This new translation is an extremely welcome addition to the continuing Cambridge Edition of Kant’s works. English-speaking readers of the third Critique have long been hampered by the lack of an adequate translation of this important and difficult work. James Creed Meredith’s much-reprinted translation has charm and elegance, but it is often too loose to be useful for scholarly purposes. Moreover it does not include the first version of Kant’s introduction, the so-called “First Introduction,” which is now recognized as indispensable (...) for an understanding of the work. Werner Pluhar’s more recent translation, which does include the First Introduction, is highly accurate when it confines itself to rendering Kant’s German. However, it is often more of a reconstruction than a translation, containing so many interpretative interpolations that it is often difficult to separate out Kant’s original text from the translator’s contributions. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews have provided a translation that compares to or exceeds Pluhar’s in its literal approach to the German, but that confines all interpretative material to footnotes and endnotes, so that the text itself, with all its unclarities and ambiguities, lies open to view. In addition, Guyer, as editor of the volume, has provided a great deal of valuable supplementary material. This includes an introduction with an outline of the work and details of the history of its composition and publication, and a wealth of endnotes offering clarifications of the text, background information, and, most strikingly, many references to related passages in Kant’s voluminous writings, particularly in connection with Kant’s earlier writings related to aesthetics. The edition also records differences among the first three editions of the work, and—of particular interest—erasures from and additions to Kant’s manuscript of the First Introduction. Although the introduction and endnotes reflect interpretative views that are sometimes disputable, this supplementary material makes the present edition into a valuable resource even for those able to read the text in German. (shrink)

This collection of essays by one of the preeminent Kant scholars of our time transforms our understanding of both Kant's aesthetics and his ethics. Guyer shows that at the very core of Kant's aesthetic theory, disinterestedness of taste becomes an experience of freedom and thus an essential accompaniment to morality itself. At the same time he reveals how Kant's moral theory includes a distinctive place for the cultivation of both general moral sentiments and particular attachments on the basis of the (...) most rigorous principle of duty. Kant's thought is placed in a rich historical context including such figures as Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Hume, Burke, Kames, as well as Baumgarten, Mendelssohn, Schiller, and Hegel. Other topics treated are the sublime, natural versus artistic beauty, genius and art history, and duty and inclination. These essays extend and enrich the account of Kant's aesthetics in the author's earlier book, Kant and the Claims of Taste. (shrink)

The essays in this volume, including two published here for the first time, explore various aspects ofKant's conception of the system of nature, the system of ...

In der Reihe werden herausragende monographische Untersuchungen und Sammelb nde zu allen Aspekten der Philosophie Kants ver ffentlicht, ebenso zum systematischen Verh ltnis seiner Philosophie zu anderen philosophischen Ans tzen in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Ver ffentlicht werden Studien, die einen innovativen Charakter haben und ausdr ckliche Desiderate der Forschung erf llen. Die Publikationen repr sentieren damit den aktuellsten Stand der Forschung.

Christine Korsgaard claims that Gewirth’s argument for morality fails to demonstrate that there is a categorically binding principle on action because it operates with the assumption that reasons for action are essentially private. This attribution is unfounded and Korsgaard’s own argument for moral obligation, in its appeal to Wittgenstein’s Private Language Argument to establish that reasons for action are essentially public, is misdirected and unnecessary. Gewirth’s attempt to demonstrate a strictly a priori connection between a moral principle and the concept (...) of being an agent as such is essentially Kantian, and recognizing that the Principle of Hypothetical Imperatives is categorically binding requires Kantians to accept that Gewirth’s Principle of Generic Consistency is the supreme practical principle. (shrink)

In § 59 von Kants Kritik der Urteilskraft steht relativ unvermittelt und oft überlesen der Halbsatz:,,so ist all unsere Erkenntnis von Gott bloß symbolisch." Die philosophiegeschichtlich ausgerichtete Studie versucht die Bedeutung dieser Aussage mittels einer kommentarischen Interpretation des ersten Teils von § 59 und weiterer für diese Aussage relevanter Texte zu verstehen. Sie erschließt auf diese Weise zunächst Kants Symbolbegriff, dessen prinzipielle Bedeutung für Kants Erkenntnistheorie und den Zusammenhang von Symbol und Analogie im Denken Kants. Die Studie legt ihren Schwerpunkt (...) dann auf die Untersuchung der Bedeutung des Symbol- und Analogiebegriffs für die Rede von einer Erkenntnis Gottes und für Kants Interpretation bestimmter christlicher Glaubensüberzeugungen. Durch diese Begriffe markiert Kant nicht nur seine Verhältnisbestimmung von menschlicher Erkenntnis zur Transzendenz Gottes. Beide Begriffe spielen eine zentrale Rolle für ein Verständnis seiner philosophischen Theologie als praktisch-hermeneutisch. Das Buch leistet somit einen wichtigen Beitrag zum Verständnis von Kants Religionsphilosophie und philosophischer Theologie. (shrink)

According to Bernard Williams, attempts to justify a categorically binding impartial principle fail because they can only establish categorically binding requirements on action by making them non-universalizable , and can only establish impartial requirements by rendering them inapplicable to real agents . But, an individual cannot be the particular agent the individual is without being an agent every bit as much as an individual cannot be an agent without being the particular agent that the individual is. On this basis, it (...) is argued that, when the actual Gewirthian argument for a categorically binding impartial principle is presented, which Williams does not do, his objections to it do not hold and the argument establishes that agents are categorically bound to accept a substantive impartial principle that, at the same time, permits them to live lives that respect their own personal interests. Consequently, Williams’ dilemma is false. (shrink)

This book is a thorough study of the question posed by Kant, For what can a human being rationally hope? It offers a detailed commentary on Kant's seminal work, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, as well as an original development of the logic of three of Kant's basic ideas: ambivalence, ignorance, and hope. Sophisticated analytic techniques, including symbolic logic, are applied to this conceptual matrix. The result is a striking case for the transformation of world society into a (...) Kingdom of Ends of individuals and a peaceful League of Nations. (shrink)

In diesem zweiten Teil wird zuerst gezeigt, dass Hegel sich am Anfang seiner Jenaer Zeit genau wie Schelling am §76 der Kritik der Urteilskraft mit Kants Gedanken eines Urgrunds orientiert, in dem Sein und Denken, Subjektives und Objektives zusammenfallen. Nach Schellings Weggang 1803 kommt Hegel aber durch seinen Freund Schelver zunehmend mit Goethe in Kontakt, dessen Methodologie eines intuitiven Verstandes im Sinne von KdU §77 Schelver als neuberufener Botanikprofessor und Direktor des botanischen Gartens in die Praxis umzusetzen hat. Hegel übernimmt (...) diese Methodologie zuerst, im sog. zweiten Jenaer Systementwurf von 1804/5, teilweise, ab 1805 in den Vorlesungen zur Geschichte des Philosophie ganz, wobei er sie aber in einem entscheidenden Punkt weiterentwickelt. Sie liegt auch der Phänomenologie des Geistes zugrunde. Zugleich wird deutlich, warum der Systemteil ‚Logik und Metaphysik’ aufgegeben und die Metaphysik selbst zur Logik werden muss, der nun allerdings eine solche ‚Phänomenologie des Geistes’ vorangehen muss. (shrink)

Kant and Adorno alike have assumed that hope plays a central role in the relation between ethics and happiness. After comparing some of their different interpretations of hope, this paper traces the philosophical account of the concept of hope which Kant and Adorno, however, agree on. They both see hope as essential for bridging the gulf between normativity and realities. Hope, they argue, features a weaker doxastic state than belief but a stronger one than wishful thinking. For Kant, the question, (...) "what may I hope?" is part of the interests of human reason. By modifying this conception of hope, Adorno advocates a notion of hope, which accounts for a critique of religion and metaphysics. (shrink)

Immanuel Kant included -What May I Hope?- as one of the three basic questions which human reason asks. "Kant's Philosophy of Hope" presents the first book-length study of this theme which was so important for his views. Dr. Peters's work links together Kant's philosophy of religion, moral philosophy, and philosophy of history in an exciting, new way and gives a new importance both to his philosophy of religion and to his theory of hope.".