This paper compares Cohen’s Logic of Pure Knowledge and Cassirer’s Substance and Function in order to evaluate how in these works Cohen and Cassirer go beyond the limits established by Kantian philosophy. In his Logic, Cohen seeks to ground in pure thought all the elements which Kant distinguishes in empirical intuition: its matter (sensation) as well as its form (time and space). In this way, Cohen tries to provide an account of knowledge without appealing to any receptivity. In accordance with (...) Cohen’s project of reformulating the Kantian theory of sensibility, Cassirer undertakes in Substance and Function the task of developing an alternative doctrine of pure and empirical manifolds. But whereas Cohen analyzes the laws of pure thought, Cassirer aims to highlight the functional character of concepts in the development of modern mathematics and physics. I will discuss these two different approaches to the problems raised by Kantian philosophy and I will argue that Cassirer went further than Cohen in the project of critical idealism. (shrink)

ABSTRACT The aim of this paper is to discuss how Bruno Bauch deals with the problem of the coordination between empirical concepts and spatiotemporal objects. We shall argue that Bauch reformulates the Kantian distinction between concepts and intuitions by means of a philosophical consideration of differential calculus and that he thereby explains the possibility of such coordination, avoiding certain difficulties of the Kantian doctrine. RESUMO O propósito deste trabalho é discutir como o neokantismo de Bruno Bauch trabalha o problema da (...) coordenação de conceitos e objetos espaço-temporais. Sustentaremos que Bauch reformula a distinção kantiana de conceitos e intuições mediante uma consideração filosófica do cálculo diferencial e que, assim, explica a possibilidade de tal coordenação, evitando certas dificuldades da doutrina de Kant. (shrink)

En el trabajo nos ocupamos de desarrollar el problema del enlace entre la filosofía teórica y la filosofía práctica o del tránsito entre naturaleza y libertad tal y como Kant lo aborda en la Introducción definitiva a la Crítica de la facultad de juzgar. Específicamente proponemos la hipótesis según la cual Kant describe el modo como dicho enlace se realiza, a través de la facultad de juzgar, a partir de dos modelos diferentes. Según el primer modelo, el tránsito se efectúa (...) a partir de la idea de un fundamento de unidad de lo suprasensible que subyace a la naturaleza y lo suprasensible por libertad. De acuerdo al segundo modelo, el tránsito es posible porque lo suprasensible por libertad es puesto como causa o fundamento de la ley natura. Nos enfrentamos, así, a dos modos de pensar diferentes el tránsito en cuestión y, por lo tanto, dos modos alternativos de pensar la realización de la libertad en la naturaleza. In the paper I develop the question of linking theory and practice or, in other words, the problem of the transition between nature and freedom in Kant's Introduction to his Critique of the Power of Judgment. I propose specifically the hypotheses according to which Kant describes indeed two different models through which the linking occurs. According to the first one the transition accomplishes thanks to the idea of a ground of the unite of the supersensible that would underlie nature and the supersensible presupposed by freedom. According to the second one, the transition is possible because the supersensible by freedom is put it as cause or ground of the law of nature. Thus we face to two different ways of thinking the linking between theory and practice and, consequently, two alternative ways of thinking the realization of freedom in nature. (shrink)

ABSTRACT : This paper contributes to explor the historical background of contemporary conceptualism. It suggests that a step forward toward a more promising understanding of this historical background can be made if we focus, not on the much-discussed, controversial position of Kant, but rather on the straightforward position of some main representatives of classical neo-Kantianism. My main hypothesis is that criticisms of Kant’s transcendantal aesthetics coming from Paul Natorp and Bruno Bauch may be regarded as a significant historical source for (...) the so-called “content” conceptualism, insofar as they imply that the contents of perception are conceptual contents. (shrink)