Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:05:05.103Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Freedom, Knowledge and Affection: Reply to Hogan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2013

Nicholas Stang
Nicholas Stang*
Affiliation:
University of Miami
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a recent paper, Desmond Hogan aims to explain how Kant could have consistently held that noumenal affection is not only compatible with noumenal ignorance (the doctrine that we have no knowledge of things in themselves) but also with the claim that experience requires causal affection of human cognitive agents by things in themselves. Hogan's argument includes the premise that human cognitive agents have empirical knowledge of one another's actions. Hogan's argument fails because the premise that we have empirical knowledge of one another's actions is ambiguous. On one reading, the argument is valid but its conclusion trivial. On the other, it is unsound on Kant's own view.

Keywords

affectionfreedomKantknowledge
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 99 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Kantian Review 2013

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

Adickes, E. (1924) Kant und das Ding an Sich. Berlin: Pan Verlag Rolf Heisse.Google Scholar
Hogan, D. (2009a) ‘How to Know Unknowable Things in Themselves’. Noûs, 43, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, D. (2009b) ‘Noumenal Affection’. Philosophical Review, 118, 501–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1998) Critique of Pure Reason. Ed. and trans. P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1996) Religion and Rational Theology. Ed. Allen Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Cleve, James (1999) Problems from Kant. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar