KANTS CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON

GPHI 6065
SPRING 2006
PROFESSOR J M BERNSTEIN
Background reading and overview: Immanuel Kant by Otfried Hoffe, SUNY re!!"
Kant#! $ir!t %riti&ue '(ereafter: %)* i! t(e te+t for t(i! !eme!ter" ,e will be u!ing t(e tran!lation by Norman
Kem-.Smit(, but feel free to con!ult t(e new tran!lation! by lu(ar, and /uyer and ,ood" It i! a com-licated
work, and you will need to u!e a commentary0 t(e mo!t u!eful advanced commentary i! -robably Henry
1lli!on#! Kant#! 2ran!cendental Ideali!m0 t(e mo!t u!eful mid.range commentary i! Seba!tian /ardner, Kant
and t(e %riti&ue of ure )ea!on 'in t(e )outledge !erie!*" %o-ie! of t(e!e te+t! are available from Barne! and
Noble, 34
t(
Street" I will -lace a more e+ten!ive !election of !econdary literature in t(e S(ort 5oan !ection of t(e
library"
,riting )e&uirement!" One cannot read Kant wit(out writing at t(e !ame time" ,(at i! wanted are brief
!ummarie! 'a--" 678 word!*, in your own word!, of t(e central argument! of t(e te+t" 2o t(i! end everyone
mu!t write a mini.commentary on, at lea!t, 2o-ic! 3.9, and :" You are of cour!e encouraged to write a mini.
commentary on eac( to-ic" You will find t(i! e+erci!e invaluable" Becau!e t(e cour!e i! too large for me to
mark eac( commentary, you !(ould break your!elve! u- into !tudy grou-! of ;.9 !tudent! eac(, and eac( of you
mark one anot(er<! commentarie!" 2(i! will give you t(e o--ortunity to read t(e commentary of at lea!t two
ot(er !tudent!, and force everyone to work out t(e detail! of t(e argument" In order for t(i! e+erci!e to be
effective, it i! e!!ential t(at t(e commentarie! be written at t(e correct time:
%ommentary 3: before t(e t(ird lecture
%ommentary =: before t(e fift( lecture
%ommentary ;: before t(e !event( lecture
%ommentary 9: before t(e nint( lecture
%ommentary 7: before t(e twelft( lecture
You mu!t include a co-y of your five commentarie! wit( your final -a-er" No one will receive a grade on t(eir
final e!!ay unle!! t(ey (ave !ubmitted t(eir five commentarie!" >veryone will (ave one of t(eir fir!t t(ree
commentarie! graded by me"
You can u!e t(e !tudy &ue!tion! below to guide you in writing your mini.commentarie!, and in c(oo!ing a to-ic
for your final -a-er" /iven (ow difficult a writer Kant i!, I !trong recommend t(at your final -a-er be t(e
evaluation of !ome central !tretc( of t(e argument" 2(e literature on Kant i! e+cellent, and t(ere are debate!
galore on every to-ic" If you want to do !omet(ing le!! obviou! for your final e!!ay, get -ermi!!ion from me
fir!t"
The final essay is !e "n M"nay# May $%
Secondary 5iterature
lntroductorv
S" Korner, Kant
5" /oldmann, Immanuel Kant
)" Scruton, Kant
3
)eference: Howard %aygill, 1 Kant ?ictionary
%ommentary
N" Kem-.Smit(, 1 %ommentary to Kant#! %riti&ue
,"H" ,al!(, Kant#! %ritici!m of @eta-(y!ic!
2">" ,ilker!on, Kant<! %riti&ue of ure )ea!on
%"?" Broad, Kant: 1n Introduction
K" Aa!-er!, Kant, a -art of (i! 2(e /reat (ilo!o-(er!, but al!o !e-arately -rinted"
/" @artin, Kant#! @eta-(y!ic! and 2(eorv of Science
H" 1lli!on, Kant#! 2ran!cendental Ideali!m
" /uyer, Kant and t(e %laim! of Knowledge
)obert i--in, Kant#! 2(eorv of $orm
BBatrice 5onguene!!e, Kant and t(e %a-acity to Audge
@artin Heidegger, Kant and t(e roblem of @eta-(y!ic!
@artin Heidegger, (enomenological Inter-retation of Kant<! %riti&ue of ure )ea!on
2(eodor ," 1dorno, Kant<! %riti&ue of ure)ea!on
1rt(ur %ollin!, o!!ible >+-erience: Under!tanding Kant<! %riti&ue of ure )ea!on
Seba!tian /ardner, Kant and t(e %riti&ue of ure )ea!on
Karl 1merik!, Inter-reting Kant<! %riti&ue!
>ric ,atkin!, Kant and t(e @eta-(y!ic! of %au!ality
1"B" ?icker!on, Kant on )e-re!entation and ObCectivity
1rgument wit( Kant
"$" Straw!on, 2(e Bound! of Sen!e
A" Bennett, Kant<! 1nalytic
A" Bennett, Kant<! ?ialectic
)"%"S" ,alker, Kant
)eworkingKant
"$" Straw!on Individual!
5e!lie Steven!on, 2(e @eta-(y!ic! of >+-erience
)ecent %ollection! of 1rticle! on t(e $ir!t %riti&ue
1llen ,ood, ed", Self and Nature in Kant#! (ilo!o-(y
5"," Beck, ed", Kant#! 2(eory of Knowledge
)"%"S" ,alker, ed", Kant on ure )ea!on
aul /uyer, ed", 2(e %ambridge %om-anion to Kant
>va Sc(a-er D , Eo!!enku(l, ed!", )eading Kant
> $o!ter, ed", Kant<! 2ran!cendental ?eduction!
atricia Kitc(er, Kant<! %riti&ue of ure )ea!on: %ritical >!!ay!
%OU)S> OU25IN>
2(e %our!e Outline i! a li!t of to-ic!" Some will take le!! and ot(er! more t(an a week0 t(e li!t i! of only a
guide to !e&uence"
2o-ic 3: 2(e %o-ernican 2urn and 2ran!cendental Ideali!m
)ead %), Introduction and al!o B6;7.6::, 2(e ?i!ci-line of ure )ea!on in it! ?ogmatic
=
>m-loyment, w(ic( i! Kant#! critici!m of t(e time.(onoured analogy between mat(ematical and -(ilo!o-(ical
met(od"
1lli!on: %(!" 3 and ; and --" 3;;.: on di!cu!!ion of !en!e! of obCect in %)0 /ardner, c(!" 3.;"
$urt(er: ,ilker!on, %(" I, ,al!(, 3 and =, on t(e general enter-ri!e0 ,"E"O" Fuine, #2wo ?ogma! of
>m-irici!m#, in $rom a 5ogical oint of Eiew for modern critici!m of an analyticG!ynt(etic di!tinction0 5","
Beck, #,(at Have ,e 5earned from KantH# in ,ood, ed"0 (ili- Kitc(er, IKant<! 1 riori $ramework,< in
Kitc(er 'ed"*"
,(y doe! Kant t(ink t(at t(e intractable -roblem! of meta-(y!ic! may yield if we work on t(e (y-ot(e!i! not
t(at knowledge conform! to obCect!, but t(at obCect! conform to our knowledgeH ,(y doe! (e call t(i! a
#%o-ernican# turnH How doe! Kant recon!truct t(e di!tinction between #reality# and #a--earance#H ,(at i! t(e
-oint of !aying t(at t(i! move limit! knowledge to make room for fait(H ,(at are t(e two di!tinction! between
analytic and !ynt(etic and between a -riori and a -o!terioriH How are t(ey relatedH ,(y i! it im-ortant to Kant
to draw two di!tinction!H ,(y i! t(e claim t(at t(ere are !ynt(etic a -riori Cudgment! controver!ialH ,(at i! t(e
difference between a tran!cendent meta-(y!ic! and tran!cendental in&uirie!H ,(at do we now !ee about t(e
nature of a #criti&ue# of rea!onH ,(at are t(e im-lication! of an #ant(ro-ocentric
<
a--roac( in -(ilo!o-(yH
2o-ic =: S-ace, 2ime and lurality
%), B;;.6;, 2ran!cendental 1e!t(etic0 1lli!on, %(!" =, 9 D 70 /ardner, c(" 9"
$urt(er: ,al!(, ;.:0 ,ilker!on, c(" II0 Bennett, 1nalytic, 5-20 'u!e t(e analytical table of content! for
guidance0 J36 i! u!eful on conce-t! and intuition!*0 Straw!on, Individual!, art I !ection =0 ,alker, %(!" IE D
E0 O#Neill, KS-ace and ObCect!K, Aournal of (ilo!o-(v, 3L6:0 5orne $alken!tein, I,a! Kant a Nativi!tH< in
Kitc(er 'ed"*" ar!on!, MKant#! (ilo!o-(y of 1rit(meticK in ,alker, ed"0 Straw!on, Individual!0 @artin,
!electively0 Hintikka, #On Kant#! @at(ematical intuition!# in enel(um and @acInto!(, ed!"0 @argaret ,il!on,
#2(e (enomenali!m of Kant and Berkeley#, in Beck, ed"0 %(arle! ar!on!, #2(e 2ran!cendental 1e!t(etic#, 2(e
%ambridge %om-anion to Kant"
Newtonian and 5eibniNian view! of !-ace" ,(y doe! Kant reCect bot(H How im-ortant are claim! about
geometry and arit(metic to Kant#! argumentH ,(y doe! (e conclude t(at S-ace and 2ime are #form! of
intuition#H ,(at i! t(e contra!t between intuition! and conce-t!H Between form! of intuition and conce-t!H %an
you imagine a non.!-atial worldH I! it im-ortant w(et(er you canH ,(at doe! #outer# mean#H ,(at doe! Kant
mean w(en (e !ay! !-ace i! t(e form of outer !en!e#H I! t(i! a tautologyH ,(at i! em-irical reali!mH ,(at i!
tran!cendental ideali!mH w(at are t(ing! in t(em!elve!?
2o-ic ;: Self and %ategorie!
%) B 69.38L and 1 L4.3380 $ourt( aralogi!m, 1;:6.;48 and B98L 1lli!on: :, 3=, 3;"
$urt(er: ?e!carte!, @editation!, II0 Hume, 2reati!e I"iv"vi0 ,al!(, 6.360 Bennett, )ationality0 1rt(ur @elnick,
Kant<! 1nalogie! of >+-erience, %(" 3 'B, 9.7*0 Klau! )eic(, 2(e %om-letene!! of Kant<! 2able of
Audgement!0 e!!ay! by Young and /uyer in /uyer 'ed"*0 O#Neill, #2ran!cendental Synt(e!i! and ?evelo-mental
!yc(ology, Kant.Studien, 3L490 atricia Kitc(er, #Kant#! )eal Self in ,ood, ed"0 )" i--in, #Kant on t(e
S-ontaneity of mind#, %anadian Aournal of (ilo!o-(y 36G= '3L46*0 Aay )o!enberg, K#I t(inkK: Some )eflection!
on Kant#! aralogi!m!#, @idwe!t Studie! in (ilo!o-(y, 38'3L4:*0 C 2(oma! owell, Kant#! 2(eory of Self.
%on!ciou!ne!!, c(!" 3,70 ?ieter Henric(", #2(e Identity of t(e SubCect in t(e 2ran!cendental ?eduction#

in
Sc(a-er D Eo!!enku(l 'ed!*" 5onguene!!e, Kant and t(e %a-acity to Audge, -art! One and 2wo"
,(at i! a category for KantH ,(at i! t(e relation between categorie! and CudgementH ,(at i! a meta-(y!ical
;
deductionH I! t(e li!t of categorie! com-leteH
,(y doe! Kant t(ink t(at knowledge re&uire! a certain !ort of !elf.identity, t(e #tran!cendental unity of
a--erce-tion#H How doe! t(i! !elf.identity differ from %arte!ian and from Human !elve!H ?oe! it follow from
t(e claim t(at t(e element! of e+-erience mu!t be unifiable t(at t(ey mu!t be united according to !-ecifiable
-rinci-le!H w(at i! t(e difference between t(e claim t(at t(ere are !ome categorie! or ot(er, and t(e claim t(at
all t(e categorie! t(ere are can be li!tedH How !eriou!ly !(ould we take t(e table of categorie!H How far i! Kant
committed to individuali!mH ,(at, if anyt(ing, doe! (e !ay about inter!ubCectivityH S(ould we e+-ect general
logic to give a clue to w(ic( categorie! t(ere areH ,(yH
2o-ic 9: ObCectivity and 2ran!cendental Ideali!m
%), 2(e ObCective ?eduction, B 3=L.3670 2(e )efutation of Ideali!m, B =69.46" 1lli!on: 6,390 /ardner, --"
337 .3:7"
$urt(er: )elevant !ection! in e"g" 1lli!on, '/uyer, ,ilker!on0 3*" Henric(, #2(e roof Structure of Kant#!
2ran!cendental ?eduction# in ,alker, ed, or in )eview of @eta-(y!ic! 3L:4.L 'difficult*, and (i! #Identity
and ObCectivity# w(ic( a--ear! a! c("L of (i! 2(e Unity of )ea!on0 A" Hartnack, #B3;= )evi!ited# in Beck, ed"
/uyer, art IE0 Karl 1merik!, MKant<! tran!cendental ?eduction a! a )egre!!ive 1rgument,O in Kitc(er 'ed"*0
1"B" ?icker!on, Kant on )e-re!entation and ObCectivity" ,e !(all not cover recent di!cu!!ion! of
tran!cendental argument!0 reading !ugge!tion! available on re&ue!t"
,(at i! a tran!cendental deductionH In w(at !en!e (a! Kant !(own t(at e+-erience (a! to be #obCective#H ,ill (e
!ati!fy !ce-tic!H I! #all my re-re!entation! are my re-re!entation!# a tautologyH ?oe! Kant#! enter-ri!e re&uire
tran!cendental argument!H 1re t(ey -o!!ibleH 'See al!o to-ic = ref!" to 1lli!on*",(at i! t(e role of t(e
categorie! in !ecuring knowledgeH 2o w(at e+tent i! Kant<! t(eory re-re!entationali!tH )eview your
under!tanding of em-irical reali!m and of tran!cendental ideali!m"
2o-ic 7: Sc(emati!m and t(e 2ran!cendental Imatrination
2(e Sc(emati!m of t(e ure %once-t of t(e Under!tanding, B 36:.346"
$urt(er: 1lli!on, 40 i--in, 70 %(i-man in ,alker 'ed"*0 Heidegger"
,(at i! t(e role of t(e !c(emati!m c(a-terH ?oe! Kant need itH ,(at are t(e con!e&uence! of (anding over
!uc( aut(ority to t(e imaginationH ,(y doe! Heidegger regard t(e !c(emati!m a! t(e !ecret core of Kant<!
t(eory of knowledgeH
2o-ic :: %au!ality and Knowledge of t(e ,orld
%) 2(e Second 1nalogy . B=;=.=7:0 al!o 2(e Im-o!!ibility of a Sce-tical Sati!faction 8f
t(e ure )ea!on in it! Internal %onflict!, B64:.6L6
1lli!on, L, 38
$urt(er: Hume, 2reati!e, I"iii"+iv0 ,al!(, J=70 ,ilker!on, 6:.430 1lli!on, #2ran!cendental 1ffinity . Kant#!
1n!wer to Hume
<
in Beck, ed" @elnick, Kant<! 1nalogie! of >+-erience, c(!" II.III" @ic(ael $riedman, M%au!al
5aw! and t(e $oundation! of Natural Science,O in /uyer 'ed"*" >ric ,atkin!, Kant and t(e @eta-(y!ic! of
%au!ality
Kant claim! t(at t(e world mu!t be ca!ually ordered if we are to di!tingui!( t(e order of mental event! from t(e
order of event! in t(e world" ,it( t(i! (e believe! (e refute! Ilumean !ce-tici!m about cau!al connection!" But
9
doe! (eH 1re Kant and flume a!king t(e !ame &ue!tionH ,(at !ort of self-knowledge doe! t(e argument of t(e
Second 1nalogy needH ,(at . if anyt(ing . doe! it !(ow about law! of natureH ,(at can we know about #t(e
(oriNon of (uman rea!on#H
2o-ic 6: 2(ing! in 2(em!elve! and Noumena
2(e /round of t(e ?i!tinction of all ObCect! into (enomena" and Noumena, B=L9.;370
2ran!cendental ?ialectic, Introduction and Book I, 2(e %once-t! of ure )ea!on, B ;9L. ;L:"
1lli!on, 330 /ardner, c(" 4"
%an Kant (ave a #-o!itive# doctrine of t(e t(ing in it!elfH ?oe! (eH I! #noumenon# anot(er word for #t(ing in
it!elf<H ,(at i! an #Idea of )ea!on#H
2onic 4: $reedom and t(e 5imit! of )ea!on
%)
3
2(e 2(ird 1ntinomy, and going on: B96=.789, B 7:8.74:, :63.70 :L6.6860 6;7.6980 6:6.L:0 4=9.;3"
1lli!on, 37"
1!k (ow Kant can bot( make (i! !trong claim! for t(e unity and com-letene!! of rea!on and offer t(e mode!t,
critical account of t(e ground! of rea!on w(ic( we find in t(e 2ran!cendental ?ialectic" ,(at i! t(e Kantian
enter-ri!eH ?id Kant renege on (i! own demolition of ?ei!mH
7