Kant declared that philosophy began in 1781 with his Critique of Pure Reason. In 1806 Hegel announced that it had been completed. Förster assesses the steps that led from Kant’s “beginning” to Hegel’s “end” and concludes that both Kant and Hegel were indeed right. His study reveals Goethe’s significant contribution to post-Kantian thinking.

This volume is the first ever English translation of Kant's last major work, the so-called Opus Postumum, a work Kant himself described as his 'chef d'oeuvre' and as the keystone of his entire philosophical system. It occupied him for more than the last decade of his life. Begun with the intention of providing a 'transition from the metaphysical foundations of natural science to physics,' Kant's reflections take him far beyond the problem he initially set out to solve. In fact, he (...) reassesses a whole series of fundamental topics of transcendental philosophy: the thing in itself, the nature of space and time, the concept of the self and its agency, the idea of God, and the unity of theoretical and practical reason. Though never completed, the text reaches a logical albeit not fully developed, conclusion. (shrink)

Having undertaken several attempts in the field of rational theology, Kant argued in the Critique of Pure Reason that all theoretical proofs for God's existence are in principle doomed to failure, and declared moral theology to be the sole goal of reason's efforts in this field.In this essay I try to show that after the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant's moral theology underwent a development and transformation similar to that undergone by his rational theology before the first Critique.Tracing the development (...) of Kant's doctrine of God as a postulate of practical reason from the first Critique to the Opus postumum, I maintain that Kant offered at least four different arguments for why it is necessary for practical reason to postulate God's existence, only to conclude that none of them establishes its conclusion. In the Opus postumum, the classical doctrine of the postulates of pure reason is finally laid to rest. In the end, for Kant, ethics and religion coincide. (shrink)

In diesem zweiten Teil wird zuerst gezeigt, dass Hegel sich am Anfang seiner Jenaer Zeit genau wie Schelling am §76 der Kritik der Urteilskraft mit Kants Gedanken eines Urgrunds orientiert, in dem Sein und Denken, Subjektives und Objektives zusammenfallen. Nach Schellings Weggang 1803 kommt Hegel aber durch seinen Freund Schelver zunehmend mit Goethe in Kontakt, dessen Methodologie eines intuitiven Verstandes im Sinne von KdU §77 Schelver als neuberufener Botanikprofessor und Direktor des botanischen Gartens in die Praxis umzusetzen hat. Hegel übernimmt (...) diese Methodologie zuerst, im sog. zweiten Jenaer Systementwurf von 1804/5, teilweise, ab 1805 in den Vorlesungen zur Geschichte des Philosophie ganz, wobei er sie aber in einem entscheidenden Punkt weiterentwickelt. Sie liegt auch der Phänomenologie des Geistes zugrunde. Zugleich wird deutlich, warum der Systemteil ‚Logik und Metaphysik’ aufgegeben und die Metaphysik selbst zur Logik werden muss, der nun allerdings eine solche ‚Phänomenologie des Geistes’ vorangehen muss. (shrink)

Few philosophers have thought as long and as deeply as Kant about the nature of philosophy. His reflections on this topic did not come to an end with the Critique of Pure Reason. In what follows I am going to argue that in his Opus postumum, Kant came to realize that the conception of philosophy presented in the first Critique cannot be upheld. I will suggest that Kant’s numerous attempts in the first fascicle of the Opus postumum to redefine transcendental (...) philosophy reflect this insight. These attempts are thus not to be interpreted as signs of senility, as has usually been done, but as indicative of a new and heightened level of reflection. In this sense one can, I suggest, speak of a “postcritical” phase in Kant’s thinking, comparable to the so-called critical and precritical phases. This does not, however, mean that after 1790 Kant returned to a form of dogmatism, but that in his last work a conception of philosophy emerges that differs as much from that developed in the first Critique as the latter does from the one to be found in his precritical writings. I shall look at all three conceptions in turn. I begin with the precritical one. (shrink)

In diesem zweiten Teil wird zuerst gezeigt, dass Hegel sich am Anfang seiner Jenaer Zeit genau wie Schelling am §76 der Kritik der Urteilskraft mit Kants Gedanken eines Urgrunds orientiert, in dem Sein und Denken, Subjektives und Objektives zusammenfallen. Nach Schellings Weggang 1803 kommt Hegel aber durch seinen Freund Schelver zunehmend mit Goethe in Kontakt, dessen Methodologie eines intuitiven Verstandes im Sinne von KdU §77 Schelver als neuberufener Botanikprofessor und Direktor des botanischen Gartens in die Praxis umzusetzen hat. Hegel übernimmt (...) diese Methodologie zuerst, im sog. zweiten Jenaer Systementwurf von 1804/5, teilweise, ab 1805 in den Vorlesungen zur Geschichte des Philosophie ganz, wobei er sie aber in einem entscheidenden Punkt weiterentwickelt. Sie liegt auch der Phänomenologie des Geistes zugrunde. Zugleich wird deutlich, warum der Systemteil ‚Logik und Metaphysik’ aufgegeben und die Metaphysik selbst zur Logik werden muss, der nun allerdings eine solche ‚Phänomenologie des Geistes’ vorangehen muss. (shrink)

Friedrich Hölderlin has long been recognized as one of the greatest poets of the German language, but his importance to philosophy has surfaced only comparatively recently. Although Schelling and Hegel acknowledged Hölderlin early on as their equal, for a long time his philosophical thought remained unknown outside the small circle of his friends. Among the most prominent figures in the rediscovery of Hölderlin's thought is Dieter Henrich, who, in a series of highly influential studies over the last thirty years, has (...) shown that Hölderlin played a decisive role in the development of philosophy from Kant to Hegel, and hence in the formation of German Idealism. Among other things, Henrich demonstrated that Hölderlin, while still a student, launched a powerful critique of Fichte's _Wissenschaftslehre_ and outlined an alternative to the dominant view of the foundation of philosophy. This alternative proved pathbreaking for his philosophical friends, forcing Hegel, for example, to abandon his own Kantianism and, eventually, to give systematic articulation to a position that went even beyond Hölderlin's. This volume includes six of Henrich's most important essays on Hölderlin's philosophical significance. Among the topics discussed are Hölderlin's motivation and methodological orientation in his work on German Idealism, the intellectual atmosphere of Hölderlin's student years and the philosophical problems that occupied him, Hölderlin's attitude toward any first-principle philosophy, and the complex personal and philosophical relationships between Hegel and Hölderlin. The last essay is a long, detailed interpretation of one of Hölderlin's greatest poems, "Remembrance." In elucidating its lyric composition and structure, Henrich also seeks to show how it incorporates and develops Hölderlin's philosophical thought. (shrink)

In diesem zweiten Teil wird zuerst gezeigt, dass Hegel sich am Anfang seiner Jenaer Zeit genau wie Schelling am §76 der Kritik der Urteilskraft mit Kants Gedanken eines Urgrunds orientiert, in dem Sein und Denken, Subjektives und Objektives zusammenfallen. Nach Schellings Weggang 1803 kommt Hegel aber durch seinen Freund Schelver zunehmend mit Goethe in Kontakt, dessen Methodologie eines intuitiven Verstandes im Sinne von KdU §77 Schelver als neuberufener Botanikprofessor und Direktor des botanischen Gartens in die Praxis umzusetzen hat. Hegel übernimmt (...) diese Methodologie zuerst, im sog. zweiten Jenaer Systementwurf von 1804/5, teilweise, ab 1805 in den Vorlesungen zur Geschichte des Philosophie ganz, wobei er sie aber in einem entscheidenden Punkt weiterentwickelt. Sie liegt auch der Phänomenologie des Geistes zugrunde. Zugleich wird deutlich, warum der Systemteil ‚Logik und Metaphysik’ aufgegeben und die Metaphysik selbst zur Logik werden muss, der nun allerdings eine solche ‚Phänomenologie des Geistes’ vorangehen muss. (shrink)