Tobias Rosefeldt

According to the standard interpretation of the First Paralogism, its fallacy is based on a confusion between two meanings of the term ‘subject’, namely that of ‘thinking subject’ and that of ‘subject of predication’. This chapter argues that this interpretation is incorrect and that Kant in fact explains the illusion of cognizing ourselves as thinking substances by a misinterpretation of a certain logico-semantical feature of the representation ‘I’, namely that of non-predicability. This interpretation puts the First Paralogism in accord with the other Paralogisms, all of which are claimed by Kant to stem from a confusion between ‘logical’ and ‘real’ features of the self. It also allows us to relate the chapter on the paralogisms to Kant’s views on the connection between the ideas of pure reason and the progress towards the unconditioned in chains of prosyllogisms.

This article offers the first systematic investigation of the linguistic forms in which Kant expresses his transcendental idealism since Gerold Prauss’ seminal book Kant und das Problem der Dinge an sich. It is argued that Prauss’ own argument for the claim that ‘in itself’ is an adverbial expression that standardly modifies verbs of philosophical reflection is flawed and that there is hence very poor exegetical evidence for so-called ‘methodological two-aspect’ interpretations of Kant’s transcendental idealism. A comprehensive investigation of Kant’s adverbial uses of ‘in itself’ rather reveals that there are various groups of verbs that ‘in itself’ modifies, which can more or less all be reduced to a standard use in which ‘in itself’ modifies verbs of predicative being such as the copula. It is also discussed how these findings can be accommodated by the two main alternative kinds of interpretations, that is, two-object and ontological two-aspect interpretations.

This paper deals with the question of whether Kant's transcendental idealism allows for an explanation of the a posteriori aspects of mental content by the properties of empirical objects. I first show that a phenomenalist interpretation has severe problems with assuming that we perceive an object as being red or as being cubical partly because the perceived object is red and cubical, and then present an interpretation that allows us to save the realistic intuition behind these claims. According to this interpretation, Kantian phenomenal properties are understood as response-dependent properties of extra-mental objects that also have to have some response-independent (in-itself-) properties. I show that this interpretation is well supported by Kant's remarks about the transcendental object in the A-edition of the first Critique and that it also makes intelligible why Kant took explanations of mental content by means of empirical properties to imply an explanation by means of noumenal properties without thereby violating his own doctrine of noumenal ignorance. This not only allows us to establish a realistic reading of Kant idealism but also to discern the true kernel in Adickes’ infamous talk about Kant's theory of double affection.

Der Band dokumentiert die Beitrage eines Symposions, das vom 21. bis 23. November 2018 an der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften stattfand und zwei Jubilaen miteinander verknupfte: den 250. Geburtstag Schleiermachers am 21. November und den 200. Jahrestag von Hegels Berliner Antrittsvorlesung am 22. Oktober 1818. Die zeitliche Nahe beider Jubilaen war Anlass, einen neuen Blick auf die Stellung und das Verhaltnis beider Denker zu werfen. Wurden Schleiermacher und Hegel bisher zumeist als Antipoden wahrgenommen, so ging es hier darum, hinter den Differenzen auch die Gemeinsamkeiten auf dem Boden der nachkantischen Klassischen Deutschen Philosophie in den Blick zu nehmen. Es zeigt sich, dass beide gerade in der Einschatzung der Problemlage der nachkantischen Philosophie und der Richtung, in der sie Antworten suchen, vielfach Ubereinstimmungen aufweisen, die es so mit anderen Philosophen der Epoche nicht gibt.

In the Transcendental Aesthetic of the Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant famously claims that we have an a priori intuition of space as an ‘infinite given magnitude’. Later on, in the Transcendental Analytic, he seems to add that the intuition of space presupposes a synthetic activity of the transcendental imagination. Several authors have recently pointed out that these two claims taken together give rise to two problems. First, it is unclear how the transcendental imagination of a finite mind could ever result in the intuition of an entity that is infinitely large. Second, Kant claims that our intuition of space has a ‘whole-prior-to-its-parts’ structure, such that its parts are given only as limitations of the whole, while synthesis is compositional and has a ‘parts-prior-to-their-whole’ structure, because it consists in first running through and then taking together the parts of a sensible manifold. I will solve these two problems by showing that Kant thought that synthesis does not always have a compositional structure but that there is also a form of ‘decomposing’ synthesis, which has a whole-prior-to-its-parts structure. Building on similarities between Kant, Edmund Husserl and G. W. F. Hegel, I will argue that infinite space is given to us in intuition by precisely such an activity of decomposition, one that allows us to differentiate between finite spatial objects and the unlimited phenomenal horizon in which they appear.

