KANT AND HIS INFLUENCE Edited by George MacDonald Ross and Tony McWalter Ww THOEMMESPublished by ‘Thoemmes Antiquatian Books Ltd 185 Park Street, Bristol BSI 52) 1990 Thoemmes Antiquarian Books Ld All sights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, oF transmitted in any way oF by any means, electronic, mechanical, Photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder Bh Library Caaloguing in Publication Data Kaan is inflence 1" German phosphy. Kant, Inmanvel, 1724-1804 I. MacDonald Roe, George i. MeWalr, Tomy 198 ISBN 1 85506 072 8 ‘Typeset by Mayhew Typesetting, Bristol Printed by Athenaeum Press, Newcastle upon Tyne CONTENTS INTRODUCTION “OUGHT? IMPLIES “CAN: KANT AND LUSHER, A CONTRAST Roger M. White ‘CONFUSED PERCEPTIONS, DARKENED CONCEPTS: SOME FEATURES OF KANTS LEIBNIZ-CRITIQUE Catherine Wilson THOUGHT AND SENSIBILITY IN LEIBNIZ, KANT AND BRADLEY Guy Stock SORIGINAL NONSENSE’: ART. AND. GENIUS IN KANT'S AESTHETIC Peter Lewis FICHTE, BECK AND SCHELLING IN KANT'S OPUS POSTUMUM Eckart Forster 73 126 146wi Contents IMAGINATION AS A CONNECTING MIDDLE IN SCHELLING'S RECONSTRUCTION OF KANT Joho Llewelyn ‘THE EARLY RECEPTION OF KANT THOUGHT IN ENGLAND 1785-1805 Giuseppe Micheli HAMILTON'S READING OF KANT: A CHAPTER IN THE EARLY SCOTTISH RECEPTION OF KANT'S THOUGHT Manfred Kucha ASPECTS OF KANT'S INFLUENCE ON BRITISH THEOLO Donald Mackinnon NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS INDEX OF NAMES 170 202 ais 348 367 m INTRODUCTION George MacDonald Ross and Tony MeWaler The papers in this volume were originally delivered at 2 conference held atthe University of Leeds in April 1990, ‘The conference was organized by the British Society for the History of Philosophy, one of che aims of which is to promote a broader and more scholarly approach to the Srudy of the history of philosophy than has generally bbeen“charactrisic of philosophers in the analytic tradi- tion, In particular, it was felt that, at least in England, 00 litle attention was being paid to Kant and the post- Kantian philosophy of the nineteenth century; and itis ‘no accident that nearly all the contributors are from Seatland or abroad. ‘The fist four papers are primatily concerned with the interpretation of various aspects of Kant’s philosophy, bb setting him firmly in a historical context. The order in which they appear represents a gradual shift in ‘emphasis from his connections with earlier thinkers 10 ‘comparisons with subsequent developments. Roger M. White's paper, ““Ought” implies “Can”: Kant and Luther, a Contrast, is untypical of the collee- tion as a whole, in as much as his stance on. this particular issue is untepentantly anci-Kantian. White Argues that although Kant does not explicitly mention Luther, he must have been aware of the opposition between his ovn position and Luther's a debere ad posseih Introduction nom valet consequentia (ought does not imply ‘can’) = bur to have made this explicie would have brought him into conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities, White provides a detailed and critical analysis of what Kant may have meant by “Ought implies ‘Can’, and of how he might have argued for his position, He lays particular stress on the paradoxical consequences of Kant’s complete divorce between the absolutely free rational will, and the causally determined empirical self. He then compares Kant’ approach with that of Luther, and con- cludes that Kant, like Erasmus before him, made the mistake of putting the question of praise or blame before that of the nature of the good life and how, if at all, i ‘ean be attained Two authors concerned with Kant's metaphysics have focused on his relations with Leibniz. If it was Hume ‘who awoke Kant from his dogmatic shimbers, it was Leibniz. who provided the main starting-point for his critical philosophy. Catherine Wilson's paper, “Confused Perceptions, Darkened Concepts: Some Features of Kant’s Leibniz-critique’, wll prove a useful corrective for those in the Anglo-American tradition who think of the Leibnizian stains in Kant’s work as an embarrassment oF fan unnecessary encumbrance, It helps us to ascertain how ambivalent Kant’s positon was, and how crucial itis for us t0 recognize this ambivalence if we are to under- ‘stand the critical philosophy propery. Wilson focuses on Kant’s criticisms of Leibniz’s notion of confused percep tion. She maintains that i is by |o means clear that Leb niz saw concepts and perceptions as differing only in degree (the former being ‘distinc’, the later ‘confused’, and that it is paradoxical to accuse him of failing 10 distinguish phenomena and noumena ~ although some of his followers were indeed guilty of such confusions. In his later weitings, Kant acknowledged che possiblity of a Introduction ix Platonic interpretation of Leibniz, in which phenomena and roumena ate sharply distinguished; and Wilson suggests that Kant himself was troubled by the claims of noumena to be over or behind the appearances in some way. {in “Thought and Sensbiity in Leibniz, Kant and Bradley’, Guy Stock starts out from Whitehead’s dictum that "Kant, in his final metaphysics, must either retreat to Leibniz, or advance to Bradley’. He concentrates on the connected problems of the relation berween thought and individual reality, and of the distinction between the factual and the merely possible. Leibniz resolved the former through his privative account of sensibility and his doctrine of the individual as an infima species, but he failed to distinguish adequately between the actual and merely possible words. Kant, on the other hand, made a sharp separation between thought and sensibility, and ‘maintained that the actual world isthe one which is given in empirical intuition. Bradley rejected both Leibnir's account of sensibility, and) Kant’s epistemological dualism, together with the consequential doctrine of the thing-intselt. However, the resultant metaphysical system was closer to Leibnia’s than 10 Kane's, Peter Lewis's paper, "Original Nonsense”: Arc and Genius in Kan’'s Aesthetic’, aims to identify what Kant means by “original nonsense in the context of his discus- sion of art and genius in The Critique of Aesthetic Judge tment. Lewis argues that Kane's preat insight Is that works fof artistic genius, im virtue of being original and ‘exemplary, are essentially embedded in traditions ‘constituted by works of art, Works of genius provide rules to be followed in the work of non-genias, and set standards of excellence for the work of future genius. In the course of the paper, Lewis draws attention to significant similarities between the views of Kant and ‘Witagenstein on genius and taste in at.x Introduction The remainder ofthe paper in the volume are con cerned more history with Rants dea nar Oo subsequent thinkers in aos Gniplines and counts fast, with sexi nfoene in Geman. Fehr Forte is carey preparing am Engl edn of Kans Opes Postnum, &machneested werk in whch Kant del wih he anton fom the metaphyi foundaton of ‘aural scence to phys Pete, Beck and Selig in Kats Opus postman, Foster deeb the it ad Content of the work, and angus that conse a Sigulan revision of Rants cia poston, I the Op postu there are retraces wo Pee Bek nd Scheting who wee flower of Kt. Some scars ve claimed thatthe changes in Ken's poston ere dco ther infuence Aer examining the eden Foeser condudes that Kant may have fer infeed by Schling and Beck (hough not by Fe ba hae ‘Nowghs were in any ce youn in much the aime Girton a ti Im his paper, mapinaion as 2 Connecting Mile in Scheling! Reconstruction "af Kant, John lewsyn concentrate on Schelings development ofthe Keen oneept of imagination at the "conecing. me berween theory and practice. ‘Aer dering, Kans sccaun of imagination, Leven anaes the ailernce made to Kants crs eam by Schelings dai hat wre have non-dacusive inlecnal constuction wel sr empiil cuton, The focus shit from the ‘laonhipbeweenphionpiy and mathemati to tat Berween pinoy andar and Sehling een he connecting mile henween Kant and Hetegger "To tm o Brin, i emarable how small 2 role Kant thought hat played the ineletual eof the Englsvipeaking’ philosophies! won, The last thre pape wll pact of the sory of this neler Introduction xi However any dicusion ofthe hor of picnophial ‘askin sheen and inn eta me pret» shaip ston oswecn Engand we Soaks ens pilsophy war way Shc st an uct aig sri oy Sede sting te rend ao "he meet sy sath pisos cbt ase wat cated Ista mide te uersy worl nay bead jets n Sots coma loupe ie scaamong ie scaly war anderped byt sae tacalum whch ha plop #8 tor ee Dale, The Demon lec) is Se enusive say The Early Recep of Kans renin Elan 1748-1805 spe Mh abe may on eves and ail eae Mt ete wendaton an sommeman a seta between ths yes The pcre pana Bee ee hwo tees Ka ibephy, and even ee unending of ce ee Rea ced may to poll writes Sheet tear at eouragng he lowe te the ead pols rd ga be ear aes ye tum oft ctr eentng Tpreion and Cnoraip owes cana om he eam’ paca ul op tote wy oR work Wah th ouepion of Coleg, Kant oman oe Soak Engh tinker he 130 ‘ts the el ecapion of Kani Solin, dee Kann his "Hamfons Resin of Rane A aimee nthe Bay Scott Recon kan Tease, hows hay espe the wyrnd Ine cary amt wets mere fn uneraoed hry Sey fever tan hey mere Enlai The comenso Saver a i iia Hao (1788086) as ete Seo pilwopher tobe sbnanoayii Introduction influenced by Kant. Kuehn argues that, although Hamilton had an intimate knowledge of Kant’s texts, he ‘was in fact quite hostile to his ideas, and much less influenced by him than has generally been supposed. Finally, in his paper "Aspects of Kant’s Influence on British Theology’, Donald MacKinnon stresses that the pivot of Kant’s influence lies in his doctrine of the primacy of practical reason. He criticizes the view ‘of Kant as the "philosopher of Protestantism’, and he displays his influence on a wide range of British theologians from different denominations. MacKinnon concludes that Kane's influence did not eake the form of slavish imitation, but of conversion of his insights 10 uses he could not have foreseen, and of which he might ot have approved ‘The papers in this volume give only a taste of Kant’s range of interests and of his influence, There is ample scope for a series of conferences and accompanying volumes. covering his influence at different periods, in different countries, and in different disciplines. In particular, there is the issue of the revival of interest, im his philosophy in Britain in che 1830s, and the sub- Sequent decline in any fundamental inluence of his thought during the twentieth century. This raises the ‘question of whether Kant’s philosophy deserves eo be ‘more influential The Europe of 1989 shared with the Europe of 1789 the distinction of heralding a new political order. The year 1989 was one of progressive and. democratically orientated revolution, and the influence of German culture is an issue for us in the later part of the twen tieth century as it was an issue in the latter part of the eighteenth, What Kant offers is the prospect of a world= view which portrays the ethical as fundamental to politics; and he provides an account of human nature Introduction ie which atleast makes posible an ethical commonseath “Thee concerns are relevant not merely tothe poles of the lve twentieth cenury, Dut to politi theory in mera Cents thesis that human nature is so constituted that an chia commonwealth spose ive grovnded on metaphysis. He sought to produce a Welanchauung In thick epstemalogy i logically rir to eth in thai trust prepare the ground for 4 philosophally defensible ets, tin wh hs el pray pr epistemology, because the developmen of an adequate ‘ponemology ist nk ser by te ages poo? (Van det inden: p10), For Kant, epistemology and ethics, tr more generally philosophical theory and rans, are inextricably iterewined it has long been ashionable for intellectuals in the Betis trait told wha one a il ode view {of pilosophy, Invgral to this tei he ies tha, while nce al knowledge was the province of philosophy, the History of ts subsequent development 18 a history of fubjectsemancipatng, themes from ther Sisclines. Ever preter specialization and ever greater fxpertse is required. for work atthe frontiers of nowedge, The modest ew has tha, a subjects shit from philosophy. they develop thei own methods, and arte knowledgebase becomes ever pester, 50 the held for philosophy conwact and becomes more foused. Some have let thatthe philosophical residuum forthe fwentith century hae been the analyss of Knguistic Expressions, whi others have gone so fr ato maintain Ghat liguisc analysis can telf be bived of, 50 tha toting remain forte philosophers co study other than the thesis hat philosophers have nahin to sty. If such Snceptons of philosophy were to remanasendant, then there would be no serios fare for the subject.iv Introduction ‘There is, however, a brighter prospect. While itis true that the knowledge industry grows ever mote volumi- nous, it is also true that we have become ever more ‘conscious of the limitations which the fragmentation of knowledge has engendered. Often the most exciting work, the search for solutions to pressing theoretical and practical problems, involves thinking at the frontier between two of more disciplines, What is needed is just the sort of overview of a whole problem area which philosophers have traditionally sought to attain, Reflec: tion on the limitations of the methods used to acquire knowledge in particular disciplines can make us humble about the attainability of absolute truth; but ie can also make us realize the importance of approaching problems from a different direction, or of setting up new forms of enquiry, Prominent English-speaking philosophers have mai tained that philosophy provides no answers: but to adopt this as a motto for general philosophical practice is a recipe forthe long-term decay of philosophy. leis entirely reasonable for the public to ask what sorts of problems 4 philosophical training enables one to tackle. We should not be seduced by the frequent demand for yes-or-no, answers where these are inappropriate; but we must be willing at least to say what kinds of judgement are cultivated by a philosophical training. If we believe th the philosopher's judgement is more widely informed, mote objective, based on sounder reasoning, and less bound by the presuppositions of partcslar disciplines, than that of the on-philosopher, then we must emphasize that philosophy is not just a pleasant, abstract pastime, but a practical and useful activity, the diminy- tion or absence of which would impoverish society in multifarious ways. ‘The claim chat philosophy must be practi as well as Introduction xv theoretical isa thoroughly Kantian ideal; and it is testimony tothe limited influence Kane has had in Britain that it should still be necessary co plead the case. Ifthe ‘case is accepted, it follows that philosophy should play a far more central role in the educational curriculum = role it used to play in Scotland, and which it still plays in most of the continent of Europe. Kant himself regarded the whole of human knowledge as the province of the philosopher, and in presenting this, book we hope to do something to rehabilitate the view that philosophers should be concerned with the full range fof intellectual and practical problems facing mankind, His life's work is aot simply an episode in the history of, philosophy, but a rich resource from which we can derive Taspiation for the future development of philosophy as an academic discipline Bibliography Davie, George E., The Democratic Intellect: Scotland and her Universes ithe Nineteenth Century (Edinburgh Unive sity Press: Edinburgh, 1961 Kantian Ethics and. Socialism‘OUGHT’ IMPLIES ‘CAN’: KANT AND LUTHER, A CONTRAST Roger M. White ‘The aim of this essay is to examine a central idea of Kane's moral philosophy by setting it in the context of 3 radically opposed set of ideas ~ the ideas which inform the thinking of Martin Luther; in particular, the early Luther of The Disputation against Scholastic Theology and The Heidelberg Disputation, together with the post: tions that he develops in the famous controversy with Erasmus. For, ifthe idea chat ‘Ought’ implies ‘Can? (that ‘we may infer from the fact that we aught to do some: thing that we are able to do it) has centeal structural significance in Kant’s whole moral thought, the directly ‘opposed idea a Debere ad Posse mom valet comequentia is equally fundamental in Luther's thought. How far, in doing this, Iam setting Kant in a historical context is impossible to determine. For in those places where one would most naturally look fora diseus- sion of Luther ~ Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone and The Dispute of the Faculties ~ Luther is not ‘explicitly referred to, and even if that which Kant calls ‘ecclesiastical faith’ has distinctly Lutheran features at ‘many points, its named representatives - above all, Spener and others from the Lutheran pitist tradition ~2 Kant and Hie influence are closer to Kant than to Luther on many of the key issues that confront us here, Given the sheer extent of Kant’s writings, I cannot say for certain that he never ‘expliciay discusses Luther, o even that he was conscious ‘of Luther's theological positions other than through the frequently distorting glass of pietism. But, in view of Kane's eeligious background and upbringing, he must clearly have been familiar, if not with Luther's own Wetings, at least with texts such as the Heidelberg Catechism with its formative influence on the pietst movement, and therefore, it seems, would have to be conscious of the extent ro which he was putting forward positions that were indirect conflict with the theologians of the classical Reformation. For instance, in the Heidelberg Catechism we find: ‘Question 8: Are we then so depraved that we are utterly incapable of performing any good work and are inclined to all that is evil? Yes: unless it be that we are born again by the sprit of God, in chat in His law He requires of him what he cannot perform? No: for God has so created man that he is capable ‘of performing the good; but, by the instigation of che evil and through wilful disobedience, man has