Search

It is well known that during his pre-Critical period, Kant was a major proponent of Newtonian physics, for the project of the Universal Natural History explicitly uses "Newtonian principles" to explain the formation of the various bodies that constitute our solar system as well as those that lie beyond. What has not been widely noted, however, is that the early Kant also developed a major criticism of Newton, one that is based on subtle metaphysical issues pertaining to God, which are most at home in philosophical theology. Interestingly, this criticism is neither an inchoate precursor of his later criticisms of Newton's account of absolute space, nor isolated to the abstract realm of metaphysics, but has a wide range of implications for the way in which a scientific account of the formation and constitution of the heavenly bodies ought to be developed, that is, for the kind of argument Newton offered in the Principia. That Kant remained interested in this set of issues later in his Critical period suggests that, alongside the revolutionary changes that comprise transcendental idealism, there are deep continuities not only in his Newtonian commitments, but in his anti-Newtonian tendencies as well. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd.

This paper argues not only that Schelling, Novalis, and Friedrich Schlegelare reacting directly to Kant (rather than simply to each other and to other post-Kantian figures), but also that they are responding in complex ways to one particularly prominent and distinctive line of thought in Kant, namely his account of reason, conditions, and the unconditioned. Though Kant argues that we cannot have cognition of unconditioned objects, he none the less thinks that reason demands that we accept the existence of such objects. The paper argues that the German Romantics take over this general line of thought, though they do so in different contexts and to different ends. Specifically, focusing on this dimension of Kant's thought allows us to see both how the logic of conditioning relations can be seen to be driving their arguments for the Absolute, and how Kant's particular conception of conditioning relations gives rise to important differences from the views of the German Romantics. For whereas he distinguishes different kinds of real conditioning relations, they operate with a generic conception of conditioning that leads to their distinctive Romantic views. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the theoretical philosophy of Kant regarding the law of nature and metaphysics. Topics discussed include the concept of law focusing on necessity and legislation, articulation of laws of nature and moral law, and the practices of natural science in the early modern period. Also provided is the practical philosophy of Spanish theologian Francisco Suarez regarding the views of intellectualist on the basis of nature laws and God's will.

A literary criticism of a chapter from the book “Phänomenologie des Geistes” by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, titled "Kraft und Verstand," is presented. It outlines the three distinctive features of various models of consciousness, specifically those of force and law, and the different problems that consciousness experiences with each, including an illustration of the complex models discussed in "Kraft und Verstand" in relation to Newtonian mechanics.

Sellars and McDowell, among others, attribute a prominent role to the Myth of the Given. In this paper, I suggest that they have in mind two different versions of the Myth of the Given and I argue that Kant is not the target of one version and, though explicitly under attack from the other, has resources sufficient to mount a satisfactory response. What is essential to this response is a proper understanding of (empirical) concepts as involving unifying functions that can take sensations as input and deliver normative representations as outputs. By understanding concepts in this way, one need not, as the second version of the Myth of the Given maintains, take sensations to be both natural and normative. Instead, they can be understood as the natural effects of external objects on us, but natural effects that can nonetheless play a role in a normative process because the concepts that are responsible for the normativity of the results can require that such natural effects be present as inputs into the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the notion of autonomy in philosophy. Nature of autonomy; Conditions and requirements for autonomy; Views of philosopher Karl Ameriks in his work "Kant and the Fate of Autonomy".

This paper considers Kant’s conception of force and causality in his early pre-Critical writings, arguing that this conception is best understood by way of contrast with his immediate predecessors, such as Christian Wolff, Alexander Baumgarten, Georg Friedrich Meier, Martin Knutzen, and Christian August Crusius, and in terms of the scientific context of natural philosophy at the time. Accordingly, in the True estimation Kant conceives of force in terms of activity rather than in terms of specific effects, such as motion (as unnamed Wolffians had done). Kant’s explicit arguments in the Nova dilucidatio for physical influx (in the guise of the principle of succession) are directed primarily against the conception of grounds and existence held by Wolff, Baumgarten, and Meier, and only secondarily against Leibniz (by asserting the priority of bodies over mind rather than vice versa). Finally, Kant’s reconciliation of the infinite divisibility of space and the unity of monads in the Physical monadology is designed to respond to objections that could be raised naturally by Wolff and Baumgarten. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Focuses on the difficulty that arises in the context of Immanuel Kant's justification of the laws of mechanics. Status of the laws of motion in early 18th century Germany; First law of mechanics; Third law of mechanics; Action at a distance; Intelligibility of Kant's justification in the context of his rationalistic background.