So far as his critical employment of the concept is concerned, the thing in itself is not a second object. The thing in itself is given in its appearances; it is the object which appears. In other words, the object is taken in a twofold sense. There is no contradiction, Kant maintained, in supposing that one and the same will is, as an appearance, determined by the laws of nature and yet, as a thing in itself, is free. He never (...) meant to hold that the self of the theoretical reason and the self of the practical reason are two separate and distinct entities. It is one and the same object considered from two perspectives. In this sense the thing in itself is purely a limiting concept. So far as the critical method is concerned, objects are always considered from a particular and limited perspective, e.g. science, morality, art, et cetera. This is the central meaning of his theory of appearances. In this employment of the concept it is completely meaningless to speak of the thing in itself as a cause of appearances. The critical distinction between appearances and things in themselves is not intended to be a distinction between subjective sense data and public objects, but between public objects as given according to two or more modes. This involves no extension of the category of causality beyond appearances. Moreover, it is not open to the charge that an unknown object is given the attribute of existence. The thing in itself is known as an appearance. By definition that is the only way that it could be known. To say that we know only appearances and not things in themselves is to state an obvious tautology, namely that objects are known only as they are known. (shrink)

Having indicated my own enthusiasm for the project, I must hasten to add that it is precisely the explicit philosophical concern of existential psychoanalysis which constitutes its greatest vulnerability. No matter how strong one's interest in metaphysics may be and, hence, his initial sympathy with the metaphysical component in existential psychoanalysis, if one is critical and honest he cannot long avoid the question: what will be the results for psychoanalysis as a science? Two considerations are bound to give the philosopher (...) pause: Modern experimental science deliberately and willfully cut itself free from metaphysical speculation; up to the point where it failed to take this step, its progress was minimal. There are, I think, obvious dangers involved in empirical science either becoming too explicitly metaphysical or attempting to adapt itself to an antecedently available metaphysical system. I do not mean to suggest that metaphysics has not or cannot contribute to natural science, but only to underscore the fact that natural science has attained at least a relative autonomy. The physicist develops his own metaphysics to serve his own purposes and there is good reason to believe that he is well advised in doing so. (shrink)

Until comparatively recently the complete text of the Opus Postutmum has not been available to students of the Kantian philosophy.Prior to the publication of Adickes’ commentary on this material in 1920, students of Kant were almost wholly dependent upon Reicke's incomplete and markedly inadequate edition of 1882–84. 2 Adickes’ commentary, with its abundance of quoted passages, provided an access to a great deal of material hitherto unavailable. But it was not until the publication of the Academy Edition in 1936 that (...) the complete text became available for independent study. Because of the recent publication of the full text, most accounts of Kant's position in the Opus Postumum have depended upon Reicke's inadequate edition or, as has been more frequently the case, upon Adickes’ commentary. 3 In view of the considerable influence it has had upon Kant interpretation, Adickes’ analysis of the Opus Postumum warrants a careful and critical examination. (shrink)

Heidegger is noted for his concern with the nothing, das Nichts, and this may be partially due to the way in which his ideas were first introduced. Whereas the positivists regarded his writings as nonsense, employing his references to nothingness to prove them so, other of his interpreters took his thought seriously but regarded it as fundamentally nihilistic. He was pictured as an irrationalist philosopher, preoccupied with death and negativity. It is this representation of Heidegger which still prevails to a (...) large extent among philosophers in this country. Unlike the positivists, they accept what he says as meaningful and important but as having consequences which must be rejected not only as mistaken but, perhaps, as immoral. That this appraisal requires careful examination is indicated by the fact that not a few theologians have borrowed heavily from Heidegger and found in his writings important positive suggestions. The impression that Heidegger is a nihilist or even an irrationalist is mistaken from the ground up; it is difficult to understand how it could be sustained by anyone who had struggled through any one of Heidegger's essays. (shrink)

Harris is not unaware of the problem involved or of the fact that a very large number of philosophers would disagree with his own stand on the matter. He even goes so far as to call it a paradox--though he hastens to make clear that he does not actually regard it as such. "How can a finite and imperfect fragment aspire so to transcend its own limits as to cancel its fragmentary and imperfect character, which yet must be maintained in (...) order that its knowledge should not be defective"? Employing the same argument which Hegel used against Kant's theory of the Thing-in-itself, Harris adds that "to know of limitations is at once to have transcended them". Now there can be no doubt that this is the case. To be aware of finiteness or subjectivity is to be one step beyond it, to recognize it for what it is. And some ideal or idea is required by virtue of which we can assess the limitations of our situation. But, we must inquire, what purchase do we thereby acquire on the absolute? What sort of transcendence do we achieve? Is absolute knowledge always implicit in our imperfect knowledge of the world in such a way that we can hope to put our imperfections behind and achieve a level of thought and knowledge at which being and truth are one? Or is knowledge necessarily infected with a mode of subjectivity which is ineradicable? (shrink)

This paper explores the tension, in the pragmatist tradition between Dewey and James, naturalism and empiricism, political activism and philosophical understanding --within a scheme focused on ontology.

In the case of existential philosophy the division is understandable. The existentialist philosophers are clearly engaging in a program which has long been regarded as disreputable by the British. But in the case of phenomenology the divergence is an odd one, indeed. For what is phenomenology if not the "presuppositionless" reflection upon that which is "given" to consciousness? And what is "analysis" if not the unbiased and non speculative examination of experience? If phenomenology is actually "presuppositionless" and, further, if "analysis" (...) is free of doctrinal commitment, how can they be either different or opposed? If there is or has been a difference between them, has it not been of necessity more accidental than essential, more a matter of choice of subject matter than of method or philosophical doctrine? The fact that some British philosophers are now beginning to dip their toes in the waters of French phenomenology, and even to make use of such phenomenological categories as "intentionality," suggests that this is the case. But to the extent that there have been unavowed "presuppositions" in phenomenology and implicit doctrines in "analysis," the differences have been genuine and substantival. They do differ, as a matter of fact, with respect both to what is "given" for analysis and what is involved in analytic reflection itself. (shrink)

Mr. Clark argues that if Kant is to be interpreted as a realist his theory of space and time must be based on inductive argument. In support of this contention he suggests that a realist must be a nominalist and, hence, can legitimately advance only inductive arguments in support of his doctrines. But Mr. Clark goes further than this. He states that "if Kant is not to be taken as a realist, still his arguments, as written in the Critique, are (...) as a matter of fact inductive." I am not sure in what sense Mr. Clark is using the term "realist" here. I fail to see that realism necessarily implies nominalism or, for that matter, that even an inductive argument is possible for a thoroughgoing nominalist. But this point is not particularly important for the discussion of Kant's views since Kant is an idealist as well as a realist. In my article I attempted to stress the realistic side of Kant's theory. But I did not mean to argue that his position can be construed as exclusively realistic. Kant characterizes his theory as maintaining at once the "empirical reality and transcendental ideality" of space and time. His formal idealism was expressly designed to provide an escape from nominalism and to make possible a non-inductive or "transcendental" method of proof. Kant would agree with Mr. Clark that if space and time are regarded as things-in-themselves we can have no a priori knowledge of them. Space and time are real for Kant, but only as forms of appearances. I did not mean to obscure the idealistic feature of space and time, but only to stress the fact that Kant did not regard them as psychologically ideal. Mr. Clark mistakenly concludes that Kant's doctrine must be either realistic or idealistic but not both. (shrink)

There is a second way in which the question is capable of a twofold interpretation. One might begin with a priori concepts which have no empirical reference and ask how they can apply to objects. Or, one might deny the dichotomy between the a priori and experience and inquire how synthetic a priori judgments about experience can be accounted for. Initially Kant regarded the problem of schematism in the former way as that of bringing together two divorced realms. From this (...) standpoint it is assumed: a) that a priori concepts are generated by mind independently of experience, and b) that objects are given in intuition However, Kant came to see that if the problem is stated in this way it is insoluble. Only a pre-established harmony would guarantee that a priori concepts apply to objects. He attempted to break down this dualism between intuition and thought, between objects and concepts by showing that the knowledge of objects requires both intuition and thought. Unfortunately the original statement of the problem recurs alongside of the revised formulation at many places in the Critique. A close study of the development of Kant's thought makes it sufficiently clear that it is the latter statement of the problem which alone represents his mature insight and is consonant with his transcendental method of proof. (shrink)

Reality is fundamentally unitary, on the hypothesis under consideration, but the is of this assertion expresses a contingent fact. The necessity expressed in the metaphysical formulation does not refer to reality in itself but rather to the relation between reality and truth. Metaphysical truth is necessary truth in the sense that it relates of necessity to the real. It is necessary with respect to the real; it states what reality is but not what it must be. Thus the question whether (...) reality is one or many is a legitimate metaphysical question and if a true answer can be given it is true necessarily. But it is not necessarily true. For metaphysics does not attempt to establish the ontological necessity of reality. In other words, it may be a necessary truth of metaphysics that reality is both one and many and, yet, an open ontological question whether or not it must be so. (shrink)