Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:17:23.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Descartes Doubted, Berkeley Denied, and Kant Endorsed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2017

KENNETH L. PEARCE Open the ORCID record for KENNETH L. PEARCE [Opens in a new window]
KENNETH L. PEARCE*
Affiliation:
Trinity College Dublin
*
*<[email protected]>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to Kant, there is some doctrine, which he sometimes calls ‘empirical realism,’ such that it was doubted by Descartes, denied by Berkeley, and endorsed by Kant himself. The primary aim of this paper will be to reconstruct Kant’s own narrative of the historical relationship between Descartes, Berkeley, and himself, in order to identify the doctrine Kant calls ‘empirical realism.’ I argue that the empirical realism that Descartes doubted, Berkeley denied, and Kant endorsed is the doctrine that the concept of extended substance has legitimate application.

Selon Kant, il existe une doctrine, qu’il appelle quelquefois le «réalisme empirique», à propos de laquelle Descartes aurait exprimé des doutes, qui aurait été niée par Berkeley, et que Kant lui-même aurait approuvée. L’objectif principal de cet article sera reconstituer le récit fait par Kant de la relation entre Descartes, Berkeley et lui-même, et ce, afin d’identifier la doctrine qualifiée par Kant de «réalisme empirique». Je soutiens que le réalisme empirique en question est la doctrine selon laquelle le concept de substance étendue a une application légitime.

Keywords

Immanuel KantGeorge BerkeleyRené Descartesempirical realismidealismsubstance
Type
Original Article/Article original
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 31 - 63
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abela, Paul 2002 Kant’s Empirical Realism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allais, Lucy 2007 “Kant’s Idealism and the Secondary Quality Analogy.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 45 (3): 459–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allais, Lucy 2015 Manifest Reality: Kant’s Idealism and his Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry E. 1973 “Kant’s Critique of Berkeley.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 11 (1): 43–63.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E. 2004 Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. Revised and enlarged. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bader, Ralf M. 2012 “The Role of Kant’s Refutation of Idealism.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 94 (1): 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkeley, George 1709 An Essay towards a New Theory of Vision. In Works, 1: 161–241.Google Scholar
Berkeley, George 1710 A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. In Works, 2: 21–115.Google Scholar
Berkeley, George 1948–1957 The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, edited by Luce, A.A. and Jessop, T.E.. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons.Google Scholar
Beyssade, Jean-Marie 2008 “Descartes’ ‘I Am a Thing that Thinks’ versus Kant’s ‘I Think,’” in Kant and the Early Moderns, edited by Garber, Daniel and Longuenesse, Béatrice. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 32–40.Google Scholar
Bracken, Harry M. 1965 The Early Reception of Berkeley’s Immaterialism 1710–1733. Rev. ed. The Hague: Martinus Nijhof.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buroker, Jill Vance 2006 Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chignell, Andrew 2010 “Causal Refutations of Idealism.” Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240): 487–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dicker, Georges 2008 “Kant’s Refutation of Idealism.” Noûs 42 (1): 80–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emundts, Dina 2008 “Kant’s Critique of Berkeley’s Concept of Objectivity,” in Kant and the Early Moderns, edited by Garber, Daniel and Longuenesse, Béatrice. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 117–141.Google Scholar
Emundts, Dina 2010 “The Refutation of Idealism and the Distinction between Phenomena and Noumena,” in The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, edited by Guyer, Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 171–184.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 1987 Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, Robert 2000 “The Inner and the Outer: Kant’s ‘Refutation’ Reconstructed.” Ratio 13 (2): 146–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hight, Marc A. (ed.) 2013 The Correspondence of George Berkeley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hume, David 1748/1999 An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Beauchamp, Tom L.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobi, F.H. 1785 Über die Lehre des Spinoza, in Briefen an den Herrn Moses Mendelssohn. In Vallée, The Spinoza Conversations, 78–125.Google Scholar
Jacobi, F.H. 1786 Wider Mendelssohns Beschuldigungen in dessen Schrieben an die Freunde Lessings. In Vallée, The Spinoza Conversations, 150–160.Google Scholar
Kail, P.J.E. 2008 “Hume, Malebranche, and ‘Rationalism,’” Philosophy 83 (3): 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1764 “Essay on Maladies of the Head.” Tr. Wilson, Holly. In Anthropology, History, and Education, 65–77.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1786a “On the Philosophers’ Medicine for the Body.” Tr. Gregor, Mary. In Anthropology, History, and Education, 184–191.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1786b “What Does it Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking?” In Religion and Rational Theology, ed. and tr. Wood, Allen and di Giovannie, George. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, 7–18.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1955 Vorarbeiten und Nachträge. Vol. 23 of Gesammelte Schriften. Ed. Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 2007 Anthropology, History, and Education, ed. Louden, Robert B. and Zöller, Günter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keynes, Geoffrey 1976 A Bibliography of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne: His Works and His Critics in the Eighteenth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kinnaman, Ted 2002 “Epistemology and Ontology in Kant’s Critique of Berkeley.” Idealistic Studies 32 (3): 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G.W. 1996 New Essays on Human Understanding, ed. and tr. Remnant, Peter and Bennett, Jonathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice 2008 “Kant’s ‘I Think’ versus Descartes’ ‘I Am a Thing That Thinks,’” in Kant and the Early Moderns, edited by Garber, Daniel and Longuenesse, Béatrice. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 9–31.Google Scholar
Malebranche, Nicolas 1674–1675/1997 The Search After Truth, tr. Lennon, Thomas M. and Olscamp, Paul J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malebranche, Nicolas 1688/1997 Dialogues on Metaphysics and on Religion, tr. Scott, David. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mattey, G.J. 1983 “Kant’s Conception of Berkeley’s Idealism.” Kant-Studien 74 (2): 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, Edwin 1985 “Skepticism and Kant’s B Deduction.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 2 (1): 71–89.Google Scholar
Miller, George W. 1971 “Kant’s First Edition Refutation of Dogmatic Idealism.” Kant-Studien 62 (1–4): 298–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Vance G. 1993 “Kant and Dogmatic Idealism: A Defense of Kant’s Refutation of Berkeley.” Southern Journal of Philosophy 31 (2): 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Gordon 1983 The Structure of Experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nitzan, Lior 2012 “Externality, Reality, Objectivity, Actuality: Kant’s Fourfold Response to Idealism.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 94 (2): 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, Kenneth L. 2017a “Berkeley on Unperceived Objects and the Publicity of Language.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 34 (3): 231–250.Google Scholar
Pearce, Kenneth L. 2017b Language and the Structure of Berkeley’s World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plato 1997 Sophist, tr. White, Nicholas P., in Complete Works, edited by Cooper, John M.. Indianapolis: Hackett, pp. 235–293.Google Scholar
Robinson, Hoke 1994 “Two Perspectives on Kant’s Appearances and Things in Themselves.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 32 (3): 411–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stang, Nicholas 2013 “The Non-Identity of Appearances and Things in Themselves.” Noûs 47 (4): 106–136.Google Scholar
Stang, Nicholas 2017 “Transcendental Idealism without Tears,” in Idealism: New Essays in Metaphysics, edited by Goldschmidt, Tyron and Pearce, Kenneth L.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 82–103.Google Scholar
Turbayne, Colin M. 1955 “Kant’s Refutation of Dogmatic Idealism” Philosophical Quarterly 5 (20): 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallée, Gérard (ed.) 1988 The Spinoza Conversations Between Lessing & Jacobi: Text with Excerpts from the Ensuing Controversy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, James 1999 Problems from Kant. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, R.C.S. 1985 “Idealism: Kant and Berkeley,” in Essays on Berkeley: A Tercentennial Celebration, edited by Foster, John and Robinson, Howard. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 109–129.Google Scholar
Warda, Arthur 1922 Immanuel Kants Bücher. Berlin: Martin Breslauer.Google Scholar
Wilson, Margaret D. 1971 “Kant and ‘The Dogmatic Idealism of Berkeley’” Journal of the History of Philosophy 9 (4): 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, Kenneth P. 1989 Berkeley: An Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Winkler, Kenneth P. 2008 “Berkeley and Kant,” in Kant and the Early Moderns, edited by Garber, Daniel and Longuenesse, Béatrice. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 142–171.Google Scholar