Hot answers tagged

20

You are probably referring to the first two paragraphs of the first book of the Transcendental Dialectic (A312-13/B369). Here they are, in Guyer's translation: "In the great wealth of our languages, the thinking mind nevertheless often finds itself at a loss for an expression that exactly suits its concept, and lacking this it is able to make itself ...


15

Alasdair MacIntyre is a 20th/21st century philosopher writing in English. Immanuel Kant was an 18th century philosopher writing in German. G.W.F Hegel was a 19th century philosopher writing in German. Both were trained in theology at different points during their education. For this education, they had to learn biblical Greek. Adorno was a 20th century ...


13

You're missing an important word. The second formulation of the categorical imperative in the Groundwork is: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. The key phrase here is "never simply." Kant has no problem with entering ...


11

Popper described his rejection of the Kantian a priori here. A reply from a Kantian perspective can be found in this student paper.


11

It occurs in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, here it is in context (from 4:418-19, p.29 in the Gregor's Cambridge translation): "He is not capable of any principle by which to determine with complete certainty what will make him truly happy, because for this omniscience would be required. One can not therefore act on determinate principles ...


10

the categorical imperative asks whether the maxim of your action could become one that everyone could act upon in similar circumstances. If the action could be universalized (i.e., everyone could do it), then it is morally acceptable Kant's principle only applies to the maxim of your action. Eating a potato in and of itself is not a maxim nor does it ...


10

Key text here may be On opinion, knowledge and belief, CPR B 848-859. There is conviction [Überzeugung]. It is the subjective part necessary for knowledge: Taking something to be true is an occurrence in our understanding that may rest on objective grounds, but that also requires subjective causes in the mind of him who judges. If it is valid for ...


10

I think (and I broadly agree here with Eckart Förster, whose book The Twenty-Five Years of Philosophy will be quoted here for reference) that Hegel roughly follows Kant's understanding of science. Therefore, clarifying what Kant wrote about science may help to elucidate how this intertwines with the idea of a single principle. Kant himself on science Kant ...


10

See KRV, Transcendental Dialectic. Bk.I : Of Ideas in General : To coin new words is a pretension to legislation in language which is seldom successful [...].


9

I would start with Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics and then Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals for a broad introduction to many of Kant's most famous ideas. If you want to take a step further into the ideas introduced in those books, continue with the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Practical Reason, respectively. Note: There's nothing ...


9

Under the understanding of a prioricity at issue pre-Two Dogmas of Empiricism, a priori truths were largely conflated with necessary truths. So, if you could recognize the possibility of the failure of the parallel postulate, that would constitute a falsification of its necessity and thus (given the conflation) a falsification of the claim that it was a ...


9

I will answer this question with Kant's own words taken from (my personal favorite of his works) The Critique of the Power of Judgment. Specifically, I will be citing the Cambridge University Press 2nd Edition, edited by Paul Guyer and translated by Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews. Please decide for yourself what you think Kant would think of Darwinian ...


9

It should be said that Husserl was philosophically averse to Kant's "creative" transcendental subject, perhaps due to the dominance of absolute idealist interpretations of him at the time, and preferred to derive his lineage from Hume, whom he credits as the principal forerunner of phenomenology. See Mall's Experience and Reason on their connection, which ...


9

You're right to see some resonances between intuitionism and Kant. However, there's no uncontroversial sense in which you could blithely categorize Kant as an intuitionist. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone do it, as a matter of sociological note. More instructive, I think, than trying to get Kant to fit the intuitionist picture is to explore the subtle ...


8

To answer your question: Yes, it has "survived the scrutiny of philosophers" over the ages since it was published, even though there are some sections which almost certainly do contain logical errors, or he comes to a conclusion which he shouldn't otherwise have been able to reach. However, in many of the instances where a particular critic will identify a ...


8

In some respects, you could say that Sartre is "borrowing from Kant." It will greatly depend on what you mean by borrowing. Iphigenie's comments are highlighting the differences, and those are definitely worth pointing out but a type of "rationalist" heritage is worth bringing up. What I would say is the common thread is an emphasis on "autonomy" and a ...


8

In The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant examines the question of how humans can act in a good way. For Kant, the basis for acting good is the good will. His criterion for the good will is acting from duty. Kant gives the example of a salesman, who serves his customers honestly and for fair prices. But one cannot see from the outside if the ...


8

His main impact may be through the notion of human dignity. I have recently talked to a professor that stated that this term is very vivid in Germany because of the strong kantian tradition, while almost never heard in the Netherlands regarding academic discussions about ethics (she has been a professor for applied ethics there for years). There, ...


8

TL;DR: No, he did not! To be precise, things-in-themselves may be objects of thought, i.e. abstract concepts of the realm of logic, and therefore concepts of transcendental philosophy as logically necessary conditions of the possibility of experience. But they cannot be objects of knowledge, i.e. things that are particular objects of experience subsumed ...


8

For Kant, morality only applies to rational beings. At some points, he will use the word "humanity" as a synonym. Thus, if we look at the second group of formulations of the categorical imperative we find: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at ...


8

To begin with, Kant himself did not speak about courtesy of the heart [Höflichkeit des Herzens] in any of his texts. I made a full-text search in German on the Academy Edition over all 23 volumes - including all written works, lecture notes (also of his students), letters, and fragments and notes - with "des Herzens" (of the heart). The term did not pop up ...


8

There are no counterexamples to Kant's "argument" because it is not an argument. It is a view of predication under which being/existence is not a "real" predicate discussed in Transcendental Dialectic (Chapter III, Section 4): "Anything we please can be made to serve as a logical predicate; the subject can even be predicated of itself; for logic abstracts ...


8

The problem is that our model of space is meant to be a 'form of intuition' for Kant. It should not, then, be modified by experience. There should be nothing out there on the basis of which to modify it, if it is itself an aspect of ourselves and not of nature. Kan't position is that space and time are not real, but are imposed on reality by our ...


7

Does that mean that if Darwin's theory is right, Kant's whole moral philosophy becomes worthless, because his axiom does not hold? No, it means that Kant's whole moral philosophy is imperfect. That's not a big shock; I don't think anybody (outside of Kant himself) actually thought that it was. I think that there are very few today who would doubt that ...


7

How can I will a maxim to become a universal law, surely that kind of power can only be wielded by a god? He means "will" as "desire" or "intend" here; he's not suggesting that, through the efforts of our will alone, the maxim will actually become a universal law.


7

This is probably a misunderstanding. In German, "transcendent" and "transcendental" are not the same. Kant's philosophy is transcendental, not transcendent. In German, this really makes a difference. Transcendent philosophy is what Kant criticises, i.e. empty talk about things we can't know because they're beyond our reason. His philosophy, on the other hand,...


7

The quotation is generally speaking accurate as an interpretation of Kant's account. At 4:393, Kant explicitly says nothing is good except a good will. There's a problem in Kant interpretation (I can find the papers if need be) that centers around the fact Kant never gives a clear definition of "maxim," but along a major interpretive line you add together ...


7

Kant does not refute empiricism - he rescues it. It is Hume that philosophically undermined the standing of empiricism by using its analytical equipment against itself. First, he showed that causality is logically not possible, all one can maintain is that coincidences happen. Hence empirical physics is not possible. Second, he showed that one cannot draw ...


7

In short, Kant's answer is that 'causality' isn't, contra Hume, merely constant perceived conjunction. If this is the case, then the problem of induction applies and it is not possible to infer that there is a necessary connection between a cause and its effect. Instead, Kant argues that causality is an a priori concept of the faculty of understanding. ...


7

First off, I want to say this is a really good question that reflects real thought on an interpretative issue in Kant studies. Second, I think you're grasping some major things but also thinking backwards (by which I mean imposing contemporary categories on what Kant is doing). In terms of your question, one major issue is going to be where in Kant you are ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible