure category of substance has both a general content that is in play whenever we think of any entity as a substance as well as a more specific content that arises in conjunction with the thought of what Kant calls a positive noumenon. Drawing on this new “Dual Content” account of the pure category of substance, I offer new answers to two contested questions: What is the relation of the pure category to (...) phenomenal substance? What, if any, epistemic gains can we achieve when we apply the pure category to noumena? Regarding the first question, I argue that while phenomenal substance does not qualify as a substance according to the Inner-Simple Conception, it does qualify as one according to the Subsistence-Power Conception. Regarding the second question, I argue that, in the case of the substantiality of positive noumena, Kant’s account allows for justified conditional beliefs involving the Inner-Simple Conception. In the case of negative noumena, it allows for justified existential beliefs involving the Subsistence-Power Conception. (shrink)

In the Transcendental Dialectic, Kant formulates a principle he calls the “supreme principle of pure reason” (hereafter, ‘SP’). According to SP, if a conditioned object is given, then the whole series of its conditions and hence something unconditioned is also given (A308/B365). Most interpreters take SP to be Kant’s rendering of the rationalist’s Principle of Sufficient Reason (hereafter, ‘PSR’), which says that everything has a sufficient reason that explains why it is the way it is. I argue that this obscures (...) an important distinction in Kant’s philosophy between two different explanatory demands. For Kant, SP’s demand for unconditioned conditions expresses a demand for what I call explanatory completeness, i.e., for explanations to come to an end in things that do not require explanation. In contrast, the PSR as Kant understands it expresses a demand for what I call exceptionless explicability, i.e., for nothing to lack an explanation. These demands are not the same, and they even stand in tension in Kant’s view if neither is subject to restriction. Once we see this, we better understand the predicament Kant thinks we face as rational inquirers who seek both explanatory completeness and exceptionless explicability. (shrink)

European Journal of Philosophy, EarlyView.

This paper revisits Kant’s 1768 incongruent counterpart argument that space is absolute. Most commentators today dismiss Kant’s argument as begging the question against the relationalist. I argue that this dismissal is too quick, and that we have something to learn by considering what might have led him to argue as he does. My focus is on the role of geometrical intuitions and the extent to which they can provide defeasible warrant for claims about space. By “geometrical intuitions” I mean both (...) the geometrical intuitions of spatial figures in imagination as well as the claims that seem to directly follow from them. My focus includes uncovering the metaphysical assumptions that are implicated in those geometrical intuitions. Whether or not Kant’s argument ultimately succeeds, the role of geometrical intuitions is worth exploring. Moreover, Kant appeals to geometrical intuitions, and any adequate interpretation of Kant will have to take them into account. (shrink)