Heiner F. Klemme

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Scepticism in the Enlightenment ed. by Richard H. Popkin, Ezequiel de Olaso, Giorgio Tonelli, and: The Skeptical Tradition around 1800: Skepticism in Philosophy, Science, and Society ed. by Johan van der Zande, Richard H. PopkinHeiner F. KlemmeRichard H. Popkin, Ezequiel de Olaso and Giorgio Tonelli, editors. Scepticism in the Enlightenment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997. Pp. xiii + 192. Cloth, $99.00.Johan van der Zande and Richard H. Popkin, editors. The Skeptical Tradition around 1800: Skepticism in Philosophy, Science, and Society. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. Pp. xix + 462. Cloth, $150.00.Who could reasonably question the importance of skepticism for the philosophical achievements of the period known as the Enlightenment? Skepticism seems to be the most appropriate means for illuminating a philosophical landscape shrouded in fog. The relatively restrained metaphor of “Aufklären” was used first by German philosophers to describe their project of removing prejudice and obscurity. British philosophers instead used the concept of “improvement,” and in France, the endeavours of the philosophes were largely associated with a determined fight against the dogmatic teachings of an all-powerful church and for religious and political freedom. But not every philosopher who employed skeptical arguments or the method of skepticism was therefore a skeptic, or someone who intended to establish a form of skepticism. And [End Page 171] some who sought to provide philosophy with a firm anti-skeptical foundation found themselves being accused of being skeptics themselves. Berkeley’s dogmatic Immaterialism was accused immediately of leading right away to the most abstruse kind of skepticism ever heard of, and Kant’s critical philosophy was forbidden in Hessia because of its alleged skepticism. Furthermore, many philosophers were indebted to some form of skepticism while not being skeptics themselves. Thus Reid’s common-sense-philosophy owed as much to Hume’s skeptical philosophy as did J. G. Hamann and F. H. Jacobi.Modern skepticism goes back to ancient Academic and Pyrrhonian Skepticism, which many philosophers of the Enlightenment for one reason or another still considered as a live option. But exactly what kind of skepticism their own writings entail and to what extent they were influenced by more modern types of skepticism—like that to be found in the works of Montaigne, Bayle, and others—is not always easy to decide. In addition, skepticism was sometimes viewed as a kind of systematic philosophy and the skeptic was considered to be a specific kind of philosopher, different from a Platonist, Stoic, or Epicurean, as in Hume for instance. But the vast majority of philosophers used skeptical arguments as instruments, or as the first step in laying the foundation for a new philosophical system. Finally, there are many much more subtle traces of skepticism in Enlightenment thought, which cannot always be put together easily in a comprehensive picture. The many-sided history of skepticism in the eighteenth century is accordingly difficult to tell.Richard H. Popkin’s work has been decisive for a further investigation of eighteenth century skepticism. His early “Scepticism in the Enlightenment” (1963) was seminal. Popkin pointed out in this article Hume’s central position. Hume marked the beginning of an increasing debate about different and variable types and contents of Enlightenment skepticism. Scepticism in the Enlightenment contains articles by Popkin himself, as well as articles by the late Giorgio Tonelli, known to many as an expert in Kant’s precritical philosophy, and by the late Ezequiel de Olaso, which were directly or indirectly occasioned by Popkin’s work. Only two of the ten articles are new (de Olaso on “Scepticism Old and New,” and Popkin’s very useful contribution on “Berkeley in the History of Scepticism”). But Tonelli’s “Kant and the Ancient Skeptics,” which appeared in 1967 in German, appears here for the first time in English translation. Although Tonelli’s scholarly article is still of interest today, Hume’s influence on Kant’s thought in the middle of the 1760’s should not be underestimated. Tonelli also seems to be too sceptical about Kant’s first-hand knowledge of ancient skepticism. For instance, Johann Matthias Gesner’s Chrestomathia Graeca (Leipzig, 1731), the school book used in the Greek class Kant attended as a...

Na Crítica da Razão Pura e em outros lugares, Kant apresenta uma aguda distinção entre natureza e razão prática. De acordo com Kant, não é possível deduzir ou derivar todos os sentidos dos imperativos morais dos conhecimentos empíricos sobre o mundo. Alguns intérpretes (como John MacDowell) argumentam que a concepção de razão prática em Kant pode ser ilusória se baseada em uma visão da natureza indefinida, decorrente de um ponto de vista newtoniano. Nesse texto discutirei a relação entre razão prática e natureza na Crítica da faculdade de julgar de Kant. Argumentarei que na segunda parte da obra, Kant introduz um conceito de natureza muito mais rico que as críticas lhe têm atribuído

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Scepticism in the Enlightenment ed. by Richard H. Popkin, Ezequiel de Olaso, Giorgio Tonelli, and: The Skeptical Tradition around 1800: Skepticism in Philosophy, Science, and Society ed. by Johan van der Zande, Richard H. PopkinHeiner F. KlemmeRichard H. Popkin, Ezequiel de Olaso and Giorgio Tonelli, editors. Scepticism in the Enlightenment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997. Pp. xiii + 192. Cloth, $99.00.Johan van der Zande and Richard H. Popkin, editors. The Skeptical Tradition around 1800: Skepticism in Philosophy, Science, and Society. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. Pp. xix + 462. Cloth, $150.00.Who could reasonably question the importance of skepticism for the philosophical achievements of the period known as the Enlightenment? Skepticism seems to be the most appropriate means for illuminating a philosophical landscape shrouded in fog. The relatively restrained metaphor of “Aufklären” was used first by German philosophers to describe their project of removing prejudice and obscurity. British philosophers instead used the concept of “improvement,” and in France, the endeavours of the philosophes were largely associated with a determined fight against the dogmatic teachings of an all-powerful church and for religious and political freedom. But not every philosopher who employed skeptical arguments or the method of skepticism was therefore a skeptic, or someone who intended to establish a form of skepticism. And [End Page 171] some who sought to provide philosophy with a firm anti-skeptical foundation found themselves being accused of being skeptics themselves. Berkeley’s dogmatic Immaterialism was accused immediately of leading right away to the most abstruse kind of skepticism ever heard of, and Kant’s critical philosophy was forbidden in Hessia because of its alleged skepticism. Furthermore, many philosophers were indebted to some form of skepticism while not being skeptics themselves. Thus Reid’s common-sense-philosophy owed as much to Hume’s skeptical philosophy as did J. G. Hamann and F. H. Jacobi.Modern skepticism goes back to ancient Academic and Pyrrhonian Skepticism, which many philosophers of the Enlightenment for one reason or another still considered as a live option. But exactly what kind of skepticism their own writings entail and to what extent they were influenced by more modern types of skepticism—like that to be found in the works of Montaigne, Bayle, and others—is not always easy to decide. In addition, skepticism was sometimes viewed as a kind of systematic philosophy and the skeptic was considered to be a specific kind of philosopher, different from a Platonist, Stoic, or Epicurean, as in Hume for instance. But the vast majority of philosophers used skeptical arguments as instruments, or as the first step in laying the foundation for a new philosophical system. Finally, there are many much more subtle traces of skepticism in Enlightenment thought, which cannot always be put together easily in a comprehensive picture. The many-sided history of skepticism in the eighteenth century is accordingly difficult to tell.Richard H. Popkin’s work has been decisive for a further investigation of eighteenth century skepticism. His early “Scepticism in the Enlightenment” (1963) was seminal. Popkin pointed out in this article Hume’s central position. Hume marked the beginning of an increasing debate about different and variable types and contents of Enlightenment skepticism. Scepticism in the Enlightenment contains articles by Popkin himself, as well as articles by the late Giorgio Tonelli, known to many as an expert in Kant’s precritical philosophy, and by the late Ezequiel de Olaso, which were directly or indirectly occasioned by Popkin’s work. Only two of the ten articles are new (de Olaso on “Scepticism Old and New,” and Popkin’s very useful contribution on “Berkeley in the History of Scepticism”). But Tonelli’s “Kant and the Ancient Skeptics,” which appeared in 1967 in German, appears here for the first time in English translation. Although Tonelli’s scholarly article is still of interest today, Hume’s influence on Kant’s thought in the middle of the 1760’s should not be underestimated. Tonelli also seems to be too sceptical about Kant’s first-hand knowledge of ancient skepticism. For instance, Johann Matthias Gesner’s Chrestomathia Graeca (Leipzig, 1731), the school book used in the Greek class Kant attended as a...

In this Critique of Pure Reason and elsewhere Kant argues for a sharp distinction between nature and pratical reason. According to Kant, it is not possible to deduce or derive in any way moral imperatives from our empirical knowledge about the world. Some of his readers have argued that Kant's conception of pratical reason is misleading just because of his claim that nature itself is meaningless because of his mere Newtonian outlook. In my paper I will discuss the relation between practical reason and nature in Kant's Critique of Judgement. I will argue that in the second part of this work, Kant introduces a concept of nature that is much richer than critiques are willing to concede to him.Na Crítica da Razão Pura e em outros lugares, Kant apresenta uma aguda distinção entre natureza e razão prática. De acordo com Kant, não é possível deduzir ou derivar todos os sentidos dos imperativos morais dos conhecimentos empíricos sobre o mundo. Alguns intérpretes argumentam que a concepção de razão prática em Kant pode ser ilusória se baseada em uma visão da natureza indefinida, decorrente de um ponto de vista newtoniano. Nesse texto discutirei a relação entre razão prática e natureza na Crítica da faculdade de julgar de Kant. Argumentarei que na segunda parte da obra, Kant introduz um conceito de natureza muito mais rico que as críticas lhe têm atribuído

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:John Gregory and the Invention of Professional Medical Ethics and the Profession of Medicine by Laurence B. McCullough, John Gregory’s Writings on Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine ed. by Laurence B. McCullough, Medicine and Morals in the Enlightenment: John Gregory, Thomas Percival and Benjamin Rush by Lisbeth HaakonssenHeiner F. KlemmeLaurence B. McCullough. John Gregory and the Invention of Professional Medical Ethics and the Profession of Medicine. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. Pp. xv + 347. Cloth, $140.00.Laurence B. McCullough, editor. John Gregory’s Writings on Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. Pp. xi + 254. Cloth, $105.00.Lisbeth Haakonssen. Medicine and Morals in the Enlightenment: John Gregory, Thomas Percival and Benjamin Rush. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi, 1997. Pp. x + 247. Paper, $20.50.The Scottish Enlightenment is widely appreciated for its contributions to philosophy, economics, sociology, law, chemistry, and medicine. The ideas and theories advanced by Hume, Smith, Millar, and Ferguson are still widely debated. John Gregory (1724–1773), important in his own time, is not as well known as some of his friends and colleagues. He was professor of medicine at the University of Edinburgh from 1766 to 1773, where he taught introductory lectures on the theory and practice of medicine. A set of extensive student notes from these lectures, entitled Observations on the Duties and Offices of a Physician, appeared anonymously in 1770. Two years later, Gregory himself published a revised version of his lectures under the title Lectures on the Duties and Qualifications of a Physician. These two books are said to mark the beginnings of professional medical ethics in the English-speaking world. They are also sometimes characterized as having anticipated bioethics.McCullough’s comprehensive John Gregory and the Invention of Professional Medical Ethics and the Profession of Medicine is the first modern intellectual biography of Gregory. Based on extensive research into eighteenth-century institutional context and the study of hitherto unknown manuscripts, he gives a full account of Gregory’s education at Edinburgh and Leiden, and his practice and teaching of medicine at Aberdeen, London, and Edinburgh. He stresses the importance of Gregory’s membership in the Aberdeen Philosophical Society and his close contact with Mrs. Montagu and her Circle for the understanding of his medical ethics. McCullough also shows that Bacon’s experimental method had a decisive influence on Gregory. Gregory took over Bacon’s three offices or ends of medicine: preservation of health, prolonging of life, and curing of diseases. In 1772, perhaps anticipating his premature death from hereditary gout, he added a fourth office, namely easing the pain of dying. Gregory referred mainly to Bacon (and Reid) in his Lectures to make clear how we can enlarge our medical knowledge by the method of experience and observation, pointing out that the progress of medicine had been seriously retarded by the way in which it was taught since Hippocrates. He also thought it was handicapped by the view that only professionals [End Page 535] should practice it, and claimed that even quacks have their advantages because their interest and reputation seldom suffer from the failure of the experiments necessary for the improvement of the medical profession.Gregory also argued that we should regard medicine not as a trade but as an art. In this context the principle of sympathy (or humanity) became important for him. Sympathy was the basis of the central duties in his Lectures. In a time of extreme instability of manners, when medicine was regarded more as a trade than an art, there was no physician-patient relationship based on the epistemological and moral authority of the physician. According to McCullough, it was Gregory who created “the physician-patient relationship as fiduciary. The virtues of the physician as fiduciary—openness to conviction, tenderness, and steadiness—provided for him the moral causes that would gather physicians together into a group worthy of the name, ‘profession,’ in its intellectual and moral senses” (265). The physician should no longer view his patients as moral strangers.McCullough claims that Gregory’s medical ethics is not just of historical interest, providing bioethics with its own history. It is also of...

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:John Gregory and the Invention of Professional Medical Ethics and the Profession of Medicine by Laurence B. McCullough, John Gregory’s Writings on Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine ed. by Laurence B. McCullough, Medicine and Morals in the Enlightenment: John Gregory, Thomas Percival and Benjamin Rush by Lisbeth HaakonssenHeiner F. KlemmeLaurence B. McCullough. John Gregory and the Invention of Professional Medical Ethics and the Profession of Medicine. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. Pp. xv + 347. Cloth, $140.00.Laurence B. McCullough, editor. John Gregory’s Writings on Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. Pp. xi + 254. Cloth, $105.00.Lisbeth Haakonssen. Medicine and Morals in the Enlightenment: John Gregory, Thomas Percival and Benjamin Rush. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi, 1997. Pp. x + 247. Paper, $20.50.The Scottish Enlightenment is widely appreciated for its contributions to philosophy, economics, sociology, law, chemistry, and medicine. The ideas and theories advanced by Hume, Smith, Millar, and Ferguson are still widely debated. John Gregory (1724–1773), important in his own time, is not as well known as some of his friends and colleagues. He was professor of medicine at the University of Edinburgh from 1766 to 1773, where he taught introductory lectures on the theory and practice of medicine. A set of extensive student notes from these lectures, entitled Observations on the Duties and Offices of a Physician, appeared anonymously in 1770. Two years later, Gregory himself published a revised version of his lectures under the title Lectures on the Duties and Qualifications of a Physician. These two books are said to mark the beginnings of professional medical ethics in the English-speaking world. They are also sometimes characterized as having anticipated bioethics.McCullough’s comprehensive John Gregory and the Invention of Professional Medical Ethics and the Profession of Medicine is the first modern intellectual biography of Gregory. Based on extensive research into eighteenth-century institutional context and the study of hitherto unknown manuscripts, he gives a full account of Gregory’s education at Edinburgh and Leiden, and his practice and teaching of medicine at Aberdeen, London, and Edinburgh. He stresses the importance of Gregory’s membership in the Aberdeen Philosophical Society and his close contact with Mrs. Montagu and her Circle for the understanding of his medical ethics. McCullough also shows that Bacon’s experimental method had a decisive influence on Gregory. Gregory took over Bacon’s three offices or ends of medicine: preservation of health, prolonging of life, and curing of diseases. In 1772, perhaps anticipating his premature death from hereditary gout, he added a fourth office, namely easing the pain of dying. Gregory referred mainly to Bacon (and Reid) in his Lectures to make clear how we can enlarge our medical knowledge by the method of experience and observation, pointing out that the progress of medicine had been seriously retarded by the way in which it was taught since Hippocrates. He also thought it was handicapped by the view that only professionals [End Page 535] should practice it, and claimed that even quacks have their advantages because their interest and reputation seldom suffer from the failure of the experiments necessary for the improvement of the medical profession.Gregory also argued that we should regard medicine not as a trade but as an art. In this context the principle of sympathy (or humanity) became important for him. Sympathy was the basis of the central duties in his Lectures. In a time of extreme instability of manners, when medicine was regarded more as a trade than an art, there was no physician-patient relationship based on the epistemological and moral authority of the physician. According to McCullough, it was Gregory who created “the physician-patient relationship as fiduciary. The virtues of the physician as fiduciary—openness to conviction, tenderness, and steadiness—provided for him the moral causes that would gather physicians together into a group worthy of the name, ‘profession,’ in its intellectual and moral senses” (265). The physician should no longer view his patients as moral strangers.McCullough claims that Gregory’s medical ethics is not just of historical interest, providing bioethics with its own history. It is also of...

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:John Gregory and the Invention of Professional Medical Ethics and the Profession of Medicine by Laurence B. McCullough, John Gregory’s Writings on Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine ed. by Laurence B. McCullough, Medicine and Morals in the Enlightenment: John Gregory, Thomas Percival and Benjamin Rush by Lisbeth HaakonssenHeiner F. KlemmeLaurence B. McCullough. John Gregory and the Invention of Professional Medical Ethics and the Profession of Medicine. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. Pp. xv + 347. Cloth, $140.00.Laurence B. McCullough, editor. John Gregory’s Writings on Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. Pp. xi + 254. Cloth, $105.00.Lisbeth Haakonssen. Medicine and Morals in the Enlightenment: John Gregory, Thomas Percival and Benjamin Rush. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi, 1997. Pp. x + 247. Paper, $20.50.The Scottish Enlightenment is widely appreciated for its contributions to philosophy, economics, sociology, law, chemistry, and medicine. The ideas and theories advanced by Hume, Smith, Millar, and Ferguson are still widely debated. John Gregory (1724–1773), important in his own time, is not as well known as some of his friends and colleagues. He was professor of medicine at the University of Edinburgh from 1766 to 1773, where he taught introductory lectures on the theory and practice of medicine. A set of extensive student notes from these lectures, entitled Observations on the Duties and Offices of a Physician, appeared anonymously in 1770. Two years later, Gregory himself published a revised version of his lectures under the title Lectures on the Duties and Qualifications of a Physician. These two books are said to mark the beginnings of professional medical ethics in the English-speaking world. They are also sometimes characterized as having anticipated bioethics.McCullough’s comprehensive John Gregory and the Invention of Professional Medical Ethics and the Profession of Medicine is the first modern intellectual biography of Gregory. Based on extensive research into eighteenth-century institutional context and the study of hitherto unknown manuscripts, he gives a full account of Gregory’s education at Edinburgh and Leiden, and his practice and teaching of medicine at Aberdeen, London, and Edinburgh. He stresses the importance of Gregory’s membership in the Aberdeen Philosophical Society and his close contact with Mrs. Montagu and her Circle for the understanding of his medical ethics. McCullough also shows that Bacon’s experimental method had a decisive influence on Gregory. Gregory took over Bacon’s three offices or ends of medicine: preservation of health, prolonging of life, and curing of diseases. In 1772, perhaps anticipating his premature death from hereditary gout, he added a fourth office, namely easing the pain of dying. Gregory referred mainly to Bacon (and Reid) in his Lectures to make clear how we can enlarge our medical knowledge by the method of experience and observation, pointing out that the progress of medicine had been seriously retarded by the way in which it was taught since Hippocrates. He also thought it was handicapped by the view that only professionals [End Page 535] should practice it, and claimed that even quacks have their advantages because their interest and reputation seldom suffer from the failure of the experiments necessary for the improvement of the medical profession.Gregory also argued that we should regard medicine not as a trade but as an art. In this context the principle of sympathy (or humanity) became important for him. Sympathy was the basis of the central duties in his Lectures. In a time of extreme instability of manners, when medicine was regarded more as a trade than an art, there was no physician-patient relationship based on the epistemological and moral authority of the physician. According to McCullough, it was Gregory who created “the physician-patient relationship as fiduciary. The virtues of the physician as fiduciary—openness to conviction, tenderness, and steadiness—provided for him the moral causes that would gather physicians together into a group worthy of the name, ‘profession,’ in its intellectual and moral senses” (265). The physician should no longer view his patients as moral strangers.McCullough claims that Gregory’s medical ethics is not just of historical interest, providing bioethics with its own history. It is also of...

Wenn es eine Lehre gibt, welche neben der Raum-Zeittheorie der Inauguraldissertation von 1770 für die Genese der Kritik der reinen Vernunft von zentraler Bedeutung ist, dann ist es die von Kant in den frühen Anthropologievorlesungen der siebziger Jahre vorgetragene Theorie eines spontanen, freien und selbstbewußten Ich. Aus welchen systematischen Erwägungen heraus hat er diese Ich-Theorie entwickelt? Was hat ihn dazu veranlaßt, seine Philosophie auf einem spontanen, freien und selbstbewußten Ich zu gründen, welches als eine einfache, numerisch identische, immaterielle und freie Substanz verstanden wird, von der wir eine anschauende Erkenntnis im inneren Sinn haben? Aufgrund welcher konzeptionellen Änderungen wird diese Theorie gegenüber seiner Dissertation überhaupt erst ein sinnvolles Unternehmen? Es wird im Rahmen einer detaillierten Rekonstruktion der Problemlage, mit der sich Kant zwischen 1770 und 1772 konfrontiert war, gezeigt, daß er wesentliche Anregungen durch seinen früheren Schüler Marcus Herz erhalten hat, der in seiner Schrift Betrachtungen aus der spekulativen Weltweisheit einige grundlegende Lehrstücke der Dissertation kritisiert und mit Moses Mendelssohn für die Notwendigkeit eines „ersten Subjekts" plädiert. Nicht Rousseau, sondern Herz und Mendelssohn haben also in ihrer direkt auf die Dissertation bezogenen Kritik Kant davon überzeugt, daß das epistemisch aufgewertete Ich als Grund einer neuen Theorie des Verhältnisses von Denken und Gedachtem fungieren muß, um die Einheit unserer Erfahrung erklären zu können

Die Philosophie der Aufklärung übt bis auf den heutigen Tag einen großen Einfluss auf unser Denken aus. Dies gilt nicht zuletzt für die Philosophie Immanuel Kants, der mit seinen Schriften zur Moralphilosophie, Rechtstheorie, Geschichtsphilosophie und Theorie der Politik den Begriff der Aufklärung zwischen Vernunft, Kritik und Unmündigkeit wesentlich geprägt hat. Die Beiträge widmen sich Kants Werk in historischer und systematischer Perspektive. Sie fragen nach dem philosophischen Gehalt von Kants Philosophie der Aufklärung und diskutieren seine Bedeutung für die Zukunft aufklärerischen Denkens. Gerade bei der Philosophie Kants scheint sich zu entscheiden, ob die Ideen der Aufklärung auch im 21. Jahrhundert eine Leitfunktion für die Beschreibung und die Lösung aktueller Probleme ausüben können.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Kategorische und andere Imperative: Zur Entwicklung von Kants praktischer Philosophie his 1785Heiner F. KlemmeClemens Schwaiger. Kategorische und andere Imperative: Zur Entwicklung von Kants praktischer Philosophie his 1785. Forschungen und Materialien zur deutschen Aufklärung. Hrsg. von Norbert Hinske und Clemens Schwaiger. Abt. 2, Monographien, vol. 14. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, 1999. Pp. 252. Cloth, DM 88.00.Diese Studie zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der praktischen Philosophie Kants, die den Zeitraum von 1762 bis zur Publikation der Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten untersucht, orientiert sich an der in Abschnitt II der Schrift von 1785 vorgenommenen Einteilung aller Imperative in problematische, assertorische und apodiktische. Da diese Einteilung in besonderem Maße geeignet ist, "die Architektonik von Kants praktischer Philosophie insgesamt zu erhellen" (S. 19), wird man durch den behutsamen Nachvollzug ihrer Ausdifferenzierung erwarten dürfen, neue Einsichten in die Entwicklung von Kants Denken zu gewinnen. Damit ist für den Interpreten keine leichte Aufgabe gestellt. Ohne philologische Umsicht, breite Kenntnis der zeitgenössischen Literatur, des Kantischen Oeuvres und der internationalen Sekundärliteratur sowie ein Gespür für Fragen der Datierung und Gewichtung von Kants Reflexionen und den studentischen Nachschriften seiner Vorlesungen, ist ein derartiges Unterfangen von vornherein zum Scheitern verurteilt. Schwaiger verfügt über diese Fähigkeiten und Kenntnisse.Nach einer informativen Einleitung, in der Stellung bezogen wird zum Stand der Forschung, der Kantischen Dreigliederung der Praxis als dem Leitfaden der Untersuchung, zur Methodik und den erzielten Ergebnissen, wendet sich Schwaiger in Teil I zunächst Kants moralphilosophischen Texten bis einschließlich 1770 zu. Mit Blick auf die 1762 verfasste und 1764 publizierte Untersuchung über die Deutlichkeit der Grundsätze der natürlichen Theologie und der Moral weist Schwaiger den entscheidenden Einfluss von Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten (vgl. S. 43) auf Kant nach, wohingegen seiner Einschätzung nach die Bedeutung von Crusius in der Literatur bei weitem überschätzt worden ist. Der moralphilosophische Ansatz von Baumgarten ist vor allem auch deshalb für Kant so wichtig, weil dieser Ansatz am Begriff der Verbindlichkeit ausgerichtet ist (vgl. S. 50). Kant übernimmt von Baumgarten den von diesem bereits verbindlichkeitstheoretisch gedeuteten Terminus des Imperativs, nicht ohne jedoch darauf hinzuweisen, dass Baumgartens moralische Grundregeln tautologisch sind (vgl. S. 166 f.). Als weitere mögliche Quelle für Kants strengen Begriff der moralischen Verbindlichkeit verweist Schwaiger auch auf eine Abhandlung von Elie de Joucourts, die in David Fordyce´ Anfangsgründe der moralischen Weltweisheit (Zürich, 1757) erschien (vgl. S. 59 f.).Die Ausdifferenzierung des Baumgartenschen Praxisbegriffs in Kants ´Bemerkungen´ in den Beobachtungen über das Gefühl des Schönen und Erhabenen ist nach Schwaiger als eine genuin Kantische Leistung anzusehen, auf die Rousseau, wie einige Autoren meinten, keinen Einfluss gehabt hat. Die Inauguraldissertation von 1770 gibt schließlich Kants Gedanken einer Metaphysik der Sitten einen neuen Gehalt. Schwaiger vertritt gegenüber Josef Schmucker und Dieter Henrich die wohlbegründete These, dass Kants Ethik nicht schon um 1765 in ihren wesentlichen Grundzügen vorliegt. Erst nach der [End Page 443] "´platonischen Revolution´" (S. 25) von 1770 sind die Voraussetzungen für den Weg zur Grundlegung geschaffen, erst nach 1770 verwendet Kant beispielsweise den Terminus ´Imperativ´. Hätte Kant bereits in der Mitte der sechziger Jahre eine Metaphysik der Sitten publiziert, wäre der Anteil der empirischen Moral sicherlich sehr umfangreich gewesen (vgl. S. 80).Auch die in Teil II vorgelegten Resultate sprechen für eine allmähliche Ausbildung der kritischen Ethik, die nicht geradlinig verlaufen ist. Die 1770er Jahre sind nach Schwaiger durch Kants Bemühen gekennzeichnet, die im Bereich der Logik gewonnene Unterscheidung zwischen problematischen, assertorischen und apodiktischen Urteilen auch auf praktische Sätze anzuwenden. Des weiteren findet sich erst in den siebziger Jahren, nach Kants Wende zur reinen Moralphilosophie, die Unterscheidung zwischen einem Dijudikations- und einem Exekutionsprinzip (vgl. S. 91 ff.).Schwaigers Studie zeigt eindrucksvoll, dass quellengestützte begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen für die Erforschung der Entwicklungsgeschichte der Kantischen praktischen Philosophie unverzichtbar sind. Aber sie scheint in dieser methodischen Einseitigkeit auch mit einigen Mängeln behaftet zu sein. Ich möchte drei Gründe für dieses Urteil nennen. Erstens wird nicht recht deutlich, dass die Kenntnisnahme der entwicklungsgeschichtlichen Aspekte für das philosophische Verständnis von Kants Einteilung der Imperative, so wie sie...

Der 200. Todestag von Immanuel Kant ist ein guter Anlass, danach zu fragen, was er selbst in seinem Leben für wichtig erachtet hat und woran er sich in seinem Denken und Handeln orientierte. Darüber hinaus ist dieser Tag aber auch eine gute Gelegenheit, nach einer Eigenart seiner Kritischen Philosophie zu fragen, die sowohl ihre historische Bedeutung als auch ihre systematische Relevanz für das heutige Denken auf den Punkt zu bringen vermag. Beide Fragen möchte ich mit Blick auf ihren inneren Zusammenhang zu beantworten versuchen