Pablo Muchnik

The aim of Kant’s Sources in Translation is to retrieve the rich intellectual world that influenced Kant’s philosophical development. In its first stage, the series makes available the most important textbooks Kant used throughout his long teaching career. Many of these textbooks are in Latin or in German and remain inaccessible to Anglophone readers. Lacking this material, however, it is difficult to appreciate Kant’s originality and process of philosophical maturation, for readers are unable to understand what prompted Kant to introduce a distinction, offer a qualification, attack a position, or develop a new thesis. This background is essential to understand the genesis of Kant’s thought. This volume provides a translation of Georg Friedrich Meier’s Auszugaus der Vernunftlehre, the textbook that serves not only as the basis for Kant’s lectures on logic and related Reflexionen but is also crucial for studying the so-called Jäsche Logic of 1800, which is redacted from the marginal and interleave notes found in Kant’s personal copy of Meier’s book. Given the recent growth in scholarship on Kant’s logic, normative epistemology, and the psychology of belief, this volume makes a major contribution to contemporary debates in the field.

ABSTRACT: Kant and Mendelssohn published almost simultaneously influential essays on the Enlightenment. I use this historical contingency as occasion to reflect on the presuppositions and implications their views have with respect to philosophy and politics. In the first part, I compare Mendelssohn's discursive strategy with that of traditional liberalism. A contradiction emerges from this contrast, which, in the second part, I interpret in Kantian terms as an antinomy of modern political reason. Kant's notion of “autonomy,” I suggest, is an attempt to overcome this very antinomy. Putting things this way allows us to better appreciate the originality of Kant's defense of the free use of public reason and his contribution to the liberal tradition.

The series Rethinking Kant, now in its fourth volume, has become a mirror of Kantian studies in North America. It gathers papers presented at the various study groups of the North American Kant Society, along with contributions from hosts, session chairs, and keynote speakers. Because of its broad and unique composition, it offers a sample of a whole generation of Kantian thought, ranging from recent PhDs, to up and coming young scholars, to some well-established and influential players in the field. Contributions are subjected to strenuous peer review and are, without exception, examples of the most innovative and cutting-edge research done in this area. Anyone interested in taking the pulse of contemporary Kantian scholarship and engaging in the humbling but rewarding task of rethinking Kant, should consider it.

In this paper, I develop a quasi-transcendental argument to justify Kant’s infamous claim “man is evil by nature.” The cornerstone of my reconstruction lies in drawing a systematic distinction between the seemingly identical concepts of “evil disposition” (böseGesinnung) and “propensity to evil” (Hang zumBösen). The former, I argue, Kant reserves to describe the fundamental moral outlook of a single individual; the latter, the moral orientation of the whole species. Moreover, the appellative “evil” ranges over two different types of moral failure: while an “evil disposition” is a failure to realize the good (i.e., to adopt the motive of duty as limiting condition for all one’s desires), an “evil propensity” is a failure to realize the highest good (i.e., to engage in the collective project of transforming the legal order into an ethical community). This correlation between units of moral analysis and types of obligation suggests a way to offer a deduction of the universal propensity on behalf of Kant. It consists in tracing the source of radical evil to the same subjective necessity that gives rise to the doctrine of the highest good. For, at the basis of Kant’s two doctrines lies the same natural dialectic between happiness and morality. While the highest good brings about the critically acceptable resolution of this dialectic, the propensity to evil perpetuates and aggravates it. Instead of connecting happiness and morality in an objective relation, the human will subordinatesmorality to the pursuit of happiness according to the subjective order of association. If this reading is correct, it would explain why prior attempts at a transcendental deduction have failed: interpreters have looked for the key to the deduction in the body of Kant’s text, where it is not to be found, for it is tucked, instead, in the Preface to the first edition.