International Journal of Philosophical Studies 22 (2):1-20 (2014)
AbstractMaimon’s theory of the differential has proved to be a rather enigmatic aspect of his philosophy. By drawing upon mathematical developments that had occurred earlier in the century and that, by virtue of the arguments presented in the Essay and comments elsewhere in his writing, I suggest Maimon would have been aware of, what I propose to offer in this paper is a study of the differential and the role that it plays in the Essay on Transcendental Philosophy (1790). In order to do so, this paper focuses upon Maimon’s criticism of the role played by mathematics in Kant’s philosophy, to which Maimon offers a Leibnizian solution based on the infinitesimal calculus. The main difficulties that Maimon has with Kant’s system, the second of which will be the focus of this paper, include the presumption of the existence of synthetic a priori judgments, i.e. the question quid facti, and the question of whether the fact of our use of a priori concepts in experience is justified, i.e. the question quid juris. Maimon deploys mathematics, specifically arithmetic, against Kant to show how it is possible to understand objects as having been constituted by the very relations between them, and he proposes an alternative solution to the question quid juris, which relies on the concept of the differential. However, despite these arguments, Maimon remains sceptical with respect to the question quid facti.
Similar books and articles
Apostate Rationalism and Maimon’s Hume.Peter Thielke - 2008 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 46 (4):pp. 591-618.
Salomon Maimon and the Rise of Spinozism in German Idealism.Yitzhak Y. Melamed - 2004 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 42 (1):67-96.
The Synthetic a Priori in Kant and German Idealism.Seung-Kee Lee - 2009 - Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 91 (3):288-328.
From Quine to Hegel: Naturalism, Anti-Realism and Maimon's Question Quid Facti.”.Paul W. Franks - 2007 - In Espen Hammer (ed.), German Idealism: Contemporary Perspectives. Routledge. pp. 50--69.
ZAC, Sylvain, Salomon Maïmon, critique de KantZAC, Sylvain, Salomon Maïmon, critique de Kant.Luc Langlois - 1994 - Laval Théologique et Philosophique 50 (2):436-439.
Salomon Maimon’s Commentary on the Subject of the Given in Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.Hugo Eduardo Herrera - 2010 - Review of Metaphysics 63 (3):593-613.
Aḥerim: Barukh Shpinozah, Shelomoh Maimon.Chaim Wirszubski, Y. L. Barukh, Benedictus de Spinoza & Salomon Maimon (eds.) - 2009 - Miśkal.
Salomon Maimon: Rational Dogmatist, Empirical Skeptic: Critical Assessments.Gideon Freudenthal (ed.) - 2003 - Kluwer Academic.
The Radical Enlightenment of Solomon Maimon: Judaism, Heresy, and Philosophy.Abraham P. Socher - 1978 - Stanford University Press.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
La teoría de los diferenciales de Salomon Maimon, la pregunta quid juris y la posibilidad de la metafísica como ciencia.Hernán Pringe - 2016 - Anales Del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía 33 (1):81-102.
References found in this work
Critique of Pure Reason.Immanuel Kant - 1781/1998 - In Elizabeth Schmidt Radcliffe, Richard McCarty, Fritz Allhoff & Anand Vaidya (eds.), Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Blackwell. pp. 449-451.
The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy From Kant to Fichte.Frederick C. Beiser - 1987 - Harvard University Press.
All or Nothing: Systematicity, Transcendental Arguments, and Skepticism in German Idealism.Paul W. Franks - 2005 - Harvard University Press.