Andree Hahmann

Kant’s highest good consists of happiness and the worthiness of happiness, that is, morality. The question of the exact connection between these two parts is disputed. Some argue that Kant proposed different, sometimes contradictory, concepts of the highest good. First, the highest good is said to consist in the distribution of happiness in relation to morality. Second, the highest good is said to describe a maximal or best state in which the greatest morality is associated with the highest happiness. This paper will show how the problematic relationship between the two elements of the highest good can be resolved and explain the different versions of the highest good.

Schiller’s philosophy of history has received comparatively little attention. This is partly because Schiller is perceived as a poor imitation of Kant or the existence of a systematic philosophy of history is simply denied. This chapter aims to remedy this deficit by first showing that Schiller developed a philosophy of history that shaped his understanding of history. The second part will identify important differences between Schiller’s conception of history and that of Kant. It will be shown that essential aspects of Schiller’s philosophy of history can not only be traced back to a period before his first engagement with Kant, but also that it coincides with his overarching aesthetic-philosophical project.

Es ist schwierig, Kant in der Frage der Willensfreiheit eine der heute üblichen philosophischen Sichtweisen zuzuordnen. Mithilfe des »transzendentalen Idealismus« meint Kant im Ergebnis die Vereinbarkeit von Freiheit und Naturnotwendigkeit begründen zu können. Zugleich hält er an einem Verständnis von Freiheit fest, demzufolge Freiheit »absolute Spontaneität« verlangt und deshalb nicht im Naturnotwendigen aufgehen kann. Seine Antwort verweist mit der Unterscheidung von »Ding an sich« und »Erscheinung« auf zwei verschiedene »Welten« oder »Standpunkte«, von denen aus unser Handeln beschrieben werden kann – einerseits als absolut frei, andererseits als naturnotwendig. Wie wichtig Kant gerade dieses Ergebnis seiner Kritik war, wurde von ihm wiederholt unterstrichen und in der Vorrede zur zweiten Auflage der Kritik der reinen Vernunft sogar zum eigentlichen Ziel des kritischen Projekts erhoben. Doch obwohl die kantische Philosophie sich einer verbreiteten Anerkennung erfreut, sind heutzutage die wenigsten bereit, Freiheit in einer Welt der »Dinge an sich« zu verorten. Die Gründe dafür liegen zum Teil in einer Neigung zum philosophischen Naturalismus, zum Teil in einem veränderten Verständnis von Freiheit, vor allem aber in einer grundsätzlichen Skepsis im Hinblick auf ehrgeizige metaphysische Theorien. Der vorliegende Band diskutiert Kants Freiheitstheorie in exegetischer und systematischer Hinsicht. Die Autoren stellen unter anderem folgende Fragen: Was genau hat Kant mit der Unterscheidung von »Ding an sich« und »Erscheinung« im Sinn? Wie soll sie die Möglichkeit transzendentaler Freiheit sichern? Gelingt das, wenn man die Unterscheidung akzeptiert? Ist der transzendentale Idealismus überhaupt eine kohärente Theorie? Was bleibt von Kants Freiheitstheorie und seiner Metaphysik des transzendentalen Idealismus? Inhaltsübersicht: Mario Brandhorst, Andree Hahmann, Bernd Ludwig: Einleitung - Dietmar H. Heidemann: Über Kants These: »Denn, sind Erscheinungen Dinge an sich selbst, so ist Freiheit nicht zu retten« - Tobias Rosefeldt: Kants Kompatibilismus –Jochen Bojanowski: Ist Kant ein Kompatibilist? - Andree Hahmann: Ist Freiheit die »Wahrheit der Notwendigkeit«? Das Ding an sich als Grund der Erscheinung bei Kant – Geert Keil: Kann man nichtzeitliche Verursachung verstehen? Kausalitätstheoretische Anmerkungen zu Kants Freiheitsantinomie – Mario Brandhorst: Woran scheitert Kants Freiheitstheorie? – Kenneth Westphal: Kants positive Verteidigung der Urteils- und Handlungsfreiheit, und zwar ohne transzendentalen Idealismus - Heiner Klemme: Spontaneität und Selbsterkenntnis. Kant über die ursprüngliche Einheit von Natur und Freiheit im Aktus des Denkens – Bernd Ludwig: Was weiß ich vom Ich? Kants Lehre vom Faktum der reinen praktischen Vernunft, seine Neufassung der Paralogismen und die verborgenen Fortschritte der Kritischen Metaphysik im Jahre 1786 – Reinhard Brandt: »Sei ein rechtlicher Mensch « – wie das? - Dieter Schönecker: Kants Grundlegung über den bösen Willen. Eine kommentarische Interpretation von GMS III 457,25-458,5 – Susanne Brauer: Alternative zu Kant? Freiheit nach Hegel in den Grundlinien zur Philosophie des Rechts.

Cicero distinguishes between two forms of divination: natural and artificial divination. Most contemporary scholars assume that Cicero presents a Stoic division and some even draw far-reaching conclusions about the scientific status of divination based on this distinction. However, his justification for the division is apparently contradictory and neither fits with Stoic nor Peripatetic claims that are found elsewhere. This paper examines the exact meaning of the division and sheds light on its Stoic and Peripatetic origin. In this way, we will not only be able to better understand the overall argument of Cicero’s De divinatione, but also to assess his real achievement as a philosophical author.

Kant’s postulate of the immortality of the soul has received strikingly little attention among Kant scholars, and only very few have regarded it positively. This is not surprising given the numerous problems associated with his argument. However, it is not the only argument for immortality that Kant offers in his critical philosophy. There is also a second argument that differs from the one furnished in the Second Critique and can be found both in the Critique of Pure Reason and later texts from the 1790s. Kant also addresses here many of the problems that interpreters have found with his postulate of immortality in both earlier and later texts. This paper considers the main difficulties associated with the postulate and proposes a coherent interpretation of Kant’s argument. I show that despite the apparent change in his approach to immortality Kant did not in fact substantially alter his position during his critical period.

Already in antiquity the Aristotelian Philosophy was under attack by its philosophical opponents. The Stoics can surely be counted to the most important ones. Furthermore they can be regarded as one of the most influential philosophy schools of the Hellenistic time and in the early Roman Empire and their influenceeven on modern thinkers must not be neglected. It is well known that the Stoics not only advocated a physical monism but can also be described as determinists or, from a modern point of view, even as compatibilists because they were the first who tried to harmonize moral responsibility with the thesis of a causal determinism. Therefore, the stoic concept of causality is of vast importance. In one of Seneca’s books a discussion of the Aristotelian theory of causality has come down to us. Although it is a quite short passage it proves itself to be very illuminating. This paper wants to shed light on the differences between the Aristotelian and the Stoic theory of causality and therefore help to clarify the historical background of the modern concept of causality which is of intense importance for the actual discussion about free will and determinism.

The purpose of this anthology is to bring together in one volume some of the texts published in the series "Werkprofile", which focus on Kant’s relationship to his philosophical contemporaries and predecessors, and to make them accessible to a wider audience in English. In doing so, the volume is aimed at those who have an interest in better understanding the premises of Kant's philosophy, its historical context, and the development of many of Kant’s fundamental ideas. As it is often hard to glean philosophical motivation directly from reading Kant’s texts, understanding Kant’s commitment to answering certain questions and his silence on others, requires a historical approach. This broader purview will also be helpful for grasping deeper systematic questions at work throughout Kant’s philosophy. The anthology thus aims at inviting a more wide-angled view of Kant’s philosophy by focusing on overlooked references and historical figures. Scholarship on these references is still at an early stage, even though important steps have been taken in this direction in recent years. The aim of our volume is to build on this development and to supplement and expand the content of existing research.

In the second half of the 18th century the voices criticizing the concept of simple substances as proposed by Leibniz and Wolff became increasingly louder. In response, Kant altered his theory of substances as first proposed in the 1750s. So for example, while his notion of substance in the Monadologia physica is simple and not merely in space, but fills space entirely, the Kantian position in the 1760s and early 1770s is quite different. This essay examines the solution Kant offers in his Inaugural Dissertation for the problems raised by critics of simple substances. It shows how Kant removes substance from space and consequently from the empirical world and makes it into a concept of the understanding which leads to the knowledge of simple substances by employment of the pure understanding.

The happy death of the Stoic. Wisdom and finitude in Stoic philosophy. This paper attempts to furnish a Stoic reply to an accusation addressing the Stoics' ideal of the wise man according to which it is impossible to realize their ideal and therefore their whole system has to face a paradox: How is wisdom possible when all people are fools and it is impossible for them to become good? In addition to this question there is another important problem connected with the ideal of wisdom. The Stoic philosophers deny transcendental ideas. Instead they are well known for their thorough-going materialism. Therefore, even their idea of the wise man must be based on experience. How would it otherwise be possible to form the idea of wisdom by a method of analogy if experience did not provide any example of truthful virtue to us? A possible answer to this problem can be found in the writings of Seneca, a Stoic of the first century A.D. Seneca emphasizes the close relation between wisdom and human mortality owing to which it is at least possible for the philosopher who has made sufficiently progress in his efforts to gain wisdom to find lasting happiness in death.

This paper examines the development of the modern concept of substance from Leibniz to Hegel. I will focus primarily on the problem of the inner and outer nature of substance. I will show that if one considers Hegel’s discussion of substance against the background of the controversy between Leibniz and Kant about the inner and outer nature of substance, it becomes clear that for Hegel both Leibniz and Kant grasped the whole concept of substance only partially and in its abstract moments. This is because they both concentrate on one aspect of substance and absolutize it. Hegel, on the other hand, not only overcomes the fundamental difference between the inner and outer of substance, but also develops the connection between the different moments of substance, causality and interaction from the rationalist concept of substance itself.

Dieser Aufsatz nimmt eine wenig beachtete Passage aus der Kritik der reinen Vernunft zum Anlass, sich der Diskussion bezüglich der einfachen Substanzen in der ersten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts zu widmen. Es stellt sich heraus, dass die Frage nach den inneren und äußeren Bestimmungen der Substanz in den Kern der systematischen Substanzanalyse führt. Von welcher Art können die inneren Bestimmungen einer einfachen Substanz sein? Müssen diese von ideeller Natur sein, oder kann es sich auch um eine andere Art von Kraft handeln? Wenn es sich bei dieser Kraft um eine Vorstellungskraft handelt, wie können dann die äußeren Bestimmungen der Substanz, d.h. ihre Beziehung zu den anderen Substanzen aussehen? Durch die Analyse der dogmatischen Vorgänger Kants und der sogenannten vorkritischen Philosophie wird schließlich klar, dass der Substanzbegriff des jungen Kants näher als bisher angenommen werden konnte an Leibniz steht

This paper is devoted to the Stoic definition of divination as reported by Cicero. It proposes a novel reading that coherently combines the distinct versions offered in De divinatione. Especially important is the proper understanding of the close relationship between providence, fate, and chance. I argue that the Stoic understanding of chance already contains a reference to divine will, which is why the Stoics can equally claim that divination is devoted to chance and providence. This sheds new light both on the Stoic science of divination and the systematic involvement of providence, fate, and divination in Stoic philosophy.

In dieser Untersuchung soll gezeigt werden, dass Kant in der Idee einer moralischen Welt, wie sie in der transzendentalen Methodenlehre der Kritik der reinen Vernunft expliziert wird, einen ontologischen Gedankengang aus seinen vorkritischen Schriften aufgreift. Hierbei handelt es sich um einen aposteriorischen Gottesbeweis, den Kant zuerst in seiner Nova dilucidatio formuliert und nahezu unverändert in seine Inauguraldissertation übernommen hat. Auf diese Weise findet der aposteriorische im Gegensatz zu den apriorischen Gottesbeweisen der vorkritischen Schriften Kants in einer kritisch revidierten Form Eingang in sein theoretisches Hauptwerk. This paper wants to show that Kant uses an ontological argument that he formulates in one of his pre-Critical writings in the idea of a moral world as it is demonstrated in the "Transcendental Doctrine of Method" in the Critique of pure Reason. For the first time in his Nova dilucidatio Kant furnishes an a posteriori proof of the existence of God by demonstrating that the reality of the world as a community of substances needs a divine intellect as a common cause of their existence. He takes this argument almost unchanged in his Inauguraldissertation that appeared in 1770. In contrast to the a priori arguments of the existence of God, which Kant refutes at least since the mid 1760's, this a posteriori argument finds a way into his major theoretical work in a critically revised form

Der in Leipzig lehrende Philosoph und Theologe Christian August Crusius (1715-1775) ist bisher vorwiegend im Rahmen der Kant-Forschung berücksichtigt worden. Dabei war Crusius einer der ersten ernstzunehmenden Kritiker der Philosophie von Christian Wolff, der entscheidende Impulse von Christian Thomasius aufgriff, philosophisch vertiefte und bis in die zweite Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts wirkungsvoll tradierte. Der Sammelband nimmt die unterschiedlichen Aspekte des philosophischen und theologischen Schaffens von Crusius in den Blick und rekonstruiert die eigenständige Kontur eines Denkers, der einerseits auf allen Gebieten der Philosophie tätig war und andererseits nach seiner Berufung zum Professor der Theologie ausschließlich an seinem theologischen OEuvre arbeitete. Auf der damit greifbaren Spannung zwischen Philosophie und Theologie liegt ein Hauptaugenmerk des interdisziplinären Sammelbandes.