Abstract

This article is a defense of Immanuel Kant against the allegedly neglected alternative in his formulation of transcendental idealism. What sets it apart from other contributions toward the same end is the grounding construction of an interpretive framework — a faithful reconstruction of the one Kant himself provides for transcendental idealism — as opposed to the ad hoc development of a defensive strategy for refuting the charges. The promise, then, is comprehensive clarification instead of pointed rebuttal. The difference is between focusing on the text and focusing on the problem. Doing both may admittedly be not just possible but also required, as the problem is supposed to be in the text, but the point is that it is not there, and furthermore, that we need not go anywhere else to show that it is not there. Thus, the approach is constructive rather than defensive, or more accurately, constructive as well as defensive. And the construction rests on what Kant actually said rather than on what he might have meant or on what he should have said instead.