Kant's Opus Postumum and McDowell's Critique of Kant

Southern Journal of Philosophy 52 (4):427-444 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX


In this article, I have a modest goal: to sketch how Kant can avoid the charge of “subjective idealism” advanced against him by John McDowell and to do so with reference to Kant's last work, the so-called Opus Postumum. I am interested in defending Kant on this point because doing so not only shows how we need not—at least not because of this point about idealism—jump ship from Kant to Hegel , but also suggests that the Opus Postumum is a text that ought to be explored more by Kantians and those interested in Kant. A subsidiary, implicit point is that we need not shy away from McDowell's reading of Kant in order to oppose McDowell's criticism of Kant. In order to defend against McDowell's charge, I focus on the argument of the Refutation of Idealism, showing how this argument evolves in Kant's later works, especially the Opus Postumum



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 77,670

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Beauty, systematicity, and the highest good: Eckart Förster's Kant's final synthesis.Paul Guyer - 2003 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 46 (2):195 – 214.
Fichte, Beck and Schelling in Kant's opus postumum.Eckart Förster - 1990 - In G. MacDonald Ross & Tony McWalter (eds.), Kant and His Influence. Thoemmes Continuum. pp. 146.


Added to PP

30 (#396,200)

6 months
1 (#480,066)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Martin Shuster
University of North Carolina, Charlotte

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references