Huaping Lu-Adler

This paper is a reply to the commentaries on “Kant on public reason and the linguistic Other.” The author uses the occasion to reflect on the politics of knowledge production and the voice or silence of a scholar in an unjust world. She reaffirms her suspicion that Kant’s theory of public reason is too restrictive and conservative to facilitate struggles against injustices, especially the historically rooted and structurally entrenched ones. Assuming that a scholar does her work from a standpoint that is shaped, knowingly or unknowingly, by her social positionality in a given historical context, she argues that it is important for scholars to cultivate a meta-awareness of the social, political, and historical forces that influence their work. In light of the current political climate, she urges those who have bought into the (illusory) norms of scholarly neutrality to engage in critical reflections on their methodology to avoid being complicit in ideas and practices that perpetuate injustices. She uses Kant’s racialization of Blacks, coupled with his normative silence about the institution of colonial slavery, to illustrate that point.

If for a rule to be _normative_ the relevant agent must be _free_ to act otherwise, if a rule being _constitutive_ of an act entails that every execution of such an act necessarily accords with the rule, and if logical rules are constitutive of thinking, can these rules be normative? This question, thanks to Clinton Tolley’s work, is unavoidable for anyone who still wishes to defend a normative reading of Kant’s logic. This chapter continues my previous response to Tolley’s challenge, now focusing on the supposed connection between (imperatival) normativity and freedom (not as liberty of indifference, but as rational self-determination). It emphasizes that, for Kant, the question is whether/how the specific rules presented in his logic are normative. The chapter uses historical as well as textual materials to reconstruct his answer to this question and to explain why it is inevitably bound up with the issue of freedom.

The origin of languages was a hotly debated topic in the eighteenth century. This paper reconstructs a distinctively Kantian account according to which the origination, progression, and diversification of languages is at bottom reason’s self-development under certain a priori constraints and external environments. The reconstruction builds on three sets of materials. The first is Herder’s famous prize essay on the origin of languages. The second includes Kant’s explicit remarks about language – especially his notion of “transcendental grammar,” his argument that language cannot be innate, his contrast of “Oriental” symbolic (intuitive) and “Occidental” discursive languages, and his treatment of the latter as a sine qua non of humanity’s cultural and moral progress. The third includes the concepts that we need to make sense of those remarks, such as Kant’s epigenetic theory of biological formation and his account of categories as originally acquired.

Anthropology and physical geography were among Kant's most popular and longest running courses. He intended them to give his students the world-knowledge that they needed in order to be effective world-citizens. Much of this indoctrination amounted to teaching Occidental white men, Kant's default audience, to perceive themselves as uniquely entitled and obliged to work as agents of human progress on the assumption that they, thanks to their geographic location on Earth, were naturally formed as an exceptional race. l trace this perception to a combination of Kant's lectures and publications. He already indicated it in some of his works from the 1750s and 1760s. He subsequently fleshed it out through a theory of race based on his geography course in conjunction with a pure moral theory, a pragmatic anthropology that complements the moral theory, and a theory of education that builds on those three.

In Kant’s view, one needs a community of epistemic peers to think well or think at all. This epistemic dependence takes two basic forms. It is either dependence on others’ testimonies or dependence on others’ rational judgments. Distinguishing the “scholar” and the “commoner,” Kant depicts his bona fide knower as a scholar who selects his epistemic peers judiciously, seeking credible testimonies and worthwhile rational judgments only from other scholars, that is, only from those who satisfy a stringent scholarship condition. I study this account of epistemic dependence in connection with Kant’s characterizations of non-whites as lacking requisite motives or cognitive capacities to be recognized as worthy epistemic peers. I utilize Kristie Dotson’s three-tiered framework of “epistemic oppression” to shed light on the depth and complexity of the ongoing challenges posed by this construction of non-whites as not-knowers. My analysis ends with a reflection on the state of mainstream Kant scholarship, followed by a rallying call to those who can see beyond a false dichotomy between “Kant scholars” and “Kant’s critics” and be open to the possibility of what I call “critical Kant scholarship.”

“The history of philosophy” in the academe typically refers only to a history of Western philosophy with a Western-centric periodization. Kant laid the theoretical foundation for this practice by introducing a concept of history that imposed strict a priori constraints on constructing a historiography of philosophy and by articulating a racist-cum-orientalist worldview that disqualified non-whites and non-Westerners from the claim to true philosophy. Historians of (Western) philosophy today must go beyond a superficial Western-centric project of canon fixing and initiate radical structural changes in the academe to engender a more equitable, inclusive, and pluralistic treatment of various philosophical traditions.

Kant uses the image of a Cyclops to depict someone who looks at the world without the eye of philosophy. Analyzing Kant’s various remarks about this image, I tease apart three layers of his theory of systematicity—the systematic unity of a given science, a systematic interconnection among the sciences, and systematicity with a worldly orientation, whereby all sciences are referred to the final (moral) ends of humanity. With this theory in mind, I then use two cases to illustrate how Kant, in practice, looks at things with the eye of philosophy. One is his scientific theory of race, which shows how he sees “race” only by taking the viewpoint of a philosophical investigator of nature. The other is his normative silence about colonial slavery as an institution. This case shows how a philosopher’s desire to fix his gaze resolutely on the final ends of humanity (Menschheit) as such, which on Kant’s account is irreducible to an aggregate of concrete human beings, can lead him to look away from present human sufferings. This raises the question of whether we should reconsider Kant’s insistence on looking at the world with the eye of philosophy.

The deduction of categories in the 1781 edition of the Critique of the Pure Reason (A Deduction) has “two sides”—the “objective deduction” and the “subjective deduction”. Kant seems ambivalent about the latter deduction. I treat it as a significant episode of Kant’s thinking about categories that extended from the early 1770s to around 1790. It contains his most detailed answer to the question about the origin of categories that he formulated in the 1772 letter to Marcus Herz. The answer is that categories are generated a priori through a kind of intellectual “epigenesis”. This account leaves unexplained why precisely such and such categories should be generated. While this observation caused Kant to worry about the hypothetical status of the subjective deduction in 1781, he would come to acquiesce in the recognition that the ground of the possibility of categories is itself inscrutable. I call this his “methodological skepticism”.

This book examines a central but previously neglected aspect of Kant’s philosophy: human animality. While Kant is now best known as a philosopher of reason, Baumeister makes a compelling case for reading him also as a “philosopher of animality,” and the first such philosopher at that. As Baumeister’s study reveals, the concept of animality plays a significant role in multiple parts of Kant’s system, from his moral philosophy and philosophy of religion to his anthropology, pedagogy, and theory of race. By the end of the book, it is clear that whoever has not understood Kant’s theory of human animality has not yet fully understood his philosophy. So, the book is a must-read for Kant scholars and for anyone interested in Kantian morality, rationality, and/or humanity. This book consists of an enticing introduction (which opens with a section on Kant’s skull) followed by five chapters. Chapter 1, “Animals, Human and Otherwise,” outlines Kant’s account of animals in general and of the differences and similarities between human and nonhuman animals. Baumeister constructs the account out of the relevant remarks scattered across various texts. Analyzing these remarks holistically, Baumeister shows that Kant was consistently committed to three propositions about humans: humans are animals; what makes humans unique is their possession of reason; therefore, only humans enjoy full moral status and have direct duties to other humans qua rational beings but only indirect duties to nonhuman animals. Chapter 2, “Animality and Morality,” builds on the opposition between animality and rationality teased out in chapter 1. This opposition underpins what Baumeister calls a [End Page 667] “severance of human animality and human morality” (28). Chapter 2 tracks this severance across Kant’s works. The central and also most interesting part of Baumeister’s analysis concerns the “violence of [Kantian] morality” (37): from the perspective of morality, Kant not only devalues animality relative to humanity but also sees it as a threat to the latter; accordingly, if humanity is to be perfected, violence (Gewalt) to animality is necessary—not to destroy or expunge it altogether, which is impossible, but to keep it in check for the sake of morality. What exactly is the trainable but indelible “animal residue” in human nature as Kant understands it (47)? Chapter 3, “Anthropologies of the Human Animal,” answers this question with an extensive study of Kant’s works on anthropology. Baumeister begins with an illuminating analysis of an underappreciated text, Kant’s 1771 review of a work by the Italian anatomist Pietro Moscati. This review anticipates several key elements of Kant’s later work on anthropology. It is one of the rare texts in which Kant gave a concerted account of the relation between animality and reason as two incongruent aspects of human nature that pull human beings toward opposite directions. Kant illustrated this tension in the Moscati review with a fascinating take on human anatomy: human beings’ bipedalism is at once unnatural, as an artificial deviation, induced by reason, from animals’ natural quadrupedalism; and natural, insofar as reason itself is a germ (Keim) originally placed in the human being. This naturally endowed faculty of reason played the decisive role in verticalizing the animal body of humans and thereby elevating them above all other animals (51–55). This claim points to another way in which the Moscati review is significant: it shows that Kant’s anthropology is both practically or pragmatically oriented and rooted in physiology from the very start (56). The rest of chapter 3 examines the evolving relationship between these two registers—the pragmatic and the physiological—in Kant’s later works on anthropology. Chapter 4, “Animality Unfolded,” shows how, after the mid-1780s, the treatment of human animality migrated from Kant’s explicitly anthropological works to what may be loosely called his “works on human nature.” These belong in three domains, in each of which Kant foregrounds a particular aspect of animality. ...

On Kant’s account, “public use of reason” is the use that a truth-seeking scholar makes of his reason when he communicates his thoughts in writing to a world of readers. Commentators tend to treat this account as expressing an egalitarian ideal, without taking seriously the limiting conditions—especially the scholarship condition—built into it. In this paper, I interrogate Kant’s original account of public reason in connection with his construction of the “Oriental” as a linguistically and therefore epistemically and culturally inferior Other. I thereby give reasons to worry that Kant’s account is substantively inegalitarian (even if it is nominally egalitarian). I also draw attention to the fact that Kant constructed a linguistic Other against the backdrop of colonialism and from a position of power. This positionality gave what he said about the Other an ideology-forming and world-making effect. In this way, his exclusionary discursive practices—such as depicting the Oriental as an inferior linguistic Other—could have a lasting impact on knowledge production and on the real-world exercise of public reason.

In the 1780s through the end of 1790s, Kant made various references to slavery (in its different forms) and the transatlantic slave trade in the context of his political philosophy or philosophy of right; he thereby had opportunities to speak in favor of abolitionism, which was gaining momentum in parts of Europe, or at least to articulate a normative critique of the race-based chattel slavery or Atlantic slavery and the associated slave trade qua (legalized) INSTITUTIONS; but he did neither. Why? In raising and seeking an answer to this question, I am not interested in what Kant’s normative silence about the institutions of Atlantic slavery and slave trade may tell us about him as a person (for example, whether he was blinded by his own racist prejudices or whether he was affected by some kind of cognitive dissonance). Rather, I will focus on what it may tell us about certain limitations of his political philosophy, limitations that might have made it THEORETICALLY DIFFICULT for him to figure out exactly what to DO about those institutions as entrenched political realities.

Kant scholars have paid relatively little attention to his raciology. They assume that his racism, as personal prejudice, can be disentangled from his core philosophy. They also assume that racism contradicts his moral theory. In this book, philosopher Huaping Lu-Adler challenges both assumptions. She shows how Kant's raciology--divided into racialism and racism--is integral to his philosophical system. She also rejects the individualistic approach to Kant and racism. Instead, she uses the notion of racism as ideological formation to demonstrate how Kant, from his social location both as a prominent scholar and as a lifelong educator, participated in the formation of modern racist ideology. As a scholar, Kant developed a ground-breaking scientific theory of race from the standpoint of a philosophical investigator of nature or Naturforscher. As an educator, he transmitted denigrating depictions of the racialized others and imbued those descriptions with normative relevance. In both roles, he left behind, as one of his legacies, a worldview that excluded non-whites from such goods as recognitional respect and candidacy for cultural and moral achievements. Scholars who research and teach Kant's philosophy therefore have an unshakable burden to take part in the ongoing antiracist struggles, through their teaching practices as well as their scholarship. And they must do so with a pragmatic attention to nonideal social realities and a deliberate orientation toward substantial racial justice, equality, and inclusion. Lu-Adler pushes the discourse about Kant and racism well beyond the old debates about whether he was racist or whether his racism contaminates his philosophy. By foregrounding the lasting legacies of Kant's raciology, her work calls for a profound reorientation of Kant scholarship.

According to an oft-repeated narrative, while Kant maintained racist views through the 1780s, he changed his mind in the 1790s. Pauline Kleingeld introduced this narrative based on passages from Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals and “Toward Perpetual Peace”. On her reading, Kant categorically condemned chattel slavery in those texts, which meant that he became more racially egalitarian. But the passages involving slavery, once contextualized, either do not concern modern, race-based chattel slavery or at best suggest that Kant mentioned it as a cautionary tale for labor practices in Europe. Overall, Kant never explicitly considered chattel slavery as a moral problem to be addressed on its own. Rather, he treated it primarily in terms of its function in human history. If he ended up expressing some qualms about its practices, it was likely because they threatened to deepen intra-European conflicts and undermine the prospect of perpetual peace. The humanity of the enslaved “Negroes” was never part of the reasoning. This was not a casual oversight on Kant’s part. It reflects the complexity of his philosophical system: everything he did or did not say about chattel slavery begins to make sense once we connect his philosophy of history and his depiction of “Negroes” as natural slaves.

Kant ascribes two radically different kinds of language—symbolic or pictorial (qua intuitive) and discursive languages—to the “Oriental” and “Occidental” peoples respectively. By his analysis, having a merely symbolic language suggests that the “Orientals” lack understanding—and hence the ability to form concepts and think in abstracto—as well as genius and spirit. Meanwhile, he establishes discursive language as a sine qua non of the continued progress of humanity, primarily because only by means of words—as opposed to symbols—can one think (not just intuit), signify one’s thoughts exactly, and make them universally communicable. Without such a language, one would not be able to make one’s feelings moral or develop a true moral character. In short, humanity would not be able to obtain its cultural or moral ends without discursive language. These points add up to an exclusionary view of progress according to which the Occidental whites alone are equipped with the requisite discursive skills and other talents (including genius and spirit) to accomplish advanced culture and pursue humanity’s moral destiny. The “Orient,” with its “childish language,” is consigned to the childhood of humanity. In holding this view, Kant has departed from some of his predecessors—such as Leibniz, whose vision of the future of humanity includes an East-West harmony facilitated by a “universal symbolism,” and Rousseau, who exalts a livelier connection with the world mediated by a pictorial language. The contrast with Leibniz and Rousseau also suggests that we cannot chalk up Kant’s exclusionary view of progress to mere personal prejudices. His philosophy is what gives meaning to his statements about the nature of the “Oriental” language. That is, the exclusionary view of progress emerges only when we take into account his anti-Leibnizian conceptualization of symbolic language as merely intuitive, his view that humanity is teleologically oriented toward the unique sort of moralization that he envisioned in the Groundwork, and his view that reason must lead the way in humanity’s progress toward this supposed moral end, wherefore only discursive language can facilitate such progress.

Kant develops a concept of savagery, partly characterized by laziness, to envision a program for human progress. He also racializes savagery, treating native Americans, in particular, as literal savages. He ascribes to this “race” a peculiar physiological laziness, a supposedly hereditary trait of blunted life power. Accordingly, while he grants them the same “germs” for perfections as he does the civilized Europeans, he allows them no prospect of actually fulfilling any such perfection. For the road to perfection must be paved through industry, a condition that Kant denies to the “savages” by racializing their alleged laziness. This case will shed new light on the debated relation between Kant’s moral universalism and his racism.

A testimony is somebody else’s reported experience of what has happened. It is an indispensable source of knowledge. It only gives us historical cognition, however, which stands in a complex relation to rational or philosophical cognition: while the latter presupposes historical cognition as its matter, one needs the architectonic “eye of a philosopher” to select, interpret, and organize historical cognition. Kant develops this rationalist theory of testimony. He also practices it in his own work, especially while theorizing about race as a subject of natural philosophy. In three dedicated essays on this subject, he treats race from the standpoint of a philosophical investigator of nature (Naturforscher), who (as Kant puts it in the first Critique) learns from nature “like an appointed judge who compels witnesses to answer the questions he puts to them.” This view underwrites Kant’s use of travel reports (a type of testimony) in developing and defending his theory of race.

This chapter brings some much-needed conceptual clarity to the debate about Locke’s scientific methodology. Instead of having to choose between the method of hypothesis and that of natural history (as most interpreters have thought), he would resist prescribing a single method for natural sciences in general. Following Francis Bacon and Robert Boyle, Locke separates medicine and natural philosophy (physics), so that they call for completely different methods. While a natural philosopher relies on “speculative” (causal-theoretical) hypotheses together with natural-history making to explicate phenomena, a medical practitioner must prioritize collecting data about what remedies tend to cure what diseases over hypothesizing about the causes of the latter.

Leibniz, and many following him, saw the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) as pivotal to a scientific (demonstrated) metaphysics. Against this backdrop, Kant is expected to pay close attention to PSR in his reflections on the possibility of metaphysics, which is his chief concern in the Critique of Pure Reason. It is far from clear, however, what has become of PSR in the Critique. On one reading, Kant has simply turned it into the causal principle of the Second Analogy. On a different reading, PSR is but the supreme principle of reason, which roughly states that, if the conditioned is given, so is the unconditioned. On my reading, PSR appears in the guises of both the causal principle and the supreme principle. This twofold specification, I argue, is key to understanding (i) Kant’s allegations that past metaphysicians failed to prove PSR, (ii) his own Critical account of the possibility of metaphysics in both of its parts (ontology and metaphysics proper), and (iii) his nuanced answer to the contentious question about the relation between physical inquiry and metaphysical reasoning about nature (both being quests for reasons).

This book is a masterpiece on Kant's theory of analyticity. It culminates in a new story of how Kant arrived at his mature view. Here is the chief lesson of this story: "the logical conception of the analytic/synthetic distinction is the fundamental idea of analyticity involved in Kant's distinctive, critical project. … [H]is critique of metaphysics crucially depends on the logical conception and cannot be supported by its merely methodological and epistemological ancestors". This passage consolidates two leading theses of the book: Kant has three versions of the analytic/synthetic distinction: a methodological distinction between two ways of knowing, an epistemological one between two kinds of concept...

How does the critical Kant view ontology? There is no shared scholarly answer to this question. Norbert Hinske sees in the Critique of Pure Reason a “farewell to ontology,” albeit one that took Kant long to bid (Hinske 2009). Karl Ameriks has found evidence in Kant’s metaphysics lectures from the critical period that he “was unwilling to break away fully from traditional ontology” (Ameriks 1992: 272). Gualtiero Lorini argues that a decisive break with the tradition of ontology is essential to Kant’s critical reform of metaphysics, as is reflected in his shift from “ontology” to “transcendental philosophy,” two notions that Lorini takes to be related by mere “analogy” (Lorini 2015). I agree with Lorini that a thorough reform of ontology is a pivotal part of Kant’s critical plan for metaphysics and that ontology somehow “survives within the critical philosophy” (Lorini 2015: 76). To make this case, however, I deem it important to identify “ontology” and “transcendental philosophy” in the sense of extensional equivalence. While we can detect this identification in Kant’s writings, only from his metaphysics lectures can we get a full sense of its historical and philosophical significance. In this chapter I focus on how it represents a definitive turn from as well as notable continuity with traditional treatments of ontology, particularly the Wolffian one.

At A71/B96–7 Kant explains that singular judgements are ‘special’ because they stand to the general ones as Einheit to Unendlichkeit. The reference to Einheit brings to mind the category of unity and hence raises a spectre of circularity in Kant’s explanation. I aim to remove this spectre by interpreting the Einheit-Unendlichkeit contrast in light of the logical distinctions among universal, particular and singular judgments shared by Kant and his logician predecessors. This interpretation has a further implication for resolving a controversy over the correlation between the logical moments of quantity (universal, particular, singular) and the categorial ones (unity, plurality, totality).

This paper examines Du Châtelet’s and Kant’s responses to the famous vis viva controversy – Du Châtelet in her Institutions Physiques (1742) and Kant in his debut, the Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces (1746–49). The Institutions was not only a highly influential contribution to the vis viva controversy, but also a pioneering attempt to integrate Leibnizian metaphysics and Newtonian physics. The young Kant’s evident knowledge of this work has led some to speculate about his indebtedness to her philosophy. My study corrects such speculations as well as misunderstandings of the Living Forces. This corrective result has implications for how to investigate Kant’s relation to the ever-evolving landscape of Leibniz exegeses.

This book is both a history of philosophy of logic told from the Kantian viewpoint and a reconstruction of Kant’s theory of logic from a historical perspective. Kant’s theory represents a turning point in a history of philosophical debates over the following questions. (1) Is logic a science, instrument, standard of assessment, or mixture of these? (2) If logic is a science, what is the subject matter that differentiates it from other sciences, particularly metaphysics? (3) If logic is a necessary instrument to all philosophical inquiries, how is it so entitled? (4) If logic is both a science and an instrument, how are these two roles related? Kant’s official answer to these questions centers on three distinctions: general versus particular logic; pure versus applied logic; pure general logic versus transcendental logic. The true meaning and significance of each distinction becomes clear, I argue, only if we consider two factors. First, Kant was mindful of various historical views on how logic relates to other branches of philosophy (viz. metaphysics and physics) and to the workings of common human understanding. Second, he first coined ‘transcendental logic’ while struggling to secure metaphysics as a proper “science,” and this conceptual innovation would in turn have profound implications for his mature theory of logic. Against this backdrop, I reassess the place of Kant’s theory in the history of philosophy of logic and highlight certain issues that are still debated today, such as normativity of logic and the challenges posed by logical pluralism. In Chapter 1, “Kant and a Philosophical History of Logic – Methodological Reflections,” I discuss certain exegetical challenges posed by Kant’s logic corpus and argue for a “history of philosophical problems” method by which to reconstruct a Kantian theory of logic. In Chapter 2, “The Nature and Place of Logic – A History of Controversies,” I construct a partial history of philosophy of logic that revolves around the (supposedly) scientific status of logic on the one hand and its value or utility on the other. In Chapter 3, “The Making of a Scientific Logic from Bacon to Wolff,” I examine how four representative early modern philosophers – Francis Bacon, John Locke, G.W. Leibniz, and Christian Wolff – approached the four questions mentioned above. In Chapter 4, “Kant on the Way to His Own Philosophy of Logic,” I consider how Kant, in the decade between around mid-1760s and mid-1770s, navigated between existing accounts of logic until he finally found his own voice. I highlight the breakthroughs that would mark his critical departures from previous views and pave the way for the final articulation of his own view. In Chapter 5, “Logic and the Demands of Kantian ‘Science’,” I zero in on Kant’s official theory of logic in his monumental publication, Critique of Pure Reason. I foreground both what makes the theory original and what leaves it vulnerable to criticisms from post-Kantian thinkers.

Kant describes logic as “the science that exhaustively presents and strictly proves nothing but the formal rules of all thinking”. (Bviii-ix) But what is the source of our cognition of such rules (“logical cognition” for short)? He makes no concerted effort to address this question. It will nonetheless become clear that the question is a philosophically significant one for him, to which he can see three possible answers: those representations are innate, derived from experience, or originally acquired a priori. Although he gives no explicit argument for the third answer, he seems committed to it—especially given his views on the source of pure concepts of the understanding and on the nature of logic. It takes careful preparatory work to gather all the essential materials for motivating and reconstructing Kant’s “original acquisition” account of logical cognition. I shall proceed in two sections. In section 1, I analyze Kant’s argument that pure concepts of the understanding (or intellectual concepts)—as one kind of pure cognition—must be acquired originally and a priori. My analysis partly concerns his varied attitudes toward Crusius’s and Leibniz’s versions of the nativist account of such concepts. I give special attention to how Kant characterizes the nativist account and his own “original acquisition” account in terms of “preformation” and “epigenesis”. My goal is, firstly, to tease out the sense in which Kant grants that there must be an innate ground (or preformation) for the derivation of pure concepts and, secondly, to introduce—and pave the way for answering—the question about the source of logical cognition. In section 2, in light of Kant’s reference to Locke and Leibniz as the greatest reformers of philosophy (including logic) in their times (Log, AA 9: 32), I examine the Lockean and Leibnizian approaches to logic, respectively. Both approaches are “physiological” by Kant’s standard and are directly opposed to his own strictly critical method. I explain how this methodological move shapes Kant’s view that representations of logical rules must be originally acquired a priori. This acquisition involves a kind of radical epigenesis of pure reason: unlike the acquisition of pure concepts, it presupposes no further innate ground (or preformation). This view will have important consequences for issues such as the ground of the normativity of logical rules and the boundaries of their rightful use.

There is an exegetical quandary when it comes to interpreting Locke's relation to logic.On the one hand, over the last few decades a substantive amount of literature has been dedicated to explaining Locke's crucial role in the development of a new logic in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. John Yolton names this new logic the "logic of ideas," while James Buickerood calls it "facultative logic."1 Either way, Locke's Essay is supposedly its "most outspoken specimen" or "culmination."2 Call this reading the 'New Logic interpretation.'On the other hand, from the typical standpoint of a philosopher accustomed to the modern conception of logic, whatever Locke—indeed, whatever most of the...

John Venn has the “uneasy suspicion” that the stagnation in mathematical logic between J. H. Lambert and George Boole was due to Kant’s “disastrous effect on logical method,” namely the “strictest preservation [of logic] from mathematical encroachment.” Kant’s actual position is more nuanced, however. In this chapter, I tease out the nuances by examining his use of Leonhard Euler’s circles and comparing it with Euler’s own use. I do so in light of the developments in logical calculus from G. W. Leibniz to Lambert and Gottfried Ploucquet. While Kant is evidently open to using mathematical tools in logic, his main concern is to clarify what mathematical tools can be used to achieve. For without such clarification, all efforts at introducing mathematical tools into logic would be blind if not complete waste of time. In the end, Kant would stress, the means provided by formal logic at best help us to express and order what we already know in some sense. No matter how much mathematical notations may enhance the precision of this function of formal logic, it does not change the fact that no truths can, strictly speaking, be revealed or established by means of those notations.