The present study is the result of two questions which arose in dealing with the Critique of Pure Reason. What is the relationship of the “Doctrine of Method” to the “Doctrine of Elements?” Does the “Doctrine of Method” tell us anything important about Kant and his philosophy? It will be the contention of this paper that the second half of the Critique relies heavily on the “Doctrine of Elements,” and is a natural expansion of the first half of the Critique. (...) In effect, this is a tentative denial of Norman Kemp Smith’s patchwork thesis. With respect to the second question mentioned above, we shall see that Kant does have a very special place for methodology in his philosophy. This methodology of philosophy has implications for a theory of the division of the sciences and the method proper to each of them. (shrink)

During the latter part of his career, Kant proposes three different accounts of evil. In these accounts are found psychological, logical, and teleological elements intetwoven in such a way as to give a coherent reading of evil as a complex philosophical issue. Recent commentators have emphasized one or the other of these two elements and consequently have only given a partial picture of Kant’s struggle with evil. I argue that Kant’s use of scripture needs to be taken much more seriously (...) than it has been taken in order to unify these psychological, logical, and teleological aspects of his treatment. (shrink)

From the earliest days of philosophy, polemic has functioned as a common means of philosophical argumentation. Kant spends some time in the Critique of Pure Reason analyzing the place of polemic in rational argumentation. Even though it does not provide a legitimate approach to philosophical argument as employed by the dogmatists, Kant’s concern for the teaching of the young allows him to raise some issues concerning the ethics of philosophical argumentation also.

From the earliest days of philosophy, polemic has functioned as a common means of philosophical argumentation. Kant spends some time in the Critique of Pure Reason analyzing the place of polemic in rational argumentation. Even though it does not provide a legitimate approach to philosophical argument as employed by the dogmatists, Kant’s concern for the teaching of the young allows him to raise some issues concerning the ethics of philosophical argumentation also.

Boudon begins this work by posing the issue of ideology in Weberian terms. "The explanation of any social phenomenon has to start by reducing it to the individual behavior patterns which gave rise to it, and moreover these behavior patterns have to be regarded as rational.... [O]nly if this kind of explanation fails can irrational elements be introduced into the description of the behaviour patterns of social actors." The problem of ideology arises when one realizes that ideological positions seem to (...) be largely irrational. Boudon shows in what ways one can consider an ideology to be rational, that is, subject to the same truth conditions as any scientific statement. (shrink)