Konstantin Pollok

Against the standard interpretation of Kant's ‘Copernican revolution’ as the prioritization of epistemology over ontology, I argue in this paper that his critique of traditional metaphysics must be seen as a farewell to the perfectionism on which early modern rationalist ontology and epistemology are built. However, Kant does not simply replace ‘perfection’ with another fundamental concept of normativity. More radically, Kant realizes that it is not simply ideas but only the relation of ideas that can be subject to norms, and thus he shifts the focus from the reality of ideas to the validity of judgments. Section 1 of this paper clarifies the pre-Kantian role of the concept of perfection and examines Kant's critical response to that concept. Section 2 identifies Kant's point of departure from the Cartesian ‘way of ideas.’ Section 3 explains the key problem of his novel account of epistemic normativity. I conclude that Kant's anti-perfectionism must be seen as the driving force behind his ‘Copernican revolution’ in order to fully appreciate his mature account of epistemic normativity.

By taking into account some texts published between the first and the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason that have been neglected by most of those who have dealt with the deduction of the categories, I argue that the core of the deduction is to be identified as the ‘almost single inference from the precisely determined definition of a judgment in general’, which Kant adumbrates in the Metaphysical Foundations in order to ‘make up for the deficiency’ of the A-deduction. Whereas the first step of the B-deduction is an attempt to show that the manifold of an intuition belongs to the ‘necessary unity of self-consciousness’ by means of the synthesis of the understanding, the second step has the task of showing that the very same synthesis is responsible for the spatio-temporal unity of the manifold. Thus, Kant's ‘answer to Hume’ is that no spatio-temporal objects of experience at all are merely ‘given’, independently of the conceptual activities of the understanding. Against the established view I substantiate the claim that with this ‘almost single inference’ of the second proof step the distinction between judgments of perception and judgments of experience consequently vanished from Kant's thinking

Konstantin Pollok offers the first book-length analysis of Kant's theory of normativity that covers foundational issues in theoretical and practical philosophy as well as aesthetics. Interpreting Kant's 'critical turn' as a normative turn, he argues that Kant's theory of normativity is both original and radical: it departs from the perfectionist ideal of early modern rationalism, and arrives at an unprecedented framework of synthetic a priori principles that determine the validity of our judgments. Pollok examines the hylomorphism in Kant's theory of normativity and relates Kant's idea of our reason's self-legislation to the 'natural right' tradition, revealing Kant's debt to his predecessors as well as his relevance to contemporary debates on normativity. This book will appeal to academic researchers and advanced students of Kant, early modern philosophy and intellectual history.

Welchen Standards müssen Personen genügen, damit ihre Äußerungen als wahrhaftig angesehen werden? Nicht Wahrhaftigkeit als soziale Tugend und auch nicht Wahrhaftigkeit als notwendige Argumentationsvoraussetzung , sondern die normativen Voraussetzungen wahrhaftiger Äußerungen von Überzeugungen, Werten, Wünschen und Gefühlen einer Person, d. h. eine Analyse der normativen Erfordernisse der Wahrhaftigkeit als Teilaspekt einer Sprachpragmatik, sind das Thema dieses Aufsatzes. Ausgehend von Überlegungen Wittgensteins, John Broomes und Robert Brandoms untersuche ich die normative Feinstruktur der Differenz zwischen dem 'Äußern' und dem 'Besitzen' eines propositionalen Gehalts sowie der Vorsätzlichkeit dieser Differenz im 'Äußern'. Mein Ergebnis ist schließlich: Person B glaubt, daß die Äußerung des propositionalen Gehalts p durch Person A wahrhaftig ist, wenn die Person B der Person A die Festlegung auf p zuweist, die Person B der Person A eine Berechtigung zu p zuweist und die Person B der Person A die Festlegung auf eine Berechtigung zu p zuweist