Kants Kritik der transzendenten Metaphysik in der transzendentalen Dialektik der Kritik der reinen Vernunft war durchschlagend und findet auch in der Philosophie der Gegenwart breite Zustimmung. Weniger Zustimmung und Verständnis findet die systematische Konzeption der transzendentalen Dialektik, die Lehre vom Bezug der Vernunft auf das Unbedingte als notwendigem, unvermeidlichem Schein. Die vorliegende Studie untersucht diese Konzeption. Sie stellt die in der Forschung weitgehend ungeklärten Fragen (a) nach der Notwendigkeit des Scheins und dem logischen Status der Schlüsse der Vernunft auf das (...) Unbedingte, insbesondere nach der logischen Struktur der Antinomien, (b) nach dem Zusammenhang zwischen den Lehrstücken der Dialektik (von den Ideen der Vernunft als Begriffen vom Unbedingten, von den dialektischen Schlüssen, vom angemessenen Gebrauch der Ideen), (c) nach dem systematischen Verhältnis von Analytik und Dialektik als den beiden Teilen der transzendentalen Logik und nach der Funktion der Dialektik im architektonischen Zusammenhang der Kritik. Es ist die These der Studie, dass die Dialektik die Grundlage der kritischen Philosophie darstellt und dass ihre negative und ihre positive Lehre von der Vernunft unzertrennlich zusammenhängen. (shrink)

In der Reihe werden herausragende monographische Untersuchungen und Sammelbände zu allen Aspekten der Philosophie Kants veröffentlicht, ebenso zum systematischen Verhältnis seiner Philosophie zu anderen philosophischen Ansätzen in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Veröffentlicht werden Studien, die einen innovativen Charakter haben und ausdrückliche Desiderate der Forschung erfüllen. Die Publikationen repräsentieren den aktuellsten Stand der Forschung.

A historical and philosophical reassessment of the impact of Aristotle and early-modern Aristotelianism on the development of Kant’s transcendental philosophy. Kant and Aristotle reassesses the prevailing understanding of Kant as an anti-Aristotelian philosopher. Taking epistemology, logic, and methodology to be the key disciplines through which Kant’s transcendental philosophy stood as an independent form of philosophy, Marco Sgarbi shows that Kant drew important elements of his logic and metaphysical doctrines from Aristotelian ideas that were absent in other philosophical traditions, such as (...) the distinction of matter and form of knowledge, the division of transcendental logic into analytic and dialectic, the theory of categories and schema, and the methodological issues of the architectonic. Drawing from unpublished documents including lectures, catalogues, academic programs, and the Aristotelian-Scholastic handbooks that were officially adopted at Königsberg University where Kant taught, Sgarbi further demonstrates the historical and philosophical importance of Aristotle and Aristotelianism to these disciplines from the late sixteenth century to the first half of the eighteenth century. (shrink)

Michael Lewin geht es in seinem Buch um die Vernunft als ein wohlbegründetes und in zeitgenössischen Kontexten fortführbares Forschungsprogramm. Dabei handelt es sich um eine Theorienreihe zu vielfältigen Arten und Funktionen der Ideen, mit deren Hilfe die Vernunft das Verstehen und Wollen steuert und selbstreflexiv wird. Dazu entwickelt der Autor unter dem Stichpunkt „reflektierter Perspektivismus“ das Programm einer perspektivistischen Metaphilosophie, die den Hintergrundparametern forschungsprogrammatische Festlegungen (in Anlehnung an Imre Lakatos), Ansprüche und (Wissens-)Ziele hinter den philosophischen Positionierungen nachspürt und dadurch ihre (...) Grenzen und Möglichkeiten offenlegt. (shrink)

In der Arbeit wird eine textimmanente Problemstellung der Transzendentalen Dialektik der Kritik der reinen Vernunft aufgegriffen, indem ausgehend vom Grundsatz der Vernunft nach der Möglichkeit eines regulativen Apriori im Rahmen der methodischen Vorgaben der Kritik der reinen Vernunft gefragt wird. Kants regulativer Vernunftgebrauch wird in drei Teilen untersucht: Der erste Teil – Problemfeld – entwickelt ausgehend von der Antinomie der reinen Vernunft immanente Kriterien, durch die das Lehrstück des Anhangs zur Transzendentalen Dialektik dargestellt und geprüft werden kann. Der zweite Teil (...) – Analysen – entwickelt textimmanent die Herleitung der Vernunftbegriffe, das dadurch geleistete Systematische der Erkenntnis und ihre transzendentale Rechtfertigung. Der dritte Teil – Dimension und Reichweite – untersucht auf der Basis der textimmanenten Analyse die konkreten Beispiele, die Kant im Anhang zur Transzendentalen Dialektik anführt, um damit die begrifflich-abstrakten Gedankengänge an Fallbeispielen zu konkretisieren. Der Grundsatz der Vernunft wird dabei in seiner konstitutiven Form zurückgewiesen und in einer regulativen Interpretation als transzendentaler Grundsatz der Vernunft neu begründet. (shrink)

This book is both a history of philosophy of logic told from the Kantian viewpoint and a reconstruction of Kant’s theory of logic from a historical perspective. Kant’s theory represents a turning point in a history of philosophical debates over the following questions. (1) Is logic a science, instrument, standard of assessment, or mixture of these? (2) If logic is a science, what is the subject matter that differentiates it from other sciences, particularly metaphysics? (3) If logic is a necessary (...) instrument to all philosophical inquiries, how is it so entitled? (4) If logic is both a science and an instrument, how are these two roles related? Kant’s official answer to these questions centers on three distinctions: general versus particular logic; pure versus applied logic; pure general logic versus transcendental logic. The true meaning and significance of each distinction becomes clear, I argue, only if we consider two factors. First, Kant was mindful of various historical views on how logic relates to other branches of philosophy (viz. metaphysics and physics) and to the workings of common human understanding. Second, he first coined ‘transcendental logic’ while struggling to secure metaphysics as a proper “science,” and this conceptual innovation would in turn have profound implications for his mature theory of logic. Against this backdrop, I reassess the place of Kant’s theory in the history of philosophy of logic and highlight certain issues that are still debated today, such as normativity of logic and the challenges posed by logical pluralism. In Chapter 1, “Kant and a Philosophical History of Logic – Methodological Reflections,” I discuss certain exegetical challenges posed by Kant’s logic corpus and argue for a “history of philosophical problems” method by which to reconstruct a Kantian theory of logic. In Chapter 2, “The Nature and Place of Logic – A History of Controversies,” I construct a partial history of philosophy of logic that revolves around the (supposedly) scientific status of logic on the one hand and its value or utility on the other. In Chapter 3, “The Making of a Scientific Logic from Bacon to Wolff,” I examine how four representative early modern philosophers – Francis Bacon, John Locke, G.W. Leibniz, and Christian Wolff – approached the four questions mentioned above. In Chapter 4, “Kant on the Way to His Own Philosophy of Logic,” I consider how Kant, in the decade between around mid-1760s and mid-1770s, navigated between existing accounts of logic until he finally found his own voice. I highlight the breakthroughs that would mark his critical departures from previous views and pave the way for the final articulation of his own view. In Chapter 5, “Logic and the Demands of Kantian ‘Science’,” I zero in on Kant’s official theory of logic in his monumental publication, Critique of Pure Reason. I foreground both what makes the theory original and what leaves it vulnerable to criticisms from post-Kantian thinkers. (shrink)

In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant famously criticizes traditional metaphysics and its proofs of immortality, free will and God's existence. What is often overlooked is that Kant also explains why rational beings must ask metaphysical questions about 'unconditioned' objects such as souls, uncaused causes or God, and why answers to these questions will appear rationally compelling to them. In this book, Marcus Willaschek reconstructs and defends Kant's account of the rational sources of metaphysics. After carefully explaining Kant's conceptions of (...) reason and metaphysics, he offers detailed interpretations of the relevant passages from the Critique of Pure Reason in which Kant explains why reason seeks 'the unconditioned'. Willaschek offers a novel interpretation of the Transcendental Dialectic, pointing up its 'positive' side, while at the same time it uncovers a highly original account of metaphysical thinking that will be relevant to contemporary philosophical debates. (shrink)

Kant speaks repeatedly about the relations between ends or aims and scientific research, but the topic has mostly been ignored. What is the role of ends, especially (though not exclusively) practical ones, in his views on science? I will show that while Kant leaves ample space for recognizing a function of ends both in the definition and the pursuit of inquiry, and in the further practical application of scientific cognition, he does not claim that science is simply an instrument for (...) achieving practical ends. I explain his complex conception, pointing out that Kant argues (1) that the sciences require ends for their very definition, (2) that ends come in fundamentally different kinds, (3) that the relation between science and ends requires the rational determination and hierarchization of all our ends, with “wisdom” as the highest, and (4) that this determination and hierarchization – which ought to be done by metaphysics – has itself to be carried out in a “scientific way”. I show further that (5) Kant gives sui generis weight to the epistemic aims and standards of science and to the autonomy of science from our practical lives. This places his position between separatism and anti-separatism with regard to the relation between science and our ends or values. (shrink)

In this essay, I focus on two questions. First, what is Kant's understanding of the sense in which our faculties form a unified system? And, second, what are the implications of this for the metaphysical relationships between the faculties within this system? To consider these questions, I begin with a brief discussion of Longuenesse's groundbreaking work on the teleological unity of the understanding as the faculty for judgment. In doing so, I argue for a generalization of Longuenesse's account along two (...) dimensions. The result is a picture of our faculties as forming a teleological system—unified under the overarching aims of reason as the highest rational faculty. Then I discuss the recent debate between “additive” and “transformative” interpretations of the relationship between sensibility and the understand- ing, before proposing that we should interpret Kant as endorsing a moderate form of the “transformative” reading, which captures important elements of both the “additive” and the “transformative” account. (shrink)

Unlike earlier attempts to prove the completeness of the table of judgments, this book takes the fundamental position that an answer can only be found in the context of a basic interpretation of the Critique of Pure Reason that encompasses the metaphysical and transcendental deduction of the categories and ideas, the role played by cognitive capacity, transcendental apperception, and the theory of affects.

En este artículo se analiza la doctrina kantiana de la definición. Se estudia el desarrollo de esa doctrina en las lecciones de lógica del período precrítico, a partir de su comparación con la teoría de las definiciones de Meier. Se sostiene que Kant organiza su estudio a partir de los aspectos escogidos por Meier, pero es crítico de sus tesis.

While the term “metaphilosophy” enjoys increasing popularity in Kant scholarship, it is neither clear what distinguishes a metaphilosophical theory from a philosophical one nor to what extent Kant’s philosophy contains metaphilosophical views. In the first part of the article, I will introduce a demarcation criterion and show how scholars fall prey to the fallacy of extension confusing Kant’s philosophical theories with his theories about philosophy. In the second part, I will analyze eight elements for an “imperfect definition” of philosophy outlining (...) the scope of Kant’s explicit metaphilosophy against the backdrop of recent metaphilosophical research: scientific concept of philosophy, philosophy as an activity, worldly concept, philosophy as a science, philosophy as an architectonic idea, philosophy as a social practice and the appropriate holding-to-be-true, reason as the absolute condition and subject of philosophy, and methodology of philosophy. I will put these elements together for an attempt to give an imperfect definition of philosophy – something that Kant promised but never did – in the conclusion. (shrink)

In der 1970 gegr ndeten Reihe erscheinen Arbeiten, die philosophiehistorische Studien mit einem systematischen Ansatz oder systematische Studien mit philosophiehistorischen Rekonstruktionen verbinden. Neben deutschsprachigen werden auch englischsprachige Monographien ver ffentlicht. Gr ndungsherausgeber sind: Erhard Scheibe (Herausgeber bis 1991), G nther Patzig (bis 1999) und Wolfgang Wieland (bis 2003). Von 1990 bis 2007 wurde die Reihe von J rgen Mittelstra mitherausgegeben.

Name der Zeitschrift: Kant-Studien Jahrgang: 105 Heft: 3 Seiten: 372-393.

In the modern discussions about possibility of synthetic a priori propositions, the theory of definition has a fundamental importance, because the most definition’s theories hold that analytic judgments are involved by explicit definition . However, for Kant –first author who pointed out the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions–many analytic judgments are made by analysis of concepts which need not first be established by definition. Moreover, for him not all a priori knowledge is analytic. The statement that not all analytic (...) judgment is derived from definition and possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge, indicates Kant didn’t believe, contrary to modern theories about analytic judgment, the definition is an essential ground of knowledge. (shrink)

It seems quite natural to explain the activities of human and non-human animals by referring to their special faculties. Thus, we say that dogs can smell things in their environment because they have perceptual faculties, or that human beings can think because they have rational faculties. But what are faculties? In what sense are they responsible for a wide range of activities? How can they be individuated? How are they interrelated? And why are different types of faculties assigned to different (...) types of living beings? The six chapters in this book discuss these questions, covering a wide period from Plato up to contemporary debates about faculties as modules of the mind. They show that faculties were referred to in different theoretical contexts, but analyzed in radically different ways. Some philosophers, especially Aristotelians, made them the cornerstone of their biological and psychological theories, taking them to be basic powers of living beings. Others took them to be inner causes that literally produce activities, while still others provided a purely functional explanation. The chapters focus on various models, taking into account Greek, Arabic, Latin, French, German and Anglo-American debates. They analyze the role assigned to faculties in metaphysics, philosophy of mind and epistemology, but also the attack that was often launched against the assumption that faculties are hidden yet real features of living beings. The short "Reflections" inserted between the chapters make clear that faculties were also widely discussed in literature, science and medicine. (shrink)

Dem Kantischen Projekt der Vernunftkritik liegt eine »ursprüngliche Einsicht« zugrunde, die schrittweise zu einer begrifflichen Klärung gelangt. Von dieser These ausgehend entwickelt Axel Hutter ein neues Verständnis des systematischen Gesamtzusammenhangs der transzendentalphilosophischen Hauptwerke. Er nimmt dabei Kants bislang auch wenig beachteten Begriff eines Interesses der Vernunft zum Leitfaden. Denn der Sinn einer wahrhaft autonomen Vernunft ist für Kant durchaus nicht der, von jedem Interesse frei zu sein, sondern der, dem eigenen Interesse folgen zu können, und zwar ungehindert durch vernunftfremde Motive, (...) die überhaupt nur deshalb mit Grund »fremd« genannt werden können, weil die Vernunft ein eigenes Interesse kennt. Kants ursprüngliche Einsicht besteht für Hutter darin, dass allein der Mensch (das »Zwischenwesen« par excellence) ein Inter-Esse zu entwickeln vermag: Ein reines Naturwesen kennt nur sinnliche Bedürfnisse, ein reines Vernunftwesen hingegen weder Bedürfnis noch Interesse. Von hier aus ergibt sich der für die Transzendentalphilosophie grundlegende Begriff eines spezifisch menschlichen Vernunftinteresses und einer in sich differenzierten Vernunfteinheit. Über diesen in sich differenzierten Vernunftbegriff verfügt Kant allerdings noch nicht in der »Kritik der reinen Vernunft«. Der philosophischen Revolution, die zur ersten Kritik führt, muss daher eine mindestens ebenso radikale Revolution zur Seite gestellt werden, die über die »Kritik der reinen Vernunft« hinaus zur »Kritik der praktischen Vernunft« und zur »Kritik der Urteilskraft« führt. Kants ursprüngliche Einsicht entfaltet sich dergestalt schrittweise in der Reihe seiner transzendentalphilosophischen Hauptwerke - eine Gedankenentwicklung, die Hutter detailliert nachvollzieht. (shrink)

The Unity of Reason is the first major study of Kant's account of reason. It argues that Kant's wide-ranging interests and goals can only be understood by redirecting attention from epistemological questions of his work to those concerning the nature of reason. Rather than accepting a notion of reason given by his predecessors, a fundamental aim of Kant's philosophy is to reconceive the nature of reason. This enables us to understand Kant's insistence on the unity of theoretical and practical reason (...) as well as his claim that his metaphysics was driven by practical and political ends. Neiman begins by discussing the historical roots of Kant's conception of reason, and by showing Kant's solution to problems which earlier conceptions left unresolved. Kant's notion of reason itself is examined through a discussion of all the activities Kant attributes to reason. In separate chapters discussing the role of reason in science, morality, religion, and philosophy, Neiman explores Kant's distinctions between reason and knowledge, and his difficult account of the regulative principles of reason. Through examination of these principles in Kant's major and minor writings, The Unity of Reason provides a fundamentally new perspective on Kant's entire work. (shrink)

Die Untersuchung wendet sich gegen die von Paulsen, Adickes, Riehl, Kemp-Smith, Strawson u.a. vertretene Ansicht, dass Kant die Gliederungspaare der Kritik der reinen Vernunft unreflektiert aus bloss systematischen Grunden aus der Logik seiner Zeit ubernommen habe. Die Analyse der Nachschriften von Kants Logikvorlesungen und der Reflexionen in seinem Logikkompendium zeigt namlich, dass Kant die beiden grossen Gliederungspaare seines Hauptwerks, transzendentale Elementar- und Methodenlehre und transzendentale Analytik und Dialektik, in seinen Vorlesungen in einem jahrzehntelangen Prozess der Auseinandersetzung mit der traditionellen Logik (...) entwickelt hat. This study opposes the view held by Paulsen, Adickes, Riehl, Kemp- Smith, Strawson etc. that Kant adopted his division into two parts in the Critique of Pure Reason without thinking and for purely systematic reasons from the logic of his time. The analysis of transcripts of Kants lectures on logic and his reflections shows that Kant developed the two major parts of his main work, transcendental doctrine of the elements and transcendental doctrine of method and transcendental analytic and dialectic, in his lectures in an analysis of traditional logic which he did over a period of many decades. (shrink)

Hegel's Encyclopaedia Logic constitutes the foundation of the system of philosophy presented in his Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. Together with his Science of Logic, it contains the most explicit formulation of his enduringly influential dialectical method and of the categorical system underlying his thought. It offers a more compact presentation of his dialectical method than is found elsewhere, and also incorporates changes that he would have made to the second edition of the Science of Logic if he had lived (...) to do so. This volume presents it in a new translation with a helpful introduction and notes. It will be a valuable reference work for scholars and students of Hegel and German idealism, as well as for those who are interested in the post-Hegelian character of contemporary philosophy. (shrink)

I argue that Kant has developed a broad systematic account of the architectonic functionality of pure reason that can be used and advanced in contemporary contexts. Reason, in the narrow sense, is responsible for the picture of a well-ordered universe of science consisting of architectonic ideas of science, sciences and parts of sciences. In the first section (I), I show what Kant means by the architectonic ideas by explaining and interrelating the concepts of (a) the faculty of reason, (b) ideas (...) (as principles), (c) method, and (d) sciences of reason. Thereafter (II), I think through his holistic understanding of science and scientific progress and suggest differentiating between four levels of use of architectonic ideas, drawing on the metaphor of a well-structured universe as imagined by Kant in his work on the Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens. I also claim that each possible idea of reason can be (apart from its primary function) additionally regarded as a fourth-level architectonic concept when explicitly conceived as an object of (e. g. philosophical) studies, i. e. from a mere methodological perspective. In the final section (III), I unveil the potential of Kant’s theory by pointing out how this architectonic methodological function of pure reason is tacitly used in Karl-Otto Apel’s contemporary philosophical research programme. You can get the official version of the paper and the whole issue (open access) by clicking on the attached link. (shrink)