Emanuele Cafagna

The closing paragraph of Kant’s 1764 essay, Inquiry Concerning the Distinctness of the Principles of Natural Theology and Morality, is widely regarded as his first contribution to moral theory. This article offers an interpretation of the text, comparing Kant’s position with the prevailing moral theories of German rationalism. In particular, the article deals with Kant’s criticism of the way they conceive the moral certainty in relation to the concept of obligation. Kant argues that conceiving this certainty as cognitive evidence contradicts the very necessity of obligation. To this kind of evidence, Kant opposes an obligation based on feeling, showing at the same time the difficulties related to this solution. The article also contends that this approach is not new, but that it can be seen as a confirmation of what Kant argued in his 1755 dissertation Nova dilucidatio. The conclusion is that the Inquiry does not represent a departure from Kant’s alleged previous Wolffianism and can be read as a reassesement of his own theory.

The paper deals with the concept of ‘reality’ in Kant’s early writings, especially in his Latin dissertation A new Elucidation of the First Principles of Metaphysical Cognition, in The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God, and in his Attempt to introduce the Concept of Negative Magnitude in Philosophy. ‘Reality’ is considered in the two parts of the paper as a concept of ontology and as a concept of natural philosophy, respectively. I argue that Kant’s definition of reality is based on his peculiar demonstration of the principle of sufficient reason and the related theory of ‘internal possibility of things’. Moreover, I argue that these ontological tenets are consistent with Kant’s concept of physical reality and his early acceptance of Newton’s third Law of motion. Aim of my analysis is to show how a unified theory of reality allows Kant to formulate in a new way a grounding principle of cosmology, i.e. the principle of conservation.

The paper deals with the concept of perfection in Kant’s work: The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God. This concept is mainly considered as an issue of ontology in order to show the differences between Baumgarten and Kant. I argue that Kant defines the relationship between the concept of perfection and the concept of reality according to some distinctive features that distinguish his philosophy from the Wolffian School. Moreover, the paper shows that these features can be found in Kant’s earlier writings. Contrary to other scholars, I do not think that Kant’s reflections on perfection in The Only Possible Argument indicate a change of his assessment of the Wolffian philosophy.

Dans la première partie de L'unique fondement possible d'une démonstration de l'existence de Dieu (1763), Kant propose un argument de type ontologique qu'il avait déjà formulé dans ses écrits de 1755. La présente contribution voudrait examiner continuité et changements dans les différentes formulations. Contrairement à ce que soutiennent d'autres chercheurs, j'entends montrer que l'argument de Kant se présente, dès le départ, comme une alternative à celui des auteurs de la tradition wolffienne. Cette innovation comporte certaines difficultés théoriques qui apparaissent clairement dans le texte de 1763. Tout en confirmant la conviction que l'argument ontologique de la tradition wolffienne n'est pas démonstratif, Kant estime ne pas disposer d’un argument alternatif complet, mais seulement de son fondement.

Hegel’s political philosophy regards the “corporation” as both a civil society association and an institution guaranteed under the constitution. The present article focuses on the concept of corporation as an institution of the ‘internal constitution’ by analysing some of the writings which go back to Hegel’s Heidelberg and Berlin phases, namely the Heidelberg review of the Proceedings of the Estates Assembly of the Kingdom of Württemberg, 1815–1816, his first lectures on the Philosophy of Rights, and the Elements of the Philosophy of Rights. Notwithstanding the analysis shows that Hegel’s sophisticated constitutional culture is informed directly by, and developed along with, his involvement in the Württemberg’s political debates, yet his idea of State administration is far more elaborate than the constitutions of nineteenth-century German States which it does not, in fact, intend to merely reproduce. I shall argue that Hegel’s account of corporation is based on his specific understanding of European history and the related conceptualization of institution as a guarantee of freedom. Both history and theory are necessary tools to frame and comprehend the philosopher’s discussion of corporation, whose civil and institutional nature is essential to conceive the connection established between the government of civil society and legislative power. I contend that the role that Hegel attributes to corporations cannot be interpreted as an idea reflecting or inherited from the history of the German states, and that rather it represents the key to understanding his concept of patriotism and model of political representation via the assemblies of estates. From this perspective, it appears clear that the Hegelian theory of corporation is at the center of the philosopher’s diagnosis on the crisis and evolution of the modern State.

Hegel’s concern for determinism induced some scholars to interpret his practical philosophy as a form of determinism or as a form of compatibilism. Against both interpretations I will show some historical features of determinism at the edge of XVIII Century aiming to explain Hegel’s concept of determinism. I will pay a special attention to the debate between Ulrich and Kant’s criticism as well as to the peculiar development of kantian presuppositions in Fries’ philosophy. I will illustrate how this debate influenced Hegel’s definition of arbitrariness (Willkür) and how important it could be to understand his distinction between freedom of choice and free will.

Hegel’s dispute with Schleiermacher in Berlin had as its premise his reception of Schleiermacher’s Reden über die Religion. My intention is to clarify the history of this reception by arguing that Hegel’s Frankfurt early writings already contain clues as to his reading of Schleiermacher’s work. Differently from previous interpretations, however, I will not support the hypothesis that, during his Frankfurt period, Hegel was influenced by Schleiermacher’s foundations of religion. My contention is that, from the very beginning, Hegel opposed Schleiermacher’s concepts of positivity and polemics as specific features of the Christian religion. This view is confirmed if we analyze the works that Hegel wrote in the Jena period, such as Differenz des Fichte’schen und Schelling’schen Systems der Philosophie, Glauben und Wissen and Phänomenologie des Geistes. My aim is to demonstrate that these works typify Schleiermacher’s approach to the Christian religion, and in so doing, to confute the idea that Hegel’s view on the above-mentioned approach changed over the years. A final aspect that I consider is the enduring nature of Hegel’s conception of the significance of the Reden – an aspect that emerges on analyzing some crucial sentences in the Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts.

Schon am Anfang seiner Lehrtätigkeit war Kant kritisch gegenüber den gängigen Definitionen der Philosophie, weil er bereits eine eigene Reform der Metaphysik entworfen hatte. Um diese These zu zu stützen, beschäftigt sich der Beitrag mit Kants Behandlung von Martin Knutzens Definition der Philosophie und dem dritten Teil von Kants Schrift Principiorum primorum cognitionis metaphysicae nova dilucidatio (1755), die zwei neue metaphysische Grundsätze enthält. Mit ihrer innovativen Theorie von Zeit und Raum liefern «der Satz der Aufeinanderfolge» und «der Satz des Zugleichseins» eine neue Begründung der Psychologie und Kosmologie, die eine Alternative zur Theorie des physischen Einflusses sowie zu Leibniz’ vorherbestimmter Harmonie darstellen. Kants Theorie einer allgemein begründeten Harmonie wird somit als ein Versuch vorgestellt, die Grundsätze der Metaphysik zu erneuern, um die Bestimmung der Philosophie als Wissenschaft von den Gründen der Dinge im Vergleich zum zeitgenössischen Rationalismus besser zu rechtfertigen.

Nei Pensieri sulla vera valutazione delle forze vive Kant stabilisce il concetto di “mondo” per mezzo di una definizione wolffiana. Nonostante questa recezione, Kant non condivide con Wolff e i wolffiani principi fondanti della cosmologia in quanto sapere metafisico. Il contributo chiarisce come Kant metta in evidenza l'inadeguatezza della definizione wolffiana rispetto a problemi basilari della cosmologia, come la possibilità di dimostrare l'unicità del mondo e l'unità dell'universo. A differenza di precedenti interpretazioni, il contributo sostiene che Kant prova a ovviare a questa inadeguatezza proponendo un riesame del concetto di luogo e una nuova concezione delle relazioni esterne della sostanza. In riferimento a questo tema il contributo offre una nuova interpretazione delle riflessioni di Kant sulla dimensionalità dell'estensione mostrandone la rilevanza per comprendere la sua prima concezione dello spazio.

Der letzte Teil der ‚Moralität‘ in der Enyzklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften behandelt das ‚Gewissen‘ als eine dialektische Instanz. Die Bestimmung dieser Dialektik als Äußerung des ‚Objektiven Geistes‘ stellt eine Neuheit in Hegels Denken dar. Mein Beitrag will die Relevanz der Heidelberger Schriften Hegels für die Genese dieser Theorie verdeutlichen. Zu diesem Zweck wird die Rezension zum dritten Band der jacobischen Werke zusammen mit der ersten Ausgabe der Enzyklopädie in Betracht gezogen. Die entsprechende Analyse soll zeigen, dass die Auseinandersetzung mit Jacobi für Hegel wichtig war, um den Begriff einer Dialektik des Gewissens überhaupt zu bestimmen. Gleichzeitig wird sich daraus die Eigenheit der hegelschen Lösung dieser Dialektik erweisen.

Die 1755 verfasste Schrift Principiorum primorum cognitionis metaphysicae nova dilucidatio enthält eine Bestimmung der Willensfreiheit, die ein konsequentes Ergebnis der relevanten Erneuerung im Rahmen der Ontologie der ersten Philosophie Kants darstellt. Mein Beitrag betrifft insbesondere die in der Schrift geführte Auseinandersetzung mit Crusius, dessen Wertschätzung im Vergleich mit der Wolff’schen Schule Kant nicht daran hindert, zwei Hauptlehren seines Ansatzes zu kritisieren. Erstens sieht Kant eine Beziehung zwischen dem Freiheitsbegriff und dem Satz des zureichenden Grundes vor, die wichtige Elemente der Ethik von Crusius in Frage stellt. Zweitens wendet er sich gegen Crusius’ Theorie der Spontaneität, indem er dessen Verteidigung der Willkürfreiheit als Gleichgültigkeit wie beim Gleichgewicht kritisiert.

In Glauben und Wissen as well as in the Wissenschaft der Logik Hegel states that the kantian question: «How are synthetical judgements a priori possible?» is speculative in its own. Despite this statement Hegel argues that the results of Kant’s theory of judgement in the Kritik der reinen Vernunft contradicts its speculative sense. So in Hegel’s opinion the question is still waiting for an answer. Aim of this contribution is to make clear how Hegel solves this issue in a speculative way without going back to a precritical philosophy. Focusing on Hegel’s theory of ‘Subjective Spirit’ in the Enzyklopädie this contribution wants to clarify the Hegel’s solution to a pivotal problem of criticism through the sublation of a phenomenological approach to the idea of ‘Reason’ and his theory of intelligence as a part of the ‘Theoretical Spirit’.

Hegel’s dispute with Schleiermacher in Berlin concerned two disciplines: dogmatics and philosophy. My contribution reconstructs the proper historical circumstances for each of Hegel’s disputes, defining the theoretical unity that underlies both. That unit strictly depends on a theory of ‘objective mind’ that is fulfilled between Heidelberg and Berlin. My contribution uses as a starting point to explain what is new in the Berlin disputes, and what is a repetition of Hegel’s lecture of Schleiermacher’s Dialogues about Religion, which he had criticized at least since the Frankfurt times. Showing the relevance of the theory of ‘objective mind’ for the interpretation of the Hegelian concept of religion as a sphere of absolute mind, my contribution corrects two main mistakes of twentieth-century interpretations of Hegel: 1. Hegel doesn’t consider religion as a cultural phenomenon simply cancelled by philosophy; 2. his philosophy is not a speculative translation of Christian dogmas. The clarification of the reasons why Hegel was against Schleiermacher are therefore an attempt to remove reasons to be against Hegel's concept of religion.

Hegel’s definition of ‘free will’ and ‘person’ gets over a phenomenological or psychological definition of these concepts. My essay explains how Hegel justifies the placing of his theory of free will in a philosophy of Mind analyzing the concept of ‘recognition’ in the Phenomenology as a section of the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences as well as the main steps of The practical Spirit, the second part of the section Psychology. With regard to this last science my essay clarifies the essential differences between freedom of the will and freedom of choice. These differences only explain how the free will could develop as objective Spirit in the third science involved by Hegel towards a proper definition of freedom, i.e. the philosophy of Right. In the philosophy of Right as a part of Hegel’s System of philosophical sciences the free will finds its own adequate reality and the concept of a person can be explained without the mistakes caused by a phenomenological or psychological approach to it. Against some interpretations which identify Hegel’s definition of free will with communitarian practices, the final part of my essay focuses on the importance of the concept of a person to explain the general structure of the philosophy of Right.