Reed Winegar

This chapter examines Elise Reimarus’s role in two of eighteenth-century Germany’s most heated intellectual controversies: the Fragment and Pantheism Controversies. In particular, the chapter considers how Reimarus’s Enlightenment views (including her own freethinking, deistic beliefs) informed her participation in the two controversies but also raise a puzzle—namely, why does Reimarus, a staunch defender of public reason and free speech, seem to have balked at the public disclosure of key information in both controversies? In response to this puzzle, the chapter argues that Reimarus’s reticence was motivated in large part by her prudential outlook regarding public discourse—specifically, by her worry that personal polemics and heated disputes threatened to corrupt the rational, public discourse required for Enlightenment progress.

This book focuses on the relationship between religion and secularism in Kant, Hegel, and subsequent modern thought. Rosen argues that Kant and Hegel’s philosophies should be seen as secularizing but not themselves secular. Specifically, Rosen argues for the continued importance of religion in Kant’s and Hegel’s philosophies, while also maintaining that their philosophies nevertheless contributed significantly to the transformation of traditional religious notions into secularized variants. Immortality serves as the book’s flagship illustration of these claims: “This book is particularly focused on one feature of traditional religion: the belief in personal immortality and the way in which new conceptions of human... Read More.

Hegel famously criticizes Kant’s resolution of the antinomies. According to Sedgwick, Hegel primarily chastises Kant’s resolution for presupposing that concepts are ‘one-sided’, rather than identical to their opposites. If Kant had accepted the dialectical nature of concepts, then (according to Sedgwick) Kant would not have needed to resolve the antinomies. However, as Ameriks has noted, any such interpretation faces a serious challenge. Namely, Kant’s first antinomy concerns the universe’s physical dimensions. Even if we grant that the concept of the finite is necessarily related to that of the infinite, the physical universe cannot both have and lack a temporal beginning. I argue that Hegel neither adopts Sedgwick’s view that Kant’s antinomies require no resolution nor absurdly accepts that the physical universe both has and lacks a temporal beginning. Instead, Hegel proposes a sophisticated resolution of Kant’s first antinomy (including its physical aspect) that depends on Hegel’s theory of the Absolute.

Kant’s 3rd Critique claims that the concept of purposiveness bridges the chasm between nature and freedom. This concept derives from the reflecting power of judgment’s demand for a system of particular laws. The published Introduction represents this system as grounded on the Idea of a divine understanding. According to Tuschling, this divinity is the intuitive understanding of §§76-77. According to Allison, this divinity is discursive and purposive and, thus, numerically distinct from §§76-77’s intuitive understanding. I argue that this debate between Tuschling and Allison fails to appreciate the varied ways in which Kant predicates divine attributes. The 3rd Critique refers to a single God but does so in various ways. First, Kant literally ascribes an intuitive understanding to God on analytic grounds. Second, Kant analogically ascribes a discursive, purposive mind to this same God. Finally, Kant ascribes moral predicates to this analogical representation of God on practical grounds.

Abstractabstract:Kant's treatment of infinity seems to be plagued by two contradictions. First, the Transcendental Aesthetic claims that space is an infinite given magnitude, whereas the First Antinomy argues that the spatial world cannot be infinite. Second, the Transcendental Aesthetic claims that the representation of infinite space belongs to sensibility, but the third Critique seems to argue, instead, that infinity is an Idea of reason. This paper resolves these apparent contradictions by noting that Kant groups his various conceptions of space into three kinds: (1) merely subjectively given space, (2) objectively given space, and (3) objective space as a mere Idea. Attending to these three conceptions of space illustrates that the Transcendental Aesthetic, First Antinomy, and third Critique refer to different conceptions of infinite space and thus do not contradict one another, illuminating the importance of Kant's various conceptions of space for his critical project.

In §76 of the 3rd Critique, Kant claims that an intuitive understanding would represent no distinction between possible and actual things. Prior interpretations of §76 take Kant to claim that an intuitive understanding would produce things merely in virtue of thinking about them and, thus, could not think of merely possible things. In contrast, I argue that §76’s modal claims hinge on Kant’s suggestion that God represents things in their thoroughgoing determination, including in their connection to God’s actual will. I conclude by using my interpretation to argue that §76’s modal claims do not entail Spinozism.

This volume of essays, written in English and German, focuses primarily on Kant's concept of transcendental freedom. The first Critique famously introduces this concept of freedom in the third antinomy, where Kant examines the apparent tension between the world's need for an uncaused cause and the world's thorough causal determination. Thus, Kant's concept of transcendental freedom is, as this volume emphasizes, a cosmological conception of freedom. Although the volume claims to consider Kant's conception of cosmological freedom from both historical and systematic perspectives, the bulk of the essays focus more heavily on historical matters. Most of the essays in the volume compare and contrast Kant's conception of...

This is a welcome collection of essays addressing Kant’s treatment of natural laws. Kant’s best-known discussion of natural laws is the Critique of Pure Reason’s second analogy, which argues that all alterations take place according to causal laws. But Kant’s overall treatment of natural laws extends far beyond the second analogy. For instance, the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science aims to derive specific laws of motion. The appendix to the Critique of Pure Reason’s transcendental dialectic and the introductions to the Critique of the Power of Judgment examine the notion of a systematic order of particular laws. And the Critique of the Power of Judgment discusses the relationship between mechanical and...

This volume contains essays that examine infinity in early modern philosophy. The essays not only consider the ways that key figures viewed the concept. They also detail how these different beliefs about infinity influenced major philosophical systems throughout the era. These domains include mathematics, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, science, and theology. Coverage begins with an introduction that outlines the overall importance of infinity to early modern philosophy. It then moves from a general background of infinity up through Kant. Readers will learn about the place of infinity in the writings of key early modern thinkers. The contributors profile the work of Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, and Kant. Debates over infinity significantly influenced philosophical discussion regarding the human condition and the extent and limits of human knowledge. Questions about the infinity of space, for instance, helped lead to the introduction of a heliocentric solar system as well as the discovery of calculus. This volume offers readers an insightful look into all this and more. It provides a broad perspective that will help advance the present state of knowledge on this important but often overlooked topic.

In his essay ‘Of the Standard of Taste,’ Hume argues that artworks with morally flawed outlooks (including Homer's poems) are, to some extent, aesthetically flawed. While Hume's remarks regarding the relationship between art and morality have influenced contemporary aestheticians, Hume's own position has struck many people as incoherent. For Hume appears to entangle himself in two separate contradictions. First, Hume seems to claim both that true judges should not enter into vicious sentiments and that true judges should adopt the standpoint of an artwork's intended audience. But The Iliad, say, was obviously intended for an audience that shared Homer's flawed moral outlook. Second, Hume appears to claim that our moral sentiments are both highly resistant to change and extremely fragile. This essay defends Hume against these two objections by drawing increased attention to the role that Hume's aesthetics assigns to the faculty of good sense or sound reason.

Kant claims that an intuitive understanding—such as God would possess—could cognize things in themselves. This claim has prompted many interpreters of Kant's theoretical philosophy to propose that things in themselves correspond to how an intuitive understanding would cognize things. In contrast, I argue that Kant's theoretical philosophy does not endorse the common proposal that all things in themselves correspond to how an intuitive understanding would cognize things. Instead, Kant's theoretical philosophy maintains that things in themselves might or might not correspond to how an intuitive understanding would cognize things. I then consider whether Kant's moral philosophy and theory of reflecting judgment might provide alternative grounds for claiming that we should regard things in themselves as corresponding to how an intuitive understanding would cognize things. I argue that Kant's moral philosophy does not provide such grounds, but his theory of reflecting judgment does. Thus, interpretations of Kant's transcendental idealism should attend to the differences between Kant's theoretical philosophy, moral philosophy, and theory of reflecting judgment in assessing the relationship between intuitive understanding and things in themselves.

A familiar post-Kantian criticism contends that Kant enslaves sensibility under the yoke of practical reason. Friedrich Schiller advanced a version of this criticism to which Kant publicly responded. Recent commentators have emphasized the role that Kant’s reply assigns to the pleasure that accompanies successful moral action. In contrast, I argue that Kant’s reply relies primarily on the sublime feeling that arises when we merely contemplate the moral law. In fact, the pleasures emphasized by other recent commentators depend on this sublime feeling. These facts illuminate Kant’s views regarding the relationship between morality, freedom, and the development of moral feelings.

According to recent commentators like Paul Guyer, Kant agrees with Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion that physico-theology can never provide knowledge of God and that the concept of God, nevertheless, provides a useful heuristic principle for scientific enquiry. This paper argues that Kant, far from agreeing with Hume, criticizes Hume's Dialogues for failing to prove that physico-theology can never yield knowledge of God and that Kant correctly views Hume's Dialogues as a threat to, rather than an anticipation of, his own view that the concept of God provides a useful heuristic principle for science. The paper concludes that Kant's critique of physico-theology reflects Kant's deep dissatisfaction with Hume's manner of argumentation and suggests that Kant's attempt to provide a more successful critique of physico-theology merits continued philosophical attention.