Marcus Willaschek

This chapter argues that Kant does not provide an answer to his question “What is a human being?”, as long as it is understood as a descriptive question about the essential and defining features of human beings. After introducing the three famous Kantian questions “What can I know? What should I do? What may I hope?” in the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant later adds a fourth question, namely “What is the human being?”. As will be argued, this question is ultimately aimed not at something like the “essence” of human beings but at what in Kant's time was called the “vocation of the human being”. This “vocation” consists in the final ends of humankind, which, according to Kant, are moral. Thus, Kant's fourth question is not so much about what human beings are as about what they ought to be.

Defeasibility, most generally speaking, means that given some set of conditions A, something else B will hold, unless or until defeating conditions C apply. While the term was introduced into philosophy by legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart in 1949, today, the concept of defeasibility is employed in many different areas of philosophy. This volume for the first time brings together contributions on defeasibility from epistemology, legal philosophy and ethics and the philosophy of action. The volume ends with an extensive bibliography.

Wie paßt der menschliche Geist in eine physische Welt? Diese Grundfrage der Philosophie steht im Mittelpunkt des Buches "Feld-Zeit-Ich" (1996), mit dem Peter Rohs den Entwurf einer “feldtheoretischen Transzendentalphilosophie” vorgelegt hat. Rohs betrachtet die Zeit als ontologisches Bindeglied zwischen Subjekt und Welt. Das erlaubt es ihm, eine Vielzahl von Phänomenen (vom Selbstbewußtsein über sprachliche Kommunikation bis zur lebendigen Natur) in einem einheitlichen philosophischen Ansatz zu erklären. Der vorliegende Band enthält vierzehn Beiträge, die sich kritisch und zugleich konstruktiv mit der feldtheoretischen Transzendentalphilosophie auseinandersetzen (von M. Esfeld, V. Gerhardt, B. Gesang, H. Hoppe, Chr. Jäger, W. Kuhlmann, G. Meggle, S. Mischer, G. Mohr, M. Quante, B. Recki, A. Rosas, L. Siep und Chr. Suhm). Rohs erläutert, verteidigt und ergänzt seine Position in ausführlichen Erwiderungen.

In this contribution, I respond to articles published in a Topical Issue of Open Philosophy on Kant’s Transcendental Dialectic by Mario Caimi, Gabriele Gava, and Michael Lewin, who criticize some of the views I put forward in my book Kant on the Sources of Metaphysics: The Dialectic of Pure Reason (Cambridge University Press, 2018). In particular, I discuss the “real use” of reason (in response to Caimi), the “regulative use” of principles and ideas of reason (in response to Gava), and Kant’s conception of reason (in response to Lewin).

stefanie grüne takes issue with our claim that for an object to be given, this object must exist. On her view, givenness, according to Kant, does not require the existence of the object, but only its real possibility. She develops her critique in three steps. First, she argues that the reason why Kant requires objects to be given in intuition is that otherwise our concepts would not have ‘objective reality’ and would thus not constitute cognitions. But since the objective reality of a concept corresponds to the real possibility of its object, this is supposed to show that givenness does not require existence. Second, she challenges our remarks on mathematical cognition, claiming that in the...

This paper offers a partial defence of the Epicurean claim that death is not bad for the one who dies. Unlike Epicurus and his present-day advocates, this defence relies not on a hedonistic or empiricist conception of value but on the concept of ‘existential’ value. Existential value is agent-relative value for which it is constitutive that it can be truly self-ascribed in the first person and present tense. From this definition, it follows that death (post-mortem non-existence), while perhaps bad in some respects, cannot be an existential harm for the one who dies. This paper argues that existential goods are central to any explanation of why life appears good to us from a self-interested perspective, which means that death is not bad in the very respect in which life is most saliently good (from that perspective). A corresponding error theory shows why this truth is easily overlooked and explains why we tend to think that death is significantly worse than it really is.

The ‘Introduction’ to Naturrecht Feyerabend is the transcript of a lecture Kant held at the very time he began writing the Groundwork. It contains the first securely dated occurrence of the term ‘autonomy’ (and its first occurrence in the context of moral philosophy) in Kant’s work. It argues that moral imperatives are categorical and asks how they are possible. Kant’s attempts to answer this question circle around the idea that freedom must be ‘a law to itself’ and lead him to the claim that the form of universal lawfulness, independently of any inclination, can determine the will. Thus various central elements of the Groundwork conception of autonomy are already present in this text. Other elements, most notably the universal law formulation of the categorical imperative and the emphasis on reason as both source and addressee of moral commands, are conspicuously absent. Following a reconstruction of Kant’s overall argument for autonomy of the will in the notes, the paper offers a detailed interpretation of central passages concerning autonomy in order to identify both similarities and differences between the conceptions of autonomy in the ‘Introduction’ and in the Groundwork.

Even though Kant’s theory of cognition (Erkenntnis) is central to his Critique of Pure Reason, it has rarely been asked what exactly Kant means by the term “cognition”. Against the widespread assumption that cognition (in the most relevant sense of that term) can be identified with knowledge or if not, that knowledge is at least a species of cognition, we argue that the concepts of cognition and knowledge in Kant are not only distinct, but even disjunct. To show this, we first (I) investigate Kant’s explicit characterizations of the nature of cognition. As it turns out, he introduces several different notions that must be carefully distinguished before identifying the one that is central to his project in the first Critique. We then (II) consider the basic features of Kant’s conception of knowledge, indicating both how it involves assent and objective justification and how it relates to our contemporary conception. Next (III), we compare and contrast Kant’s understanding of cognition and his conception of knowledge in a way that allows us to present their fundamental differences and connections. We argue that while cognition, in the most relevant sense, is a species of representation that differs from other representations in that it involves the conceptual determination of a sensibly given object, knowledge (for Kant) is a kind of assent to a judgment that requires consciousness of a sufficient epistemic ground. Finally (IV), by appreciating the differences between cognition and knowledge, we explain several of the implications this conception of cognition has for some of Kant’s main claims in the Critique of Pure Reason as a whole. Among other things, we show how Kant can deny cognition of specific things in themselves while allowing philosophical knowledge about things in themselves in general (e.g. that they exist, are not in space and time, etc.).

Within Kantian ethics and Kant scholarship, it is widely assumed that autonomy consists in the self-legislation of the principle of morality. In this paper, we challenge this view on both textual and philosophical grounds. We argue that Kant never unequivocally claims that the Moral Law is self-legislated and that he is not philosophically committed to this claim by his overall conception of morality. Instead, the idea of autonomy concerns only substantive moral laws, such as the law that one ought not to lie. We argue that autonomy, thus understood, does not have the paradoxical features widely associated with it. Rather, our account highlights a theoretical option that has been neglected in the current debate on whether Kant is best interpreted as a realist or a constructivist, namely that the Moral Law is an a priori principle of pure practical reason that neither requires nor admits of being grounded in anything else.

In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant famously criticizes traditional metaphysics and its proofs of immortality, free will and God's existence. What is often overlooked is that Kant also explains why rational beings must ask metaphysical questions about 'unconditioned' objects such as souls, uncaused causes or God, and why answers to these questions will appear rationally compelling to them. In this book, Marcus Willaschek reconstructs and defends Kant's account of the rational sources of metaphysics. After carefully explaining Kant's conceptions of reason and metaphysics, he offers detailed interpretations of the relevant passages from the Critique of Pure Reason in which Kant explains why reason seeks 'the unconditioned'. Willaschek offers a novel interpretation of the Transcendental Dialectic, pointing up its 'positive' side, while at the same time it uncovers a highly original account of metaphysical thinking that will be relevant to contemporary philosophical debates.

Der Aufsatz behandelt den Zusammenhang zwischen Recht, Ethik und Moral in der MdS. Ausgangspunkt ist der Befund, daß Kants System der Pflichten in der MdS weder konsistent noch vollständig ist, weil Rechts- und Tugendpflichten, entgegen Kants Annahme, den Bereich der moralischen Pflichten nicht erschöpfen . Kants System der Pflichten beruht auf den Unterscheidungen zwischen Recht und Ethik und zwischen Legalität und Moralität. Letztere konzipiert Kant in der MdS anders als in früheren Werken, indem er sie nun auf die beiden Arten der "Gesetzgebung" in Recht und Ethik und die daraus entspringenden Gesetze zurückführt . Im Zusammenhang mit der "ethischen" Gesetzgebung ergibt sich das Problem, wie es ethisch geboten sein kann, aus Pflicht zu handeln . Analog dazu stellt sich mit Blick auf die "juridische" Gesetzgebung die Frage, warum man befugt ist, andere zu rechtlichem Handeln zu zwingen. Handelt es sich um eine moralische oder eine spezifisch rechtliche Befugnis? Es zeigt sich, daß Kant zwei unvereinbare Auffassung miteinander verbindet: Aus seiner "offiziellen" Auffassung, wonach das Recht ein Teil der Moral ist, würde folgen, daß die Zwangsbefugnis im Recht moralisch gerechtfertigt werden kann. Tatsächlich ist eine solche Rechtfertigung aber nicht möglich, die "offizielle" Auffassung also unzureichend. Kant greift in der MdS aber auch mehrfach auf eine "alternative" Auffassung zurück, der zufolge das Recht als eine eigenständige Form autonomer Gesetzgebung neben der Moral steht . Dieser alternativen Auffassung zufolge, die der "offiziellen" insgesamt überlegen ist, würde die "Rechtslehre" also gar nicht in die Metaphysik der Sitten gehören

Unter „Skeptizismus" wird hier die Auffassung verstanden, daß unsere Meinungen, selbst wenn sie zufälligerweise wahr sein sollten, sind niemals gut genug begründet, um als Wissen gelten zu können. Die „kontextualistische" Reaktion auf den Skeptizismus beruht auf dem Gedanken, daß die Berechtigung von Wissensansprüchen u.a. vom jeweiligen Kontext abhängt, in dem sie erhoben werden. Diese Auffassung findet sich in unterschiedlicher Form zum Beispiel bei Peirce, Austin, dem späten Wittgenstein und, unter den neueren Autoren, bei Michael Williams, David Lewis und Hilary Putnam. Der entscheidende Unterschied der hier vorgeschlagenen Lösung zu anderen Formen des epistemischen Kontextualismus liegt in einer Unterscheidung zwischen zwei Argumentationsebenen: der Ebene epistemischer Bewertung, auf der man sich mit Blick auf konkrete Inhalte ernsthaft die Frage stellt, ob man etwas weiß oder nicht, und der Ebene philosophischer Epistemologie, auf der man nach den Bedingungen und der Möglichkeit von Wissen im allgemeinen fragt

Peter is secretly in love with his colleague Mary but too shy to disclose his feelings to her. Mary is nice enough to Peter, but never has she given any indication that her feelings for him go beyond those for a colleague and friend. Nevertheless, Peter firmly believes that Mary is in love with him, too. Most people would agree with Kant's contemporary Wizenmann (on whose objection to Kant the example is based) that Peter's belief is irrational. But why is it? A possible answer might be that the fact that one wishes something to be the case in itself is no evidence for its being the case. This is the answer given by Wizenmann: ‘reasons [for a belief] that do not bear at all on the credibility of a thing do not determine anything with respect to its very credibility’; therefore, according to Wizenmann, a belief like Peter's is not ‘rational’ (vernünftig). In order for this answer to work, however, we must presuppose that for a belief to be rational, the subject needs sufficient evidence in favour of its truth (‘reasons’ that bear on the ‘credibility’ of the belief). In Peter's case, no such evidence is available; hence, his belief is irrational.