Abstract

Allison's interpretation and defense of Kant's idealism turn on his claim that a clear distinction between two senses of the appearance/reality distinction is crucial to and pervades Kant's thought. These are the empirical and transcendental senses, which distinguish respectively between the ordinary senses of subjective and objective, i.e., that which in my experience I believe belongs solely to my private awareness of things and that which I believe must pertain to everyone's awareness of things because it is an aspect of their being, and the philosophical, or critically reflective, senses of those terms, i.e., that which we want to say about them as a function of the way in which we all experience them and that which sub specie aeternitatis we want to say belongs to things as they are in themselves. The fundamental thrust of Allison's argument is that for Kant the notion of objectivity in the ordinary sense does not imply or entail transcendental objectivity, which had been a supposition common to most of Kant's predecessors. Moreover, Allison's basic criticism of the dominant tradition of interpretation, beginning with Kant's rough contemporaries and extending into the present in the persons of Pritchard, Strawson and Walker, is that their reconstructions of Kantian doctrine and their criticisms of it turn on their inability to see or refusal to acknowledge the presence of this central distinction of Kant's thought. The deep irony pointed out by this study, then, is that just the set of distinctions on which Kant based his solutions to the metaphysical and epistemological problems which he inherited from the Cartesian tradition have been missed by most of his critics, who in turn criticized him for succumbing to all the illusions he thought he had exposed to the light. I believe Allison is correct in this claim, and his strategy of interpretation and defense is both right-minded and fruitful. The key to maintaining the distinction between the two senses of the appearance/reality distinction for Allison is the notion of an epistemic condition, which he defines as "one that is necessary for the representation of an object or an objective state of affairs", and which is to be distinguished from both psychological conditions of knowing and ontological conditions of being. The crux of Allison's argument, then, is to show that and how the notion of an epistemic condition underlies a proper understanding of idealism in the Kantian sense such that it avoids Cartesian metaphysical commitments. This is a formidable task, but one that Allison completes with much more than normal success.