Das Natur/geist-verhältnis zeigt sich darin, dass ein Naturgegenstand immer in einem Verhältnis zu einem Subjekt steht und ein Subjekt immer in Relation zu einem Gegenstand. Fichtes Idee war, die Philosophie auf die Struktur des absoluten Wissens aufzubauen. Naturphilosophie ist im absoluten Wissen spezielles Wissen. Das Natur/geist-verhältnis in Form der beiden Vorstellungsarten Sinnlichkeit und Verstand zwingt uns, sie als eigenständige kognitive Vermögen anzusehen. Das menschliche Subjekt ist dialektisch und hat einen Drang zum Unbedingten, zur Weltlosigkeit und die Tendenz zur Weltbindung. Die (...) unauflösbare Dialektik von Natur und Geist steckt strukturell in der Subjektivität; das Verhältnis von Natur und Geist folgt aus dem »Ur-teilen« der Subjektivität. Kant beginnt seine Kritik, indem er die Erkenntnisfähigkeit der Vernunft des menschlichen Geistes selbst kritisiert; sein Ausgangspunkt war die alte Metaphysik der Subjektivität. Die Grundidee in Ansehung des subjektiven Vernunftvermögens bestand in der Einteilung in theoretische - und praktische Philosophie oder kausales und freiheitliches Sein. Wie ist das Verhältnis von Wahrnehmung zur Selbstwahrnehmung zu denken? Klar ist, dass von der Erkenntnis, von dem was ist, kein Weg zu dem führt, was sein soll; dieser Weg ist durch den Hiatus irrationalis versperrt. Die transzendentale Naturlehre Fichtes ist von Kant prinzipiell vorgezeichnet, jedem Sein geht ein Denken der Subjektivität voraus, gewissermaßen ein überfaktisches Wissen. Der transzendentale Realitätsbegriff von Kant und Fichte geht dem Streit zwischen der Empirie und der Ratio aus dem Wege, denn die Transzendentalphilosophie zeichnet sich durch eine raffinierte Ausgeglichenheit in dem Sinne aus, dass sie das Subjekt zum Schöpfer seines eigenen Wissens- und Wahrnehmungsbereichs macht, ohne die Eigenständigkeit einer objektiven Welt zu verleugnen. Der transzendentale Idealismus führt uns zu einem widerspruchslosen Wirklichkeitsverständnis, trotz des natürlichen Hangs zum Dogmatismus. Mit der Setzung der gegebenen Gegenstände in Erscheinungen und Dinge an sich entfällt die Annahme einer objektiven Außenwelt. Einstein konnte sich dieser Auffassung nie anschließen, für ihn gab es die gottgegebene objektive Welt mit ihren majestätischen Naturgesetzen. Es war Fichte, der behauptete, dass die Realität der Außenwelt nicht nur durch Sinnlichkeit begriffen werden kann, sondern primär durch Sittlichkeit; konstitutive sittliche Selbsterkenntnis und nicht regulative theoretische Naturerkenntnis war für Fichte maßgebend. Transzendentalphilosophie ist die Verschmelzung von Sein und Bewusstsein zu Selbstbewusstsein, oder mit anderen Worten: Sein und Erkennen ist immer nur in Relation zur begleitenden Subjektivität zu denken. Naturphilosophie und Subjektphilosophie sind eigentlich komplementär, verweisen aber gerade deshalb auf ein Ganzes. Die Transzendentalphilosophie kommt diesem Ganzen nahe; sie ist eine subjektive Theorie über das Denken und zeigt uns kritisch die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen objektiver Erfahrungserkenntnis. Sie liefert uns eine Ontologie für die von uns gedachte Welt auf Grund unserer beiden Erkenntnisstämme Sinnlichkeit und Verstand. Die transzendentalen Bestimmungen und Strukturen sind, weil sie vor aller Erfahrung liegen, für jede denkbare Physik gültig und kanonisch. Theorien für Alles, Weltformeln oder Fragen nach dem Ursprung von Allem werden automatisch »zermalmt«. Wirklichkeit ist die faktische Vermittlung von Subjekt und Objekt; Wirklichkeit ist demnach gegenstandslos, ist bloß eine Relation und diese ist das Natur/geist-verhältnis. Naturphilosophie ist kritische Erkenntnistheorie in Ansehung der Naturwissenschaften vom Standpunkt der Transzendentalphilosophie und die objektiven Gegenstände sind Objekte unserer Vorstellungen. Die Vernunftdichotomie des theoretischen und moralischen Gebrauchs des Denkens, von Fichte absolut als eine tätige Einheit gedacht, hat ihren rätselhaften Ort in der Subjektivität. Ich will hier die Antinomie unserer theoretischen Vernunfthandlungen, die aus dem Hin und Her von Weltbindung und Weltlosigkeit, von Endlichkeit und Unendlichkeit zu meinem Thema machen Die erkenntnistheoretischen Probleme in der Physik sind philosophischer Natur; durch Veränderungen der Theorien lassen sie sich nicht zum Verschwinden bringen. Oft werden Vorstellungen hypostasiert und zu Erfahrungsgegenständen gemacht, was wir z. B. in der Quantenphysik deutlich sehen. Bei der Charakterisierung eines Quantenobjekts haben wir je nach Versuchsbedingungen eine Wellenvorstellung oder eine Teilchenvorstellung, d. h. zwei verschiedene Wahrnehmungen vorliegen. Die Frage nach einer eindeutigen Realität im Kontext der Quantenphysik ist sinnlos, denn es ist bloß ein Streit subjektiver Gesetze, der durch die Erfahrung, d. h. durch eine Messung entschieden wird. Kants Doktrin in der Kritik weist uns darauf hin, dass das Denken auf die Erfahrung zu verweisen hat, und damit die Welt erzeugt im Sinne der Revolution der Denkart. Die Wissenschaften haben es immer mit gegebenen Gegenständen zu tun, während es Aufgabe der Philosophie ist, das Wissen und dessen Herkunft selbst wissenschaftlich zu untersuchen. Fichte hat trotz der Favorisierung des absoluten Subjekts die Bedeutung der Erfahrung als Widerstand und Anstoß für das Subjekt betont; nach ihm ist das Schweben zwischen Empirie und Ratio oder Kausalität und Freiheit eine wesentliche Bestimmung der Subjektivität. In der Erfahrung ist dieses Schweben durch die produktive und intentionale Einbildungskraft gegeben, diese vermittelt zwischen den Sinnen und Begriffen und produziert Bedeutung. Das Problem besteht nun darin, dass sich das Denken wegen unseres komplementären Wesens verwickelt und sich dabei selbst in einem Streit subjektiver Gesetze verliert, woraus Aporien und Paradoxien entstehen - wie wir sie nicht nur bei der Deutung der Natur haben. Diesen Widerstreit der Subjektivität zu erhellen, muss Aufgabe einer Philosophie der Subjektivität sein. Kant und Fichte haben uns hier einen Weg gewiesen. (shrink)

This paper compares Kant's positions on space, time, the relational character of noumena, and the relational character of the self, with the somewhat similar accounts of those things in two philosophers of the Kyoto school: Keiji Nishitani and Nishida Kitaro. I will argue that the philosophers of the Kyoto school had a more coherent and better integrated account of those ideas, that was open to Kant. I think that the comparison both clarifies Kant's position on these topics, and elucidates the (...) topics. (shrink)

Is there any justification for Heidegger's famous 'violence' against Kant's philosophy? An independent assessment of the worth of Heidegger's argument is also made all the more pertinent by the evident misgivings Heidegger had about his interpretation of Kant. We must ask of Heidegger's interpretation of Kant: 1) Is this good Kant? and 2) Is this good Heidegger?

A central claim in Kantian ethics is that an agent is properly morally motivated just in case she acts from duty alone. Bernard Williams, Michael Stocker, and Justin Oakley claim that certain emotionally infused actions, such as lending a compassionate helping hand, can only be done from compassion and not from duty. I argue that these critics have overlooked a distinction between an action's manner, how an action is done, and its motive, the agent's reason for acting. Through a range (...) of examples I demonstrate how an emotion can determine an action's manner without also serving as the motive. Thus, it is possible for an agent to act compassionately from duty alone. This distinction between the manner and the motive of an action not only restores a central claim in Kantian ethics but it also allows for an expanded role of emotions in moral action. (shrink)

Hypothetische Imperative „… stellen die praktische Notwendigkeit einer möglichen Handlung als Mittel zu etwas anderem, was man will, zu gelangen vor”. Die von Kant im zweiten Abschnitt der Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten als „hypothetische Imperative” eingeführten Sätze des Typs „Wenn du Z willst, tue H!” sind ihrer grammatischen Struktur nach aus einem indikativen und einem imperativen Gliedsatz zusammengesetzte Konditionalsätze. Ihre logische Struktur ist fragwürdig. Soviel aber scheint klar zu sein: Der Vordersatz eines hypothetischen Imperativs gibt die Bedingung an, unter (...) der sich der im Nachsatz formulierte Befehl an jemanden richtet. (shrink)

If there is to be any progress in the debate about what sort of positive moral status Kant can give the emotions, we need a taxonomy of the terms Kant uses for these concepts. It used to be thought that Kant had little room for emotions in his ethics. In the past three decades, Marcia Baron, Paul Guyer, Barbara Herman, Nancy Sherman, Allen Wood and others have argued otherwise. Contrary to what a cursory reading of the Groundwork may indicate, Kant (...) thinks the emotions play an important role in the moral life. I want to extend the work of Baron, Guyer, Herman, Sherman and Wood in three ways. First, I will set out in a diagram Kant's taxonomy of feelings and emotions. Agreement on such a taxonomy should make it easier to evaluate debates about Kant and the emotions. Second, I will focus on a certain subclass of emotions – reason-caused affects – that have previously received little attention, even from these Kant scholars. Third, these scholars base much of their defence of Kant on his later works – especially the Metaphysics of Morals and the Anthropology – but Kant's fairly rich taxonomy of the emotions, including reason-caused affects, is clearly in place at least as early as the Critique of Judgment . I believe that the Critique of Judgment is an importantly ignored resource for understanding the moral role of the emotions for Kant. The third Critique makes positive, philosophically interesting claims about the emotions and morality. Kant emphasizes certain roles for emotions in this work that he develops to the same extent nowhere else. Nevertheless, the Critique of Judgment goes all but unmentioned by many who write on these issues. In what follows, I will defend as many of my claims as possible using the third Critique. (shrink)

Contemporary theories of Virtue Ethics are often presented as being in opposition to Kantian Ethics and Consequentialism. It is argued that Virtue Ethics takes as fundamental the question, “What sort of character would a virtuous person have?” and that Kantian Ethics and Consequentialism take as fundamental the question, “What makes an action right?” I argue that this opposition is misconceived. The opposition is rather between Virtue Ethics and Kantian Ethics on the one hand and Consequentialism on the other. The former (...) two are concerned with, respectively, the development of a virtuous character and a good will, whereas Consequentialism is essentially a doctrine that just provides a justification of the right option without specifying how this is to be achieved. Furthermore, I show that Consequentialism, interpreted as a justificatory doctrine, is both an impoverished doctrine and one that cannot be enriched by taking a “pick and mix” approach to other ethical theories in the way that Consequentialists advocate. I argue that there is at least one reason to prefer Kantian Ethics: Kantian Ethics necessarily avoids the objection of selfcenteredness, whereas the avoidance of this objection is only contingent in the case of Virtue Ethics. (shrink)

This article seeks both to challenge common understandings of Kant's moral project and to use that reading to reconceptualize the aims of political theory. The paper argues that while Kant's moral work is widely praised or criticized for its formalism and its defense of the autonomous subject, an interpretation that takes seriously Kant's remarks about humiliation in the Critique of Practical Reason challenges both these commonplaces. An examination both of the practical role that humiliation plays in Kant's moral system and (...) of the affective and historical traces it relies upon shows that Kant's moral project understands the importance of ethical cultivation and is thus far more political than is often appreciated. The article therefore concludes by suggesting that this rereading of Kant should encourage us to critically examine certain modes of political theorization and adopt a more overtly political stance towards the construction of moral projects in political theory and philosophy alike. Key Words: autonomy • communitarianism • cultivation • culture • humiliation • Hegel • Kant • liberalism • monasticism • respect. (shrink)

In the last three decades several cosmological principles and styles of reasoning termed 'anthropic' have been introduced into physics research and popular accounts of the universe and human beings' place in it. I discuss the circumstances of 'fine tuning' that have motivated this development, and what is common among the principles. I examine the two primary principles, and find a sharp difference between these 'Weak' and 'Strong' varieties: contrary to the view of the progenitors that all anthropic principles represent a (...) departure from Copernicanism in cosmology, the Weak Anthropic Principle is an instance of Copernicanism. It has close affinities with the step of Copernicus that Immanuel Kant took himself to be imitating in the 'critical' turn that gave rise to the Critique of Pure Reason. I conclude that the fact that a way of going about natural science mentions human beings is not sufficient reason to think that it is a subjective approach; in fact, it may need to mention human beings in order to be objective. (shrink)

Kant’s argument in § 38 of the *Critique of Judgment* is subject to a dilemma: if the subjective condition of cognition is the sufficient condition of the pleasure of taste, then every object of experience must produce that pleasure; if not, then the universal communicability of cognition does not entail the universal communicability of the pleasure. Kant’s use of an additional premise in § 21 may get him out of this difficulty, but the premises themselves hang in the air and (...) have no independent plausibility. What Kant offers as a proof of our right to make judgments of taste is more charitably construed as an indirect argument for the adequacy of a speculative explanation of a *presumed* right to make judgments of taste. (shrink)

I defend the claim that Kant is a moral antirealist, or (as he would state it) moral idealist. I first define moral realism and moral idealism, concluding that moral idealism requires that every moral property depend upon the minds of moral agents. Kant's metaethical theory is idealist regarding the nature of value, since it depends upon the voluntary choices of moral agents in pursuing particular ends, the nature of right, since the categorical imperative stems from moral agents' own reason, and (...) the nature of moral agency, since freedom is construed in terms of the use of reason. (shrink)

We will consider alternative ways that Kant’s philosophical views on ethics generally and on punishment more particularly could be brought into harmony with the present near consensus of opposition to the death penalty. We will make use of the notion of the contemporary consensus about certain issues, particularly equality of the sexes and the death penalty, found in widespread agreement, though not unanimity. Of course, it is always possible that some consensuses are wrong, or misguided, or mistaken. We should not (...) put too much philosophical weight on the notion of a consensus here. If there is a consensus for the equality of women as citizens, and against the death penalty, this will simply suggest to us that we will want to reconsider Kant’s views on such topics. In both instances mentioned, his views lie outside the current consensus. We will consider how to revise Kant’s views to bring them into accord with these current consensuses, within a theory that is still, in as significant a sense as possible, Kantian. Since the use of the idea of a consensus is a sort of short-cut, there will not be much direct discussion of arguments for or against the equality of women as citizens, or for or against the advisability of using the death penalty. Yet the discussions of these issues will illuminate certain facts about the structure of Kant’s moral and political theories, and about how the basic principles within those theories relate to particular moral applications or topics. If we can still end up with a thoroughly Kantian view on the death penalty, that also will tell us something about the relation of Kantian ethical and legal principles to the death penalty as that issue is discussed today. Opposition to the death penalty in present day circumstances is not at variance with the basic principles of Kantian ethical, political, and legal theory, including his retributivism in the justification of punishment. Indeed, there is a way of revising Kant’s views to bring them into harmony with abolition. (shrink)

In this article I discuss Kant's idea of cosmopolitanism both in its prescriptive dimension (its normative content and regulative aspirations) and also its descriptive basis (its crucial philosophical-anthropological assumptions constituting its theoretical justification). My aim is to show that the prescriptive dimension cannot be treated separately from the descriptive one for some difficulties that the latter confronts pervade the former and misinform it. I then proceed to an examination of those difficulties which I locate mainly in Kant's onto-theological commitment to (...) some anthropological tenets of his era. I explore the implications of these tenets and show that they contribute negatively to the task of the promotion of a cosmopolitanism that respects difference and heterogeneity. I conclude with some critical suggestions pro-pounding a renegotiation of the paradigmatic certainties of Kant's cosmopolitanism in order to salvage its normative import and couch it in less onto-theological terms. (shrink)

The ethics of care, adopted in much of the nursing literature, is usually framed in opposition to the Kantian ethics of principle. Irrespective of whether the ethics of care is grounded in gender, as with Gilligan and Noddings, or inscribed on Heidegger's ontology, as with Benner, Kant remains the philosophical adversary, honouring reason rather than emotion, universality rather than context, and individual autonomy rather than interdependence. During the past decade, however, a great deal of Kantian scholarship – including feminist scholarship (...) – has rendered this series of oppositions questionable, challenging the view that an ethics of care and Kant's moral law are irreconcilable. This paper therefore re‐examines Kant's writings, drawing on recent scholarship, and argues both that they provide the care ethicists with everything they require, and that they offer something beyond an ethics of care, something that repairs the deficits in philosophies of caring. It concludes by suggesting that a Kantian ethics of care has significant implications for the construction of nursing knowledge. (shrink)

Die Formel „Ubiquität der Philosophie“ stammt nicht von mir. Sie ist ein Zitat. Ubiquität, ‚Allgegenwart‘, ‚Überalligkeit der Philosophie‘ – von lateinisch ubique: ‚überall‘, ‚wo immer‘ – ist eine bewußte Prägung von Richard Hönigswald. Wir finden sie bei ihm spätestens in seinem Buch Die Grundlagen der Denkpsychologie. Aber auch in seinem Spätwerk ist sie lebendig. Die beiden letzten Bände des 10-bändigen Nachlasses, die als Band IX und X 1976/77 erschienen sind und Texte aus den vierziger Jahren enthalten, operieren nachdrücklich mit dem (...) Ubiquitätstheorem. Sie tragen den von Hönigswald selbst formulierten Titel „Die Systematik der Philosophie. Aus individueller Problemgestaltung entwickelt“. Von „Allgegenwart oder Ubiquität des Geistes im menschlichen Dasein“ oder schlicht von der „Ubiquität des Menschen“ spricht übrigens auch 1938 der Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftler Werner Sombart in seinem Buch Vom Menschen. Versuch einer geisteswissenschaft-lichen Anthropologie. Der Topos ist ihm wichtig genug, um ihn im Sachindex zu notieren. (shrink)

Biographical note: The author is associate professor in ethics and political philosophy, Department of Philosophy, NTNU Trond.

My account begins with Strawson’s celebrated “Freedom and Resentment” lecture. Here by making the “reactive emotions” partly constitutive of holding someone responsible, Strawson offered a deep analysis of what was wrong with the forward-looking, behavior-affecting view of responsibility often espoused by determinists, while apparently avoiding the metaphysical baggage carried by libertarianism. Yet, for all the promise of such a view, there remained the question of what a carefully worked-out, Strawsonian conception of responsibility would actually look like. In this study I (...) examine the thoughtful version of such a theory R. Jay Wallace offers in Responsibility and the Moral Sentiments. (shrink)

This volume documents for the first time the enormous variety of diverging interpretations and presents a text-oriented analysis of antinomy and its resolution ...

Contrariamente à visão tradicional de Kant como um puro retributivista, as interpretações recentes da teoria kantiana da pena propõem uma teoria mista da retribuição e prevenção geral. Embora ambos elementos sejam literalmente corretos, tentarei mostrar os limites de cada um deles. Sustentarei que a teoria kantiana da pena não é consistente com seu próprio conceito de lei. Proponho, então, uma outra justificação para a pena: especial e reabilitação. A crítica kantiana do utilitarismo não afeta essa alternativa, que tem, outrossim, apoio (...) em Kant e é totalmente consistente com sua própria concepção de lei. (shrink)

I interpret Kant's distinction between free and dependent beauty in a way that makes it possible for an object to be judged dependently beautiful without being judged freely beautiful. This is an alternative to the analyses provided by Malcolm Budd and Christopher Janaway, which both face a dilemma because they entail that an object must be judged freely beautiful in order to be judged dependently beautiful. The dilemma is that either the determinant of a judgement of dependent beauty is based (...) upon non-aesthetic criteria (if the object is not freely beautiful), or else the judgement is superfluous for an account of aesthetic value. My analysis of the distinction allows both kinds of beauty to play a meaningful role in a theory of aesthetic value. (shrink)

Let me start with a well-known story. Kant held that logic and conceptual analysis alone cannot account for our knowledge of arithmetic: “however we might turn and twist our concepts, we could never, by the mere analysis of them, and without the aid of intuition, discover what is the sum [7+5]” (KrV, B16). Frege took himself to have shown that Kant was wrong about this. According to Frege’s logicist thesis, every arithmetical concept can be defined in purely logical terms, and (...) every theorem of arithmetic can be proved using only the basic laws of logic. Hence, Kant was wrong to think that our grasp of arithmetical concepts and our knowledge of arithmetical truth depend on an extralogical source—the pure intuition of time (Frege 1884, §89, §109). Arithmetic, properly understood, is just a part of logic. (shrink)

Here are two widespread responses to Kant's categorical imperative. On one hand, one might note the absence of detailed rational derivation. On the other hand, even someone who maintains some skepticism is likely to have a sense that (nevertheless) there is something to Kant's central ideas. The recommended solution is analysis of elements of the categorical imperative. Their appeal turns out to have different sources. One aspect of the first formulation rests on the logic of normative utterances. But others can (...) be justified only in terms of their contributions to desirable functionings of a moral order. (shrink)

Kant's account of aesthetic value is easily ignored or subordinated by the recent stress on the primacy of the practical in his system. For Kant, vindicating reason not only requires a methodological distinction between principles of thought and knowledge on the one side, and of action and morality on the other, but the introduction of a third "faculty," feeling, along with its own principle of judgment. Christine Korsgaard has interpreted Kant's overall account of rationality in terms of a kind of (...) rationalist constructivism, the spirit of which she traces to his humanism. She argues that, for Kant, the source of all value is ultimately humanity itself, or, to be more precise, humanity insofar as it is capable of full rational autonomy. Kant's own statement of the primacy of practical reason turns out to be far from clear. (shrink)

The third section of the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals presents a particularly acute interpretative problem that has perplexed generations of Kant commentators. Having devoted the two preceding sections of the work to identifying the supreme principle of morality, Kant, in this section, turns to the task of justifying the principle for rational yet sensually affected beings like humans. However, in the middle of this famous “deduction,” he suddenly confesses that “there is a hidden circle” from which “there is (...) no escape.” Kant’s abrupt confession of the circle leaves the reader deeply puzzled, partly because Kant has so confidently presented his arguments for our subjection to the constraints of the supreme principle of morality up to that point, and partly because no clues are readily apparent as to what the mistake in the arguments might be. Where is the circle located? In this paper I tackle Kant’s problem of the hidden circle in the Foundations. In particular, I will identify and critically discuss three influential interpretations of the fallacy of circularity and offer an alternative reading of Kant’s way out of the problem. (shrink)