Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:15:58.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kant’s ‘Five Ways’: Transcendental Idealism in Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2018

MURRAY MILES
MURRAY MILES*
Affiliation:
Brock University
*
*<[email protected]>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1772, Kant outlined the new problem of his critical period in terms of four possible “ways” of understanding the agreement of knowledge with its object. This study expands Kant’s terse descriptions of these ways, examining why he rejected them. Apart from clarifying the historical context in which Kant saw his own achievement (the Fifth Way), the chief benefits of exploring the historical background of Way Two, in particular, are that it (1) explains the puzzling intuitus originarius/intellectus archetypus dichotomy, and (2) casts doubt on the received idea that Kant broke with the traditional theocentric model of cognition.

En 1772, Kant esquissa le nouveau problème de la phase dite «critique» de sa pensée en ébauchant quatre «voies» permettant de comprendre l’accord entre la connaissance et son objet. Cette étude développe l’ébauche de ces voies et les raisons pour lesquelles Kant les rejette toutes. Elle clarifie ainsi le contexte historique de la cinquième voie (celle de Kant lui-même), tout en (1) expliquant l’étrange dichotomie établie dans son œuvre entre un intuitus originarius et un intellectus archetypus et en (2) mettant en doute la thèse d’une rupture radicale d’avec le modèle théocentrique de la connaissance.

Keywords

cognitionintellectual intuitionCopernicanismtheocentric modelanthropocentrismtranscendental idealism
Type
Original Article/Article original
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 137 - 161
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

1

References to the Critique of Pure Reason are to the pagination of the original editions of 1781 and 1787, designated ‘A’ and ‘B,’ respectively. The translations are those of The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992-), edited by Paul Guyer and Alan Wood. Translations of Kant’s other works follow the same edition, though the page references are to volume and page number of the standard German edition of Kant’s works (printed in the margins of The Cambridge Edition), Kants Gesammelte Schriften, edited by the Königliche Preußische (later Deutsche) Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin: Georg Reimer (later Walter de Gruyter), 1900-.Square brackets in the text of a quotation indicate interpolations by the author, while ‘e.a.’ after a reference stands for ‘emphasis added.’

References

Al-Azm, Sadik J. 1972 The Origins of Kant’s Arguments in the Antinomies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E. 2004 Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. An Interpretation and Defense. New Haven: Yale University Press (a revised and expanded version of the book of the same title of 1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry E. 2006 “Kant’s Transcendental Idealism,” in A Companion to Kant, edited by Bird, Graham. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 111–124.Google Scholar
Aquinas, Thomas 1948-1949 Summa Theologica. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. 3 vols. New York, Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago, San Francisco: Benziger Brothers Inc.Google Scholar
Augustine, A. 1997 St. Augustine’s Confessions. With an English translation by William Watts. 2 vols. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgarten, Alexander 1963 Metaphysica. Reprografischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe Halle 1779. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Berkeley, George 1949 The Works of George Berkeley Bishop of Cloyne. Vol. 2. Edited by Luce, A.A. and Jessop, T.E.. London: Nelson.Google Scholar
BonJour, Laurence 2010 Epistemology. Classical Problems and Contemporary Responses. 2nd ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Descartes, René 1984-1991 The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Translated and edited by Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., and Murdoch, D.. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (References to Descartes’s works are to volume and page of the definitive Franco-Latin edition of C. Adam and P. Tannery [Oeuvres de Descartes, 11 vols. Paris, 1897–1913, nouvelle présentation par P. Costabel et B. Rochot, Paris, Vrin-CNRS, 1964-1976], followed by volume and page of the now standard English translation by Cottingham, Stoothoff, and Murdoch, e.g., (AT VII 121: CSM II 86).)Google Scholar
Dewan, Lawrence 1979 “St. Thomas, Ideas, and Immediate Knowledge.” Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review 18 (3): 392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heimsoeth, Heinz 1956 Studien zur Philosophie Immanuel Kants. Metaphysische Ursprünge und Ontologische Grundagen. Cologne: Kölner Universitäts-Verlag.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm 1875-1890 Die Philosophischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Edited by by Gerhardt, C.I.. Berlin: Weidmann. Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms. (Abbreviated as G with volume and page number.)Google Scholar
Malebranche, Nicholas 1997 The Search After Truth. Edited by Lennon, T. and Oscamp, P.J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Gottfried 1955 Kant’s Metaphysics and Theory of Science. Translated by Lucas, P.G.. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Miles, Murray 2006 “Kant’s ‘Copernican Revolution’: Toward Rehabilitation of a Concept and Provision of a Framework for the Interpretation of the Critique of Pure Reason.” Kant-Studien 97 (1), pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Normore, Calvin 1986 “Meaning and Objective Being: Descartes and His Sources,” in Essays on Descartes’ Meditations , edited by Oksenberg Rorty, Amélie. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 223–241.Google Scholar
Spinoza, Baruch 1985 The Collected Works of Spinoza, Vol. I. Edited and translated by Curley, Edwin. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Turbayne, Colin M. 1955 “Kant’s Refutation of Dogmatic Idealism.” Philosophical Quarterly 5 (20): 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Margaret D. 1984 “The ‘Phenomenalisms’ of Berkeley and Kant,” in Self and Nature in Kant’s Philosophy, edited by Wood, Alan. Ithica, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, pp. 157–173.Google Scholar