In this paper I present a new solution to the so-called ‘neglected alternative’ objection against Kant’s argument for transcendental idealism. According to this objection, Kant does not give sufficient justification for his claim that not only are space and time forms of our intuition but they also fail to be things in themselves or properties thereof. I first discuss a proposal by Willaschek and Allais, who try to defend Kant against this charge by building on his account of a priori intuition, and argue that it is insufficient to meet the objection in its full force. I then present my own solution to the problem. It is based on a reconstruction of Kant’s account of properties of appearances, and tries to show that this account implies that spatio-temporal properties could in principle not pertain both to appearances and to things in themselves.

one of kant's most famous claims is his dictum about existence. In the course of his criticism of the ontological argument, he writes:Being is obviously not a real predicate, i.e., a concept of something that could be added to the concept of a thing.One reason why this passage is so famous is that many people think that it anticipates a discovery about the logical form of existence claims that was later central for the development of analytic philosophy and its project of overcoming metaphysical confusions by logical analysis. There are two prominent interpretations that read Kant's dictum along these lines. The first, and by far most popular, interprets Kant as holding a proto-Fregean view about existence.2...

In recent years, more and more people have become attracted by the idea that the imagination should play a central role in explaining our knowledge of what is possible and necessary and what would be the case if things were different from how they actually are. The biggest challenge for this account is to explain how the imagination can be restricted in such a way that it can play this epistemic role, for there are certainly also unrestricted uses of the imagination in which it fails to yield the requisite knowledge. In this paper, I inquire how Kant’s account of the imagination could inspire the contemporary debate at this point. I first give an overview about Kant’s account of the imagination and its different roles for our cognition of the real world. I then show that some recent attempts to separate the epistemically valuable uses of the imagination from the epistemically worthless ones bear some striking similarities to Kant’s ideas about how the imagination helps us to get insight into metaphysical possibility. By discussing what Kant says about the method of a priori imaginative construction in the case of concepts such as that of matter and that of disembodied minds, I also point to those aspects of his view which make his views really distinct from all contemporary accounts, but which he himself thought bear the greatest potential of making the imagination a source of modal knowledge.

This paper argues that ‘that’-clauses are not singular terms (without denying that their semantical values are propositions). In its first part, three arguments are presented to support the thesis, two of which are defended against recent criticism. The two good arguments are based on the observation that substitution of ‘the proposition that p’ for ‘that p’ may result in ungrammaticality. The second part of the paper is devoted to a refutation of the main argument for the claim that ‘that’-clauses are singular terms, namely that this claim is needed in order to account for the possibility of quantification into ‘that’-clause position. It is shown that not all quantification in natural languages is quantification into the position of singular terms, but that there is also so-called ‘non-nominal quantification’. A formal analysis of non-nominal quantification is given, and it is argued that quantification into ‘that’-clause position can be treated as another kind non-nominal quantification.

Naturalized metaphysics is based on the idea that philosophy should be guided by the sciences. The paradigmatic science that is relevant for metaphysics is physics because physics tells us what fundamental reality is ultimately like. There are other sciences, however, that de facto play a role in philosophical inquiries about what there is, one of them being the science of language, i.e. linguistics. In this paper I will be concerned with the question what role linguistics should and does play for the metametaphysical question of how our views about fundamental reality can be reconciled with the everyday truisms about what there is. I will present several examples of two kinds of approaches to this question, linguistics-based accounts and purely philosophical accounts, and will discuss their respective methodological merits and shortcomings. In the end I will argue that even proponents of a purely philosophical answer to the metametaphysical question should take the results of linguistics seriously.

Gefragt wird: Was ist das Besondere an Überzeugungen de se, also solchen Überzeugungen über sich selbst, bei denen man weiß, daß man selbst es ist, über den man eine Überzeugung hat? Kritisiert werden die Positionen Tugendhats und Henrichs: die von Tugendhat, weil dieser mit seinen Bemerkungen zur veritativen Symmetrie zwischen „ich"- und „er"-Sätzen die Besonderheit solcher Überzeugungen nur zirkulär erklären kann , seine Annahme einer epistemischen Asymmetrie zwischen Überzeugungen de se und anderen Überzeugungen aber unhaltbar ist ; die von Henrich, weil dessen Unterscheidung von Subjekt und Person sowie seine Annahme eines privaten Begriffes, den ein Subjekt von sich selbst hat, nicht erklären können, was sie erklären sollen. Favorisiert wird John Perrys Ansatz: Überzeugungen de se unterscheiden sich von anderen Überzeugungen mit dem gleichen Wahrheitswert nicht durch ihren Gehalt, sondern durch den Zustand, in dem sich jemand befindet, der eine solche Überzeugung hat