Angela Breitenbach

Is there anything the individual ought to do in light of the climate catastrophe and insufficient political leadership in addressing it? I argue that we can find in Kant a collectivist conception of individual obligation that provides an answer: each of us, as an individual, has climate obligations, but the nature of these obligations is made determinate only with reference to the collective of which the individual is a part. I suggest that Kant’s collectivism sheds light on the relations between the individual and the collective and the ethical and political in the climate crisis.

Can aesthetic judgements legitimately be linked to the success of scientific theories? I suggest that a satisfactory answer to this question should account for the persistent attraction that aesthetic considerations seem to have for scientists, while also explaining the apparent instability of the link between the beauty of a theory and its truth. I argue that two widespread tendencies in the literature, Pythagorean and subjectivist approaches, have difficulties meeting this twofold challenge. I propose a Kantian conception of aesthetic judgements as second-order considerations, related to our own intellectual capacities for making sense of the world, and argue that it fares better.

Main description: Angesichts der zunehmenden Zerstörung der Natur durch den Menschen und der technischen Fortschritte in den Biowissenschaften ist die Frage nach dem Verhältnis des Menschen zu seiner natürlichen Umwelt von höchster Aktualität. Ausgehend von der Philosophie Kants, nach der die Betrachtung der Natur wesentlich in einer Analogie mit der Vernunft des Menschen gründet, entwickelt Angela Breitenbach einen Ansatz zu einer modernen Umweltphilosophie, die einen wichtigen Beitrag zu aktuellen Debatten in der Umweltethik und der Philosophie der Biologie liefert.

This chapter explores Kant’s account of the empirical laws of nature and the systematic unity they generate. How, if at all, can the particular laws of nature be both necessary and known empirically? And what, if any, is the cognitive function of the regulative idea of systematic unity for our knowledge of the laws? It is argued that, on Kant’s account, empirical reflection on particular phenomena can give us access to the laws insofar as this reflection is guided by the a priori laws of nature and the regulative idea of systematic unity. Reflection of this kind cannot ground scientific knowledge in the strict sense of the term, but it can lead to a common form of our knowledge of the laws.

In his Kant on Laws, Eric Watkins presents an account of reason on which the principles of specification and continuity are regulative instructions to search for different kinds of the unconditioned. I suggest that we correct Watkins’ account in two ways. First, we need to complete Watkins’ claim to the plurality of the unconditioned: reason aims for three kinds of the unconditioned, associated with the lowest, next and highest concepts. Second, we need to look beyond reason’s search for the unconditioned in order to properly understand the nature of the aim of reason. I argue that we construe reason’s aim as the systematic unity of cognition considered as a whole or, in Kant’s teleological terms, as the realization of an ‘idea’, or a ‘purposive unity’.

I argue for the unity of imagination in two prima facie diverse contexts: experiences of beauty and achievements of understanding. I develop my argument in three steps. First, I begin by describing a type of aesthetic experience that is grounded in a set of imaginative activities on the part of the person having the experience. Second, I argue that the same set of imaginative activities that grounds this type of aesthetic experience also contributes to achievements of understanding. Third, I show that my unified account of imagination has important implications: it sheds light on two puzzling phenomena, the aesthetic value of science and the cognitive value of art.

it is common to praise the beauty of theories, the elegance of proofs, and the pleasing simplicity of explanations. We may admire, for example, the beauty of Einstein’s theory of general relativity, the simplicity of Darwin’s idea of natural selection, and the elegance of a geometrical proof of Pythagoras’s theorem. Aesthetic judgments such as these have much currency among scientists, and they are employed in the search for knowledge more broadly. But while the use of aesthetic judgments in science is widespread, it is not uncontroversial.1 On one side, such judgments are often inspired by the Platonic vision that beauty and truth are ultimately one. As Henri Poincaré saw it, science is the “disinterested pursuit...

Laws of nature play a central role in Kant's theoretical philosophy and are crucial to understanding his philosophy of science in particular. In this volume of new essays, the first systematic investigation of its kind, a distinguished team of scholars explores Kant's views on the laws of nature in the physical and life sciences. Their essays focus particularly on the laws of physics and biology, and consider topics including the separation in Kant's treatment of the physical and life sciences, the relation between universal and empirical laws of nature, and the role of reason and the understanding in imposing order and lawful unity upon nature. The volume will be of great interest to advanced students and scholars of Kant's philosophy of science, and to historians and philosophers of science more generally.

First, I raise two objections against Ginsborg’s interpretation of natural teleology. I argue that Ginsborg’s notion of primitive normativity is too thin to account for Kant’s more substantive conception of the organism. Furthermore, I question whether Kant has room for a notion of purposiveness that is entirely divorced from intentional activity. Second, I ask about the implications of Ginsborg’s account of the relationship between aesthetic judgement and cognition. I suggest that her reading can easily be extended to allow for aesthetic pleasure in empirical reflection.