Contemporary debate on Kant’s practical philosophy has focused on racial claims appearing primarily in transcripts of students’ notes taken during his lectures. But was Kant – the champion of world citizenship – really a racist? It is certainly hard to defend him from the charge of racial prejudices. However, a universally exclusivist standard of rationality such as the one he promoted leads at worst to cultural imperialism. It is more doubtful whether this amounted also to a full racist theory, as (...) this would have implied seeing some races as inherently incapable of full rationality. Kant’s biological theory of races – the investigation of race being a theoretical rather than practical task – did not serve such a racist purpose. This article argues that Kant was ultimately interested in scientific distinctions, assuming the point of view of a naturalist researcher (Naturforscher). Accordingly, he cannot be said to be a biological racist. (shrink)

In 1924 the artist Luise Staudinger issued a bronze medal featuring a portrait of Kant on one side and a famous passage from Kant on the other: “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and reverence […]: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.” To this Staudinger added an illustration of a naked young man kneeling with outstretched arms, described by the artist as a man in prayer. Yet this does not seem (...) to fit the meaning of Kant’s words. This paper shows that Luise Staudinger was implicitly referring to her father, Franz Staudinger. In his writings, Staudinger taught that he who truly lives up to the moral law always does what he ought to do out of his own free will and with devotion. It is in fact devotion (Hingabe) that is the key to Luise Staudinger’s illustration. The young man is not in prayer; instead, the figure symbolizes a state of mind, namely obedience to the moral law out of devotion to it. (shrink)

Jens Timmermann challenges the prevailing view that Kant held an intellectualist conception of moral failure, instead arguing that there are two distinct types of practical failure within Kantian ethics. The first type belongs to the domain of hypothetical imperatives, the second to the domain of categorical imperatives. The former can be regarded as an epistemological failure, while the latter is a failure of the will and is ultimately inexplicable. On his view, Kant therefore held a hybrid theory of practical failure. (...) I disagree with Timmermann’s explanation, and this for two reasons. First, Timmermann follows Socrates in denying the impossibility of incontinence in the prudential realm. In reality, however, there are many situations where the agent knows that an action will contribute to his happiness but fails to do so. In other words, there is such a thing as incontinence with regard to hypothetical imperatives. Second, Timmermann’s interpretation is based on the basic assumption that hypothetical imperatives are the embodiment not of freedom but of heteronomy. However, Timmermann sometimes admits that we act freely in the pursuit of happiness. Hypothetical imperatives, in my view, are also the embodiment of human freedom because they are the activity of the human will. (shrink)

This article focuses on the relationship between Kant’s reference to our own body in the context of problems of directionality and the type of resources that, according to him, are necessary to distinguish left and right and to orient ourselves in space. It challenges the almost universally accepted idea that the principle formulated in Dissertatio 15C (namely, that two incongruent counterparts cannot be distinguished by notae) is fatally flawed. While arguing that this principle is correct in its strongest formulation, the (...) article offers a unified line of reasoning that runs precisely from Dissertatio 15C to the presence of the body in 1768/1786 and extends to include several important features of the Transcendental Aesthetic of the first Critique. The final part of the paper explores some of the implications of this reading for Kant’s theory of space and its development. (shrink)

Kant is frequently read as saying that all self-love is bad, and the virtuous agent is one who suppresses self-love as much as possible. This paper argues that this is mistaken and that the right kind of self-love – what Kant calls rational self-love – plays an important role in a successful moral life. It shows how Kant provides a detailed taxonomy of different kinds of self-love. He contrasts the (practical) incentive of self-love with the (pathological) feeling of it, self-love (...) of benevolence with self-love of delight, and self-absorbed/selfish with rational/moral varieties of each. The paper then argues that, while the Critique of Practical Reason only identifies a self-absorbed variety of self-love of delight, self-conceit, it gains a rational counterpart in Religion within the Bounds of Mere Reason: “self-contentment”. This is a positive self-love of delight uniquely felt by the morally good person. It is suggested that this shift reflects Kant’s increasing appreciation of the affective dimension of the virtuous life: for imperfect human beings the moral law must not only be worth obeying, but worth loving. Thus, while for morally bad agents self-love and morality inevitably conflict, good agents can and should love themselves. (shrink)

The article generally aims to demonstrate that Kant’s endeavor with Swedenborg must be considered productive, meaning that “Dreams of a Spirit-Seer” is not merely a slanderous text. Specifically, we will deal with the explanation of “obscure representations”, which, according to Swedenborg, have their basis in the coexistence of the mundus spiritualis (not intelligibilis!) and mundus sensibilis. This theorem proves highly compatible with Kant, leading to an attempt to reconstruct Swedenborg’s considerations ‘within the bounds of bare reason’: Kant’s profane explanation of (...) obscure representations ultimately refers back to semiotics, namely in the sense that the representations are understood as caused by pure rational beings. Obscure representations thus point as signs to a pre-critical ‘realm of ends’. The influence of pure rational beings also manifests itself in a moral-practical sense; it evokes a feeling opposed to egoism, which can easily be traced to the ‘feeling of respect’ or the ‘voice of reason’ from the critical writings. The ‘actual’ spirit-seeing, which Kant explains as a dislocated foco imaginario and thus as a mental defect, is to be distinguished from all of this, as it only describes the special case of the illegitimate externalization of these obscure representations. As will be shown at the end of the article, the theorems taken up in “Dreams of a Spirit-Seer” can be traced further to Kant’s very last writings. (shrink)

In this paper, I propose to resolve the controversy over the derivation of the categories of quantity by spelling out three claims: (1) the three quantitative functions/forms of judgment (universal-particular-singular), qua synthetic categories of quantity (unity-plurality-totality), lawfully direct the determination of sensible manifolds as singular totalities, which (2) brings to light a specifically categorial type of judgmental activity, distinguishable from but presupposed by empirical judgments. This calls for (3) pairing the category of totality with the singular judgment and the category (...) of unity with the universal judgment (‘Order B’), rather than pairing the singular judgment with unity and the universal judgment with totality (‘Order A’). At stake in this controversy is our understanding of the categories’ normativity, their scope, and the division of labor between intuitions and categories in individuating objects. (shrink)

Kant’s duties of love include the duties of beneficence, gratitude, and sympathetic participation. But what is it that allows Kant to bring such seemingly quite heterogeneous duties under one concept, especially under the concept of love? I will argue that it is benevolence as an essential element of love that takes on this unifying role. In order to understand this role of benevolence as the unifying element of the three duties of love, the concept of benevolence will first be analyzed (...) (part 1). Against this background, all three duties of love are then reassessed. Beneficence will be shown to be a proactive form of benevolence (part 2), gratitude to be a reactive form of benevolence (part 3), and sympathetic participation is understood as a form of reciprocal benevolence (part 4). (shrink)

According to a common reading of Kant, autonomy refers to the idea that pure reason gives the moral law to itself. Pauline Kleingeld and Marcus Willaschek reject this standard view both on textual as well as philosophical grounds. Instead, they argue that autonomy only selects mid-level principles, such as ‘help others,’ and that the moral law is a priori and not given. – In this paper, I first analyze on textual grounds what Kant means when he says that a principle (...) is a priori. I argue that Kant does not conceive of a priori laws as permanently existing entities. Rather they are the product of how reason necessarily functions if it is prompted by sensibility. Kant also uses the word ‘autonomy’ in this context. I then argue that this non-standard view of autonomy as an activity can meet the philosophical objections that Kleingeld and Willaschek raise against autonomy as a giving of the moral law. (shrink)

Kant uses two metaphors in his early works on cosmogony: “Fire Treasures” and his famous figure of a “Phoenix of Nature”. This study suggests two sources Kant may have known. The first metaphor, goes back to the German translation of Leibniz’s Protogaea (1749) or a review of the Protogaea by Gottsched. Both appeared in the same year as the Latin text. Kant receipts the second metaphor most likely from the English poet Abraham Cowley (his poem: “The Extasie”). Both metaphors are (...) significant because they explain and illustrate Kant’s recourse to the Stoic doctrine of ekpyrosis, i. e. the passing away through a world-fire and the renewal of the cosmos from the elementary particles created in this holocaustic process. (shrink)

