Hein van den Berg. Kant on Proper Science: Biology in the Critical Philosophy and the Opus postumum. Dordrecht: Springer, 2015. Pp. 283. $129.00 (cloth); $99.00 (ebook).

Author(s):  
Andrea Gambarotto
Kant Yearbook ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Idan Shimony

AbstractKant’s theory of biology in the Critique of the Power of Judgment may be rejected as obsolete and attacked from two opposite perspectives. In light of recent advances in biology one can claim contra Kant, on the one hand, that biological phenomena, which Kant held could only be explicated with the help of teleological principles, can in fact be explained in an entirely mechanical manner, or on the other, that despite the irreducibility of biology to physico-mechanical explanations, it is nonetheless proper science. I argue in response that Kant’s analysis of organisms is by no means obsolete. It reveals biology’s uniqueness in much the same way as several current theorists do. It brings to the fore the unique purposive characteristics of living phenomena, which are encapsulated in Kant’s concept of “natural end” and which must be explicated in natural terms in order for biology to become a science. I maintain that Kant’s reluctance to consider biology proper science is not a consequence of his critical philosophy but rather of his inability to complete this task. Kant lacked an appropriate theoretical framework, such as provided later by modern biology, which would enable the integration of the unique features of biology in an empirical system. Nevertheless, as I show in this paper, the conceptual problems with which Kant struggled attest more to the relevance and depth of his insights than to the shortcomings of his view. His contribution to the biological thought consists in insisting on an empirical approach to biology and in providing the essential philosophical underpinning of the autonomous status of biology.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Chris L. Firestone

Abstract Stephen R. Palmquist’s Kant and Mysticism revisits his earlier work on Kant and Swedenborg, arguing that, contrary to standard interpretations, the arguments of Dreams of a Spirit-Seer expand into ‘Critical mysticism’ throughout the Critical philosophy and into the Opus Postumum. Although the beginning portions of Palmquist’s book successfully disturb the standard portrait of Kant as the all-destroyer of metaphysics and religious experience, his argument for critical mysticism is inconclusive. It is impossible to know if his interpretation of the Opus Postumum is more right than its competitors. The conflict of interpretations shows Palmquist’s interpretation to be a hermeneutic impossible possibility.


Author(s):  
Immanuel Kant
Keyword(s):  

2015 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Calvo Portela
Keyword(s):  

El teísmo moral que defiende Kant es un eje crucial de su filosofía. Pero las ideas de Dios y de la inmortalidad del alma como postulados de la razón práctica conllevan una serie de problemas, como, por ejemplo, la cosificación de lo noúmeno, el antropomorfismo de la noción de Dios y la relación entre inmanencia y transcendencia. El intento por parte de Kant de dar una respuesta a estas cuestiones le lleva en las últimas obras a replantearse el papel de la divinidad. De ahí que se dé una paulatina identificación entre la razón práctica universal y la idea de Dios, que llegará a defenderse claramente en su Opus Postumum. Me propongo hacer un estudio de dicha identificación a través de la comparación entre Kant y la postura de Fichte en los textos de la polémica del ateísmo.DOI  http://dx.doi.org/10.15304/ag.34.2.1752


Author(s):  
Jill Vance Buroker

Kant’s Critical philosophy depends on the distinction between theoretical and practical reason, which he borrowed from Aristotle. But unlike Aristotle Kant claims that theoretical reason is subordinate to practical reason. This raises the possibility that theoretical judging could be a voluntary activity. This chapter investigates Kant’s view of the relation between theoretical judgments and the will. Based on Andrew Chignell’s recent work, it is argued that Kant recognizes the legitimate direct use of the will only in judgments he labels Belief (Glaube). With respect to Knowledge, his position is identical to Descartes’s position on clear and distinct perception. An analysis of Kant’s voluntarism regarding the activities of theoretical reason provides a model for subordinating theoretical reason to practical reason.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document