Rudolf Meer

In her 1921 book, The Space-Time Problem in Kant and Einstein, Ilse Schneider examines the foundations and consequences of the theory of relativity from an epistemological perspective. Beyond addressing detailed questions of early 1920s physics, it is a programmatic attempt to reconcile Kant’s transcendental idealism with Albert Einstein’s physics. The Kantian background puts the book in direct competition with Ernst Cassirer’s book Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, published in the same year. Schneider’s approach was largely ignored in the research compared with Cassirer’s. What has not been considered so far is that Schneider and Cassirer represent two different interpretations of Kant, which they apply to Einstein’s physics. Recent Kant scholarship has differentiated these interpretations into the “metaphysical” and “epistemological dual-aspect” views. The former view can be found in the work of Schneider’s academic supervisor, Alois Riehl, and clearly distinguishes Schneider’s realist-inspired approach from Cassirer’s idealism. Given these differing views, it is necessary to be more precise when speaking of “immunization strategies” in the context of neo-Kantianism in order to make the differences between Schneider and Cassirer clear. Cassirer immunizes philosophy from the results of physics. In contrast, Schneider exposes philosophy much more strongly to physics.

The correspondence between J. H. Lambert and I. Kant shows that their discussion about the Dissertatio led Kant to restructure his philosophical project although Lambert’s philosophy proposes a completely different theory of consciousness, or apperception, as well as a differently structured theory of objectivity. In his letter from October 1770, Lambert develops three fundamental objections to the way Kant attempts the project of the Limits of Sensibility and of Reason in the context of the Dissertatio. These objections concern (1) whether the distinction between understanding and sensibility can be demonstrated, (2) whether concepts are necessary for the empirical sciences, and (3) the status of space and time. Even though Kant left Lambert’s letter from 1770 unanswered, his theory of apperception, which was still only rudimentarily developed at the beginning of the 1770s, could be reconstructed as a reply to all three objections.

In a crucial paragraph (KrV, A 663-664 / B 691-692) of the first part of the “Appendix to the Transcendental Dialectic”, Kant discusses the specific status of the principles of homogeneity, specification, and continuity. In doing so, he refers to an already proven argument and thus to other passages of the Critique of Pure Reason. In search of this argument the “Transcendental Analytic” but in particular the “first book” of the “Transcendental Dialectic” turn out to be possible reference points. Although this contextualisation demands further systematic and editorial reflections, it also allows the clarification of the status of the principles and their justification in relation to a subjective deduction. Kant offers with the subjective deduction, as introduced in the “Preface” (of the first edition of the Critique of Pure Reason) and again in the “first book” of the “Transcendental Dialectic”, a first argumentative strategy, which differs from the objective one but provides “some objective validity” (KrV, A 664 / B 692; Kant, 1998, p. 602) and therefore has systematic importance for the principles of homogeneity, specification, and continuity. My aim is to offer immanent strategies for a justification of the principles of homogeneity, specification, and continuity in the framework of the Critique of Pure Reason.

In the theoretical philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the term object has an extensive and far-reaching significance, and it can therefore be understood as a theory of objects. This becomes particularly clear when it is observed that all of his guidelines can be traced to different concepts of objects and their combination. With his concept of the object of experience, he attempts to mediate incompatible aspects in this: in relation to the object of experience, we have apodictic claims but at the same time our knowledge of the object develops and contains the possibility of historical progress. This theory of objects was elaborated by Kant with regard to natural science and the claim of its metaphysical foundation. For this reason, Kant’s concept of object is inherently linked with his concept of science. Astronomy is at the core of his investigation, because it represents a perfect example of a so-called proper and rational natural science.

Over the last two decades, the controversy between conceptualists and nonconceptualists has provided important insights into Kant’s critical project and especially the transcendental deduction. At the same time, the differentiation of the various positions has led to a seemingly unsolvable paradox in interpretation. However, if the intensifications of the debate are withdrawn and the current positions are placed in the context of historical interpretations, it becomes apparent that a nonconceptualism can indeed be developed without coming into (irresolvable) conflict with Kant’s conceptualism. In this sense, Alois Riehl proposes in his Philosophical Criticism (vol. 1) a so-called state nonconceptualism. Even if he does not have the terminology in use today, he can defend this on par with the current debate especially with regard to A 89–90 / B 122–123. In doing so, Riehl’s realistic interpretation of Kant’s transcendental idealism offers strategies that again question a hasty skepticism towards nonconceptualist interpretations.

Der Band versammelt Studien zu philosophische, wissenschaftlichen und künstlerischen Reflexionen auf das Vermögen der Einbildungskraft, das in der Erkenntnistheorie und Psychologie des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts in bedeutenden Entwürfen und erbitterten Kontroversen europaweit diskutiert wurde. Zwischen produktivem und reproduktivem Status, d.h. zwischen Phantasie und Gedächtnis changierend wurde die Leistungsfähigkeit für Erkenntnis und Wissenschaft von den Gefahren der Täuschungen des Geistes durch die Einbildungskraft korreliert. Der Band leistet eine breit gefächerte Sichtung der unterschiedlichen Konzepte der Einbildungskraft und ein Tableau der Begründungsleistungen erstellen, das historische und systematische Perspektiven produktiv vermittelt.

Im ersten Teil des Anhangs zur Transzendentalen Dialektik entwickelt Kant einen Übergang zwischen dem logischen Gebrauch der Vernunft und den transzendentalen Prinzipien der Vernunft. Basierend auf methodologischen Überlegungen zur Chemie, zur physiologischen Anthropologie und zur Entwicklungsgeschichte astronomischer Grundannahmen versucht Kant, diese Prinzipien in ihrem transzendentalen Status zu rechtfertigen und ihre Kompatibilität mit anderen Teilen der Kritik der reinen Vernunft nachzuweisen. Ausgehend von diesen wissenschaftstheoretischen Beispielen wird für eine heuristisch- pragmatische Rechtfertigung der transzendentalen Prinzipien der Vernunft und eine ideelle Funktion der durch diese Prinzipien gewonnenen Ideen argumentiert. Dabei lässt sich die enge Verbindung zwischen den transzendentalen Prinzipien des ersten Teils des Anhangs zur Transzendentalen Dialektik und Kants Konzept der rationalen Naturwissenschaft in den Metaphysischen Anfangsgründen der Naturwissenschaft nachweisen.

In der Arbeit wird eine textimmanente Problemstellung der Transzendentalen Dialektik der Kritik der reinen Vernunft aufgegriffen, indem ausgehend vom Grundsatz der Vernunft nach der Möglichkeit eines regulativen Apriori im Rahmen der methodischen Vorgaben der Kritik der reinen Vernunft gefragt wird. Kants regulativer Vernunftgebrauch wird in drei Teilen untersucht: Der erste Teil – Problemfeld – entwickelt ausgehend von der Antinomie der reinen Vernunft immanente Kriterien, durch die das Lehrstück des Anhangs zur Transzendentalen Dialektik dargestellt und geprüft werden kann. Der zweite Teil – Analysen – entwickelt textimmanent die Herleitung der Vernunftbegriffe, das dadurch geleistete Systematische der Erkenntnis und ihre transzendentale Rechtfertigung. Der dritte Teil – Dimension und Reichweite – untersucht auf der Basis der textimmanenten Analyse die konkreten Beispiele, die Kant im Anhang zur Transzendentalen Dialektik anführt, um damit die begrifflich-abstrakten Gedankengänge an Fallbeispielen zu konkretisieren. Der Grundsatz der Vernunft wird dabei in seiner konstitutiven Form zurückgewiesen und in einer regulativen Interpretation als transzendentaler Grundsatz der Vernunft neu begründet.