Fridolin Neumann

This article is the first English translation of Gadamer's early essay “On the Idea of a System in Philosophy” (“Zur Systemidee in der Philosophie”) from 1924. Influenced by Marburg Neo-Kantianism and Heidegger's hermeneutic phenomenology, Gadamer is concerned with the problems that arise with the idea of systematicity in philosophy. In particular, he focuses on conceiving of an idea of a system that does justice to the historical variability of philosophical thoughts. He shows that systematicity and history are, in fact, not in tension but deeply intertwined because of the foundation philosophy has in factical and historical human life. Gadamer, therefore, already anticipates some of the most characteristic ideas of his later magnum opus Truth and Method. The translator's Introduction contextualises this essay in both its relation to Marburg Neo-Kantians and Heidegger's thought, highlights the most significant continuities to Gadamer's mature philosophy, and provides an overview of the essay's main arguments.

In her book "Heidegger's Interpretation of Kant. The Violence and the Charity", Morganna Lambeth presents a comprehensive, compelling and original assessment of Heidegger's interpretation of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in the 1920s. She places Heidegger's controversial claim that the transcendental imagination is the original root of cognition in the centre of her interpretation and fleshes its implications out throughout her book, gauging its significance from multiple angles (e.g., with regard to the advantages of Heidegger's reading over the readings of other post-Kantian philosophers). Thereby, she not only manages to bring much clarity into the often dark and twisted claims Heidegger articulates through Kant's voice but also convincingly defends many of them.

In the Wissenschaftslehre 1804-II, Fichte claims to both continue and correct Kant’s transcendental philosophy. I reject this double claim by demonstrating that Fichte’s engagement with Kant is guided by altered premises that make the affiliation to Kant’s transcendental philosophy seem implausible. These divergences culminate in an opposing understanding of unity between the two philosophers, which can be revealed by attention to Fichte’s objections to the KdU. Fichte’s thesis that Kant established three absolutes instead of one absolute is based on Fichte’s own demand for an absolute unity that is not differentiated in itself, which is also reflected in his transposition of Kant’s concept of the root to the KdU. In section 2, I attempt a precise exegetical reconstruction of Fichte’s concept of the absolute, as well as of his thesis of Kant’s triple absolute. In section 3, I raise three interconnected objections to this: first, Fichte’s critique is actually based on an accusation of dualism, which is suggested both by his own concept of the absolute and the programme of the KdU (section 3.1). Second, however, Kant’s two absoluta should be seen more as constructions by Fichte rather than as revealing problems immanent to Kant’s philosophy (section 3.2). Third, these divergences can be traced back to Fichte’s own understanding of unity, which gives rise to his objections to the KdU in the first place (section 3.3).

In the present paper, it is shown that Kant in his theory of fine art from the Critique of Aesthetic Judgment proves to be a proponent of aesthetic cognitivism, according to which art is, first, a source of non-trivial knowledge and, second, this knowledge also has aesthetic relevance. This issue has been raised several times in the recent research literature, but has not been substantiated, or only briefly. Central to this is Kant's conception of aesthetic ideas, with which fine art symbolizes intellectual ideas of various genesis and with which his theory of art acquires a content-aesthetic dimension. Discussing recent research literature, an interpretation for the conception of aesthetic ideas and the accompanying expressive dimension of fine art is offered in a first part. Based on this, it will be shown in a second part that Kant hereby proves to be a representative of aesthetic cognitivism; this is shown by the fact that his theory of art confirms both criteria of aesthetic cognitivism.