Markus Kohl, Ruben Schneider and (in substance) Marcus Willaschek have recently argued that Kant’s theoretical philosophy includes a radical negative theology. This article criticises this radical reading. On the one hand, it argues that different Kantian passages that seem to speak for the absolute incomprehensibility of the highest being can be interpreted as showing that Kant merely rejects comprehensibility according to the pattern of schematised cognition of the understanding (there is no concrete cognition of God). The paper goes on to (...) show that Kant advocates a form of ‘regulative deism’ (although he also associates deism with a form of atheism) and that the analytical conclusions of deistic transcendental theology are no less substantial in principle than those of the Transcendental Aesthetic of the KrV. What Kohl’s, Schneider’s and Willaschek’s interpretations lose sight of is the fact that Kant continuously characterises the highest being conceived by reason in the KrV as a “faultless ideal.”. (shrink)

This paper provides a detailed analysis of how, according to Kant, the moral badness of some third parties’ actions can be established with certainty (by anyone, not only by the agent’s own conscience or by God). This account helps clarify why Kant affirms that some forms of wrongdoing (of which there are a “multitude of woeful examples”) can be demonstrated to be immoral, while excluding the possibility of proving the moral goodness of any action. The paper concludes by arguing that (...) the possible certainty of judgements imputing immorality to actions of others is not rational but rather moral. (shrink)

In his third essay on earthquakes, Kant refers to “Pater Bina’s” electric interpretation of seismic phenomena. Although not a distinguished scholar, and maybe for that reason frequently confused with a certain “Father Isidore Binet”, Bina was nevertheless a noteworthy author. A Cassinese benedictine, Andrea Bina was a philosopher interested in sciences just like Kant; he studied Newton, translated Wolff, invented a seismoscope and was appreciated by his contemporaries at home and beyond the Alps. Kant’s laconic quotation, followed by a value (...) judgement regarding only Bina’s “audacity”, raises some questions, including, in primis those about the meaning of his hasty judgment. A plausible well-grounded answer should be looked for in the bio-bibliographical outline of the neglected author and in the perusal of his writings. The analysis of Bina’s Ragionamento sopra le cagioni de’ terremoti (1751) contributes to our knowledge of the eighteenth-century cultural background and helps us understand the degree of knowledge of the seismic phenomena acquired by men who – amidst many difficulties and hindered by the limits of their science – could only rely on secondhand data often imbued with misconceptions. Comparing Bina’s work – although indirectly – with Kant’s Fortgesetzte Betrachtung der seit einiger Zeit wahrgenommenen Erderschütterungen (1756) may help bring to light some convergences, as well as differences, which might be of use in clarifying some peculiarities of the Prussian Naturforscher. (shrink)

In this article, I explicate Kant’s position on the wide right to abortion. That is, I explore the extent to which, according to Kant’s practical philosophy, abortion is punishable, even if it involves an unjust infringement of the right to life. By focusing on the state’s right to punish, rather than the right to life or the onset of personhood, I use Kant to expose a novel range of issues and questions about the legal status of abortion (and criminal punishment (...) more generally). The article is divided into four sections. In the first, I lay the groundwork for Kant’s theory of rights and briefly canvass some of the literature on Kantian approaches to abortion. In the second, I look at Kant’s discussion of equivocal rights. In the third, I turn to Kant’s discussions of capital punishment and suicide. In the fourth, I examine Kant on honor killings, and I use his position on infanticide in order to extrapolate and explain his ideas about the right to punish in the context of abortion. (shrink)

Alois Riehl was one of the few Kantian-inspired philosophers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century who argued for a realist approach to Kant’s original doctrine. He therefore rejected prevailing idealist reconstructions and attempted to establish a view of Kant as an important forerunner of what he programmatically called ‘critical realism.’ In the present paper it will be shown what this exactly meant for the interpretation of Kant’s and especially Riehl’s own critique of idealism as a systematic position. In (...) particular, it is stated that anti-idealism in Riehlian terms amounts to a ‘realistic rehabilitation’ of Kantian things-in-themselves. Furthermore, some connections are drawn to early-twentieth century American realism. (shrink)

In this article I intend to justify six theses: (1) Temporal becoming is founded in an intuition-form of self-intuition, whereas physical space-time is independent of any form of intuition; (2) communicable thoughts are, as Kant says, products of self-consciousness; (3) both roots of idealism are connected by the tensed form of predication; (4) the thinking subject is, as Kant says, an appearance for itself; (5) the subject has, in virtue of this nature, the capacity of mental causality; and (6) mental (...) causality is a sufficient basis for a Kantian “causality from freedom”. (shrink)

Based on a comparison of various sources, such as different editions, correspondence, reviews, and lecture transcripts, it is shown that Ludwig Heinrich Jakob’s Outline of the General Logic and Critical Elements of Metaphysics in General uses one or more transcripts of Kant’s Logic Lectures as a source. In addition to the thus far known texts by Kiesewetter and Hippel, Jakob’s textbook should therefore also be added to the list of secondary transmissions of Kant’s Logic Lectures.

It is well known that Kant connects judgment and feeling in the third Critique. However, the precise relationship between these two faculties remains virtually unexplored, in large part due to the unpopularity of Kant’s faculty psychology. This paper considers why, for Kant, judgment and feeling go together, arguing that he had good philosophical reasons for forging this connection. The discussion begins by situating these faculties within Kant’s mature faculty psychology. While the ‘power of judgment’ [Urteilskraft] is fundamentally reflective, feeling [Gefühl] (...) reveals itself as essentially non-discursive. Their systematic connection emerges through the principle of purposiveness [Zweckmäßigkeit], which the former legislates for the latter. I claim that we must understand this notion in terms of the suitability of the faculties for each other, as displayed in mere reflection. That is, we can only recognize the fitness of two things for each other through feeling, which, in turn, is the only way that we can engage in the activity of merely reflecting judgment. I conclude by gesturing at an even further way in which judgment and feeling are related, based on their mutual role in orienting all of the faculties of the human mind. (shrink)

In the Dialectic of the first Critique, Kant claims that a highest being is the transcendental ideal of speculative reason. However, the Canon of the Doctrine of Method presents the highest good as an ideal of both the speculative and the practical use of reason. In this paper, I argue (1) that the highest good is the ideal of the unity of reason – unlike the ideal in the Dialectic – insofar as (2) the highest good serves both the speculative (...) and the practical employment of reason. Accordingly, I also argue that (3) these two employments are complementary, not alternative. Kant’s argument for the ideal of the highest good in the Canon shows that the unity of reason combines the two lawful employments of reason. In order to be reason’s highest ideal, this ideal cannot just mirror the demands of speculative reason – it must also involve the other fundamental employment of reason, i. e., the practical. This highest standpoint cannot be merely speculative but must be moral as well: not just a highest ideal, but also a good (the highest good). (shrink)

According to Kant, concepts can be used in three different ways, i.e. an empirical (= pre-philosophical) use, a transcendentally real (= philosophically inadequate) use, and a transcendentally ideal (= philosophically reasonable) use. Regarding the concept of the world as a whole, however, Kant misrepresents the empirical meaning and therefore overlooks the transcendentally ideal understanding of “everything”. Along this guiding line, the paper defends Kant’s program of showing that spatiotemporal objects are conditioned by subjective, non-empirical conditions against the charge that it (...) is inconsistent with Kant’s alleged solution of the antinomies. It turns out that Kant’s program is consistent both with ontological realism about the world and with empirical realism about, e.g., the Big Bang. The remaining problem is how to formalize in modal logic unrestricted quantification in its transcendentally ideal usage. (shrink)

The article analyzes volume 19, 1793, of Neueste Critische Nachrichten, in which an anonymous review of Kant’s Religion within the boundaries of mere reason was published. Evidence is presented to establish that the review was authored by Samuel Bernhard Wilcke, a young lecturer at the University of Greifswald, who passed away the following year. After examining Wilcke’s Essay of invitation to his lectures on Kantian philosophy, the review itself is commented upon. Finally, the reviewer’s critique is related to Kant’s reply (...) in the Preface to the second edition of the Religion. (shrink)

Recently, Uriah Kriegel and Mark Timmons have suggested a “phenomenology of Kantian Respect for Persons”. They offer a reconstruction of Kant’s own account of the phenomenology of respect for persons as well as a refinement of their own. I shall argue that at least with regard to their reconstruction of Kant’s account, they do not succeed. There are a number of shortcomings, the most grievous of which is that Kant does offer a detailed phenomenology of respect in his second Critique (...) which Kriegel and Timmons, however, pay no attention to. (shrink)

The article gathers five new autographed testimonies from Kant’s life: a dedication copy to Hasse, a fragment on plagiarism, a letter of office from the second rectorate (1788), and two album-amicorum entries with a Persius quotation via Alexander Pope.

This miscellany reports on a newly found dedication copy of Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of mere Reason (1793) to his dear friend and former student Carl Gottlieb Fischer.