Paul Guyer

Stanley Cavell’s “ontology of film” is his way of expressing that in our experience of movies, we are both aware that we are perceiving nothing but flickering light on a screen yet also respond intellectually and emotionally as if we are experiencing real people, although in a world in which we cannot intervene. In his discussions of “comedies of remarriage” and “the melodrama of the unknown woman,” he argues that these movies are about what it is to grow into adult human beings who are free to love and who can accept the risks of loving another free human being.

In Klas Roth’s essay in this issue of JAE, “Making Ourselves Intelligible—Rendering ourselves Efficacious and Autonomous, without Fixed Ends,” his invocation of Stanley Cavell’s remark that “we should avoid or resist becoming … the ‘slaves of our slavishness’” (31) makes clear why he and I are both so deeply attracted to Kant as well as to Cavell, for it was none other than Kant, not, for example, Nietzsche, who introduced the term “slavish” for everything that is to be avoided in morality. (This was in his footnote to Part I in the second edition of Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, in which he was essentially arguing that Schiller’s conception of dignity in Grace and Dignity was too Kantian!) So..

Schiller’s essay “On Grace and Dignity” has been taken by many, including Kant himself, to be an attack on Kant’s moral philosophy, understood as requiring that moral motivation must always be a struggle between duty and inclination. Actually, Schiller conceives of harmony between inclination and duty, or grace and dignity, as an aesthetic requirement, and agrees with Kant that when grace and dignity conflict, dignity must prevail. Kant does not see this, but nevertheless in his own, late, account of the “aesthetic preconditions of the mind’s susceptibility to concepts of duty” he describes how feeling and duty are actually to be brought together.

ABSTRACTAn implication of Kant’s aesthetics is that the audience for art must be able to meet the free play of the imagination of the artist with free play of their own imagination in order to enjoy the work of art. Does Collingwood’s conception of the aesthetic audience’s ‘reconstruction’ of the imaginative work of the artist leave room for this thought? No, but his conception of the historian’s ‘re-enactment’ of the thought of the historical subjects suggests a model for this relation that might be added to his aesthetic theory.

John Rawls lectured directly on the history of modern moral philosophy throughout his 30‐year teaching career at Harvard, and his lectures from the final version of the course were published as Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy (LHMP). This chapter casts some light on Rawls's central attempt to demonstrate the superiority of a position inspired by Immanuel Kant over utilitarianism by focusing on Rawls's treatment of Kant in both Theory of Justice and LHMP. It focuses on Rawls's treatment of Adam Smith and Kant, where in both of those authors the relation between deontological and teleological approaches being more complex than Rawls sometimes suggests.

John Rawls based his theory of justice, in the work of that name, on a ‘Kantian interpretation’ of the status of human beings as ‘free and equal’ persons. In his subsequent, ‘political rather than metaphysical’ expositions of his theory, the conception of citizens of democracies as ‘free and equal’ persons retained its foundational role. But Rawls appealed only to Kant’s moral philosophy, never to Kant’s own political philosophy as expounded in his 1797 Doctrine of Right in theMetaphysics of Morals. I argue here that the structure of Kant’s political philosophy, with its categories of the innate right to freedom, private acquired right and public right, can clarify the relationship between Rawls’s two principles of justice and his scheme of basic liberties and primary goods.

Hannah Ginsborg rejects my ‘two-acts’ interpretation of Kant’s conception of aesthetic judgement as untrue to Kant’s text and as philosophically problematic, especially because it entails that every object must be experienced as beautiful. I reject her criticisms, and argue that it is her own ‘one-act’ interpretation that is liable to these criticisms. But I also suggest that her emphasis on Kant’s ‘transcendental explanation’ of pleasure as a self-maintaining mental state suggests an alternative to the common view that pleasure is a distinctive feeling, even if Ginsborg herself does not draw that conclusion.

This volume provides an extensive translation of the notes and fragments that survived Kant's death in 1804. These include marginalia, lecture notes, and sketches and drafts for his published works. They are important as an indispensable resource for understanding Kant's intellectual development and published works, casting fresh light on Kant's conception of his own philosophical methods and his relations to his predecessors, as well as on central doctrines of his work such as the theory of space, time and categories, the refutations of scepticism and metaphysical dogmatism, the theory of the value of freedom and the possibility of free will, the conception of God, the theory of beauty, and much more.

During the 1760s and 1770s, Kant entertained a naturalistic approach to ethics based on the supposed psychological fact of a human love for freedom. During the critical period, especially in the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant clearly rejected such an approach. But his attempt at a metaphysical foundation for ethics in section III of the Groundwork was equally clearly a failure. Kant recognized this in his appeal to the "fact of reason" argument in the Critique of Practical Reason, but thereby gave up on any attempt to ground the fundamental principle of morality at all. So it is of interest to see how far we might now proceed along the lines of his original naturalistic approach.