It is well known that Kant connects judgment and feeling in the third Critique. However, the precise relationship between these two faculties remains virtually unexplored, in large part due to the unpopularity of Kant’s faculty psychology. This paper considers why, for Kant, judgment and feeling go together, arguing that he had good philosophical reasons for forging this connection. The discussion begins by situating these faculties within Kant’s mature faculty psychology. While the ‘power of judgment’ [Urteilskraft] is fundamentally reflective, feeling [Gefühl] (...) reveals itself as essentially non-discursive. Their systematic connection emerges through the principle of purposiveness [Zweckmäßigkeit], which the former legislates for the latter. I claim that we must understand this notion in terms of the suitability of the faculties for each other, as displayed in mere reflection. That is, we can only recognize the fitness of two things for each other through feeling, which, in turn, is the only way that we can engage in the activity of merely reflecting judgment. I conclude by gesturing at an even further way in which judgment and feeling are related, based on their mutual role in orienting all of the faculties of the human mind. (shrink)

In the Dialectic of the first Critique, Kant claims that a highest being is the transcendental ideal of speculative reason. However, the Canon of the Doctrine of Method presents the highest good as an ideal of both the speculative and the practical use of reason. In this paper, I argue (1) that the highest good is the ideal of the unity of reason – unlike the ideal in the Dialectic – insofar as (2) the highest good serves both the speculative (...) and the practical employment of reason. Accordingly, I also argue that (3) these two employments are complementary, not alternative. Kant’s argument for the ideal of the highest good in the Canon shows that the unity of reason combines the two lawful employments of reason. In order to be reason’s highest ideal, this ideal cannot just mirror the demands of speculative reason – it must also involve the other fundamental employment of reason, i. e., the practical. This highest standpoint cannot be merely speculative but must be moral as well: not just a highest ideal, but also a good (the highest good). (shrink)

According to Kant, concepts can be used in three different ways, i.e. an empirical (= pre-philosophical) use, a transcendentally real (= philosophically inadequate) use, and a transcendentally ideal (= philosophically reasonable) use. Regarding the concept of the world as a whole, however, Kant misrepresents the empirical meaning and therefore overlooks the transcendentally ideal understanding of “everything”. Along this guiding line, the paper defends Kant’s program of showing that spatiotemporal objects are conditioned by subjective, non-empirical conditions against the charge that it (...) is inconsistent with Kant’s alleged solution of the antinomies. It turns out that Kant’s program is consistent both with ontological realism about the world and with empirical realism about, e.g., the Big Bang. The remaining problem is how to formalize in modal logic unrestricted quantification in its transcendentally ideal usage. (shrink)

The article analyzes volume 19, 1793, of Neueste Critische Nachrichten, in which an anonymous review of Kant’s Religion within the boundaries of mere reason was published. Evidence is presented to establish that the review was authored by Samuel Bernhard Wilcke, a young lecturer at the University of Greifswald, who passed away the following year. After examining Wilcke’s Essay of invitation to his lectures on Kantian philosophy, the review itself is commented upon. Finally, the reviewer’s critique is related to Kant’s reply (...) in the Preface to the second edition of the Religion. (shrink)

Recently, Uriah Kriegel and Mark Timmons have suggested a “phenomenology of Kantian Respect for Persons”. They offer a reconstruction of Kant’s own account of the phenomenology of respect for persons as well as a refinement of their own. I shall argue that at least with regard to their reconstruction of Kant’s account, they do not succeed. There are a number of shortcomings, the most grievous of which is that Kant does offer a detailed phenomenology of respect in his second Critique (...) which Kriegel and Timmons, however, pay no attention to. (shrink)

The article gathers five new autographed testimonies from Kant’s life: a dedication copy to Hasse, a fragment on plagiarism, a letter of office from the second rectorate (1788), and two album-amicorum entries with a Persius quotation via Alexander Pope.

This miscellany reports on a newly found dedication copy of Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of mere Reason (1793) to his dear friend and former student Carl Gottlieb Fischer.