No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 June 2011
The interpretation of Kant's Critical philosophy as a version of traditional idealism has a long history. In spite of Kant's and his commentators’ various attempts to distinguish between traditional and transcendental idealism, his philosophy continues to be construed as committed (whether explicitly or implicitly and whether consistently or inconsistently) to various features usually associated with the traditional idealist project. As a result, most often, the accusation is that his Critical philosophy makes too strong metaphysical and epistemological claims.
In his The Revolutionary Kant, Graham Bird engages in a systematic and thorough evaluation of the traditionalist interpretation, as part of perhaps the most comprehensive and compelling defence of a revolutionary reading of Kant's thought. In the third part of this special issue, the exchanges between, on the one hand, Graham Bird and, on the other, Gary Banham, Gordon Brittan, Manfred Kuehn, Adrian Moore and Kenneth Westphal focus on specific aspects of Bird's interpretation of Kant's first Critique. More exactly, the emphasis is on specific aspects of Bird's interpretation of the Introduction, Analytic of Principles and Transcendental Dialectic of Kant's first Critique.
The second part of the special issue is devoted to discussions of particular topics in Bird's construal of the remaining significant parts of the first Critique, namely, of the Transcendental Aesthetic and the Analytic of Concepts. Written by Sorin Baiasu and Michelle Grier, these articles examine specific issues in these two remaining parts of the Critique, from the perspective of the debate between the traditionalist and revolutionary interpretation. The special issue begins with an Introduction by the guest co-editors. This provides a summary of the exchanges between Bird and his critics, with a particular focus on the debates stemming from the differences between traditional and revolutionary interpretations of Kant.
1 References are to Kant's Gesammelte Schriften. Berlin: vols 1–22 Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften; vol. 23 Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin; from vol. 24 Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. There are also cited by Bird a number of passages from the Critique. See 231–2.
2 See also 347.
3 Bird cites a number of different translations of Kant's text, and takes issue with these on the grounds that misleading translations have encouraged traditional (faulty) interpretations (259–60).
4 Bird thinks this argument is provided at B129–31 in the transcendental deduction. Cf. 260.
5 For Bird's discussion of the various controversies relