Alison Laywine

In this book, Alison Laywine considers the mystery of the Transcendental Deduction in Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. What is it supposed to accomplish and how? Laywine argues that Kant's peculiar adaptation of his early account of a world is the key to this mystery. Collecting evidence from the Critique and other writings by Kant--in order to identify what he took himself to be doing on his own terms--she holds that Kant deliberately adapted elements of his early metaphysics both to set the agenda of the Deduction and to carry it out. Laywine highlights how the most important metaphysical element in Kant's thought was his early account of a world; a world is not just the sum-total of all substances created by God, but a whole unified by the universal laws of community prescribed by God that externally relate any given substance to all others. From this conception of a world, Kant then extracted a way to conceive key elements in the Deduction: experience as the whole of all possible appearances unified by the universal laws human understanding gives to nature.

The Duisburg Nachlaß is a bundle of Kant’s handwritten notes. These notes almost certainly go back to some time in 1775. Though very obscure, they replay issues in Kant’s early metaphysics just as clearly as they anticipate issues in the Critique of Pure Reason. This makes them an important way-station in Kant’s philosophical development—all the more important, because he published nothing in the 1770s and left no other extended writings in his own hand. A proper understanding of the Duisburg Nachlaß might therefore explain some of Kant’s later ideas: their origins in his earlier thinking and their philosophical motivations. The purpose of this paper is to lay the groundwork for such an explanation—at least a partial one. I shall argue that Kant’s efforts in the Duisburg Nachlaß to correct certain difficulties in the Inaugural Dissertation of 1770 anticipate and naturally lead to the crucial claim in the Critique of Pure Reason that the understanding legislates laws to nature.

Problems and Postulates: Kant on Reason and Understanding ALISON LAYWINE THE PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER is to think anew Kant's conception of reason and understanding, the relation between these two faculties and the principles that govern them. I am chiefly interested in the contributions of reason and under- standing to the advancement of knowledge. Hence the focus of my paper, so far as reason itself is concerned, is the theoretical rather than the practical employment of this faculty. On the other hand, I think it is useful and fair to say, on Kant's account, that theoretical reason is itself practical -- at least to the extent that we regard scientific enquiry as some kind of activity, namely a research activity, involving practices such as proof and experimentation, under- taken for the sake of a certain end, namely, the acquisition of knowledge. One of Kant's concerns in the Critique of Pure Reason is to explain how this activity can be profitably pursued. To meet this concern, Kant must explain first of all how we set research goals for scientific enquiry. For without any such goals, Susan Neiman's book, The Unity of Reason , was the original stimulation for this paper. . I am more indebted to Susan..

Kant's correspondence includes a short letter from a well-wisher named Bertram. The content of the letter is as harmless as it is uninteresting: Bertram invites Kant to visit his brother's estate. ‘Do come,’ he says, ‘because the weather is so beautiful and such travel so beneficial’ . The interest of the letter is entirely exhausted by the date: 20 May 1775. For Kant used the letter to scribble down ideas, some suggestive of themes later to emerge in the first Critique. Similarity of handwriting and train of thought suggests that these scribbles are part of a whole bundle of papers collectively known as the Duisburg Nachlaβ . It was supposedly Kant's practice to use letters as scrap paper shortly after receiving them. If this is true, we can date the Bertram scribbles - and, in all likelihood, the bundle as a whole - to some time in 1775. That would make the Duisburg Nachlaβ one of the few pieces of philosophical writing in Kant's own hand to come down to us from the 1770s, and the only extended piece in his hand from the middle of the decade. It offers a rare glimpse of Kant at work on immediate ancestors of central ideas in the first Critique and might therefore be expected to shed light on an important chapter in Kant's philosophical development

Kant retired from teaching in 1796 and immediately began work in earnest on a new project that was supposed to complete his critical philosophy. It was never finished, and it has come down to us as a messy pile of notes published as volumes 21 and 22 in the “Academy edition” of Kant’s writings. The consensus today is that the so-called Opus Postumum would provide an immensely valuable window on the final state of Kant’s philosophy—if somebody could just make sense of it. A number of scholars writing in English have taken up the challenge in full-length studies in the last few years. One of them is Jeffrey Edwards.

The purpose of what follows is to show that, in the 1775 collection of notes called the “Duisburg Nachlaß” , Kant adapted central ideas from his early metaphysics in order to clarify the role of the thinking subject as a necessary condition of empirical knowledge. I shall try to show how these adaptations were made, how they were philosophically significant, and how they can help us understand what Kant was trying to do in the mid-1770s. The DN was written up when some of his most far-reaching ideas were starting to take shape. If we could make sense of it, it might ultimately shed light on the way Kant arrived at the mature statement of his theoretical philosophy in the Critique of Pure Reason. I cannot reconstruct the whole of this story or even offer a complete account of the DN in this paper. But I do hope to point out and clarify one interesting fact. By the mid-1770s, the thinking subject had taken the place Kant had reserved for God in his earlier metaphysics. That some such displacement was important for Kant is not an especially new or even exciting thesis. However, as I shall argue, the philosophical interest of the thesis lies in seeing exactly how Kant effected the displacement