Kant and Naturalism Reconsidered

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Kant and Naturalism Reconsidered 557mathematics and general science of nature; and this fact therefore suffices todisprove such derivation (B127–8).Of course, we need not simply accept Kant’s verdict. Lewis White Beck felt driven toacknowledge that ‘‘Hume’s implicit account of the causal principle is much more likeKant’s own than Kant had any reason to suspect.’’ Beck, L. W. (1978) Essays on Kantand Hume (New Haven: Yale University Press), p. 120. And Falkenstein has offered anextensive development of this view (1998) ‘‘Hume’s answer to Kant’’, Nous, 32,pp. 331–360. See also two recent essays which assess the complexity of the questionwithout simply presuming Kant’s position: Langsam, H. (1994) ‘‘Kant, Hume, and ourordinary concept of causation’’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54,pp. 625–647, and Nuyen, A. T. (1990) ‘‘Sense, reason and causality in Kant andHume’’, Kant-Studien, 81, pp. 57–68.74. Thus, Kant comes to the rescue of his queen with the same gallantry that Burke evokedin his longing to have rescued Marie Antoinette in Burke, E. [1790] (2001) Reflectionson the Revolution in France (Stanford: Stanford University Press).75. See Beck (1978), pp. 3–19.76. See Bird (1995), p. 401n.77. Kant (1992), p. 6. Kant indifferently used Verstand and Vernunft in connection withGesundheit. The translators generally use ‘‘healthy reason’’ so I will comply, though Iprefer healthy understanding, or, better still, ‘‘common sense,’’ which captures theessential colloquial connotation.78. Ibid., p. 6.79. Kant (1992), p. 12. Indeed, ‘‘there really and properly is no science of the beautiful[schöne Wissenschaft] at all; rather what we know of the beautiful is nothing but acritica.’’ Ibid.80. Ibid., p. 6.81. Ibid., p. 12.82. Ibid., p. 13.83. Ibid., p. 8.84. From Logic Philippi.85. For some classical contributions to the understanding of Kant’s transcendentalargumentation, see Korner, S. (1967), Stroud, B. (1969) ‘‘Transcendental arguments’’,in: T. Penelhum & J. J. MacIntosh (Eds.), The First Critique: Reflections on Kant’sCritique of Pure Reason, pp. 54–69 (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth), Henrich, D. (1969)‘‘The proof structure of Kant’s transcendental deduction’’, Review of Metaphysics, 22,pp. 640–59, Hintikka, J. (1972) ‘‘Transcendental arguments: Genuine and spurious’’,Nous, 6, pp. 274–81, Schaper, E. (1972) ‘‘Arguing transcendentally’’, Kant-Studien, 63,pp. 101–16, Ameriks, K. (1978) ‘‘Kant’s transcendental deduction as a regressiveargument’’, Kant-Studien, 69, pp. 272–87. Up through the present, every few months,some new effort to make sense of transcendental arguments appears in the journalliterature.86. See Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding and Buickerood, J. (1985) ‘‘Thenatural history of the understanding: Locke and the rise of facultative logic in theeighteenth century’’, History and Philosophy of Logic, 6, pp. 157–190.87. See Zammito (2002), pp. 179–220.88. See Kuehn, M. (1983) ‘‘The early reception of Reid, Oswald and Beattie in Germany’’,Journal of the History of Philosophy, 21, pp. 479–485, (1987) Scottish Common Sense inGermany (Kingston, Ontario: McGill/Queens University Press).89. Beck, indeed, sees this as a good way to describe Kant’s critical problem: ‘‘How couldhe oppose Hume without falling in with Reid, Beattie, and Oswald… How could hegive up a supernatural metaphysics without making a metaphysics of naturalism?’’
558 John H. ZammitoBeck (1978), p. 6. One way out was to refuse to see the difference. That was whatFriedrich Jacobi did. ‘‘Jacobi moves imperceptibly between Hume and Reid withoutsignalling any difference between the two…’’ di Giovanni, G. (1998) ‘‘Hume, Jacobi,and common sense: An episode in the reception of Hume in Germany at the time ofKant’’, Kant-Studien, 89, p. 50.90. See Gawlick & Kreimendahl (1987), pp. 120–138.91. See Kant, Appendix to Prolegomena (AA:4:372–383).92. The text entitled Four Philosophers was actually a continental innovation in thepackaging of Hume’s writings and approach. Originally published in French in 1758 byMérian, it was then translated into German by Resewitz and published 1768. SeeGawlick & Kreimendahl (1987), p. 50.93. Lambert, Review of Hume, Vier Philosophen, inAllgemeine deutsche Bibliothek 12(1770) Vol. 2, St. 297–298; discussed in Gawlick/Kreimendahl, 1987, 50–51.94. Lambert, draft for review of Hume, Vier Philosophen, cited in Gawlick & Kreimendahl(1987), pp. 50–51n.95. See Kuehn, M. (2001) Kant: A Biography (Cambridge/NY: Cambridge UniversityPress), pp. 198–201.96. Beck (1978), p. 5.97. Lüthe, R. (1984) ‘‘Misunderstanding Hume: Remarks on German ways of interpretinghis philosophy’’, in: V. Hope (Ed.) Philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment,(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), p. 110.98. Kitcher, P. (1991) ‘‘Changing the name of the game: Kant’s cognitivism versus Hume’spsychologism’’, Philosophical Topics, 19, p. 202.99. See Kant, Reflexion 5037 (AA:18:69).100. See Hinske, N. (1965) ‘‘Kants Begriff der Antinomie und die Etappen seinerAusarbeitung’’, Kant-Studien, 56, pp. 485–496.101. See Al-Azm, S. (1972) The Origins of Kant’s Arguments in the Antinomies (Oxford:Oxford University Press).102. Kant to Lambert, Sept. 2, 1770, in Kant (1999), p. 108.103. See Beck (1978), p. 101.104. Ibid., p. 103.105. See also Kant (1992), pp. 76–7; Kant, AA:24:456ff.106. See Falkenstein (1998).107. Leibniz, G, [1765] (1996) New Essays Concerning Human Understanding (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press); see Tonelli, G. (1974) ‘‘Leibniz on innate ideas and theearly reactions to the publication of the Nouveaux Essais (1765)’’, Journal of the Historyof Philosophy, 12, pp. 437–454.108. Kant (1992), p. 188.109. Ibid., p. 16.110. Ibid.111. Kant to Garve, August 7, 1783 in Kant (1999), p. 198.112. The phrase ‘‘daring adventure of reason’’ occurs, of course, in Kant, 1790, 305n, inreference to a historical-evolutionary theory of nature.
Page 5 and 6: 536 John H. Zammitoa priori truths.
Page 7 and 8: 538 John H. ZammitoKant allows a co
Page 9 and 10: 540 John H. Zammitoscience should n
Page 11 and 12: 542 John H. Zammitoexplicit his aff
Page 13 and 14: 544 John H. Zammitoliterature, mora
Page 15 and 16: 546 John H. Zammito‘‘Healthy re
Page 17 and 18: 548 John H. ZammitoBut not all the
Page 19 and 20: 550 John H. ZammitoPlato than to ei
Page 21 and 22: 552 John H. Zammitophilosophy today
Page 23 and 24: 554 John H. Zammito17. This argot t
Page 25: 556 John H. Zammito58. Ibid., pp. 9

Kant and Naturalism Reconsidered

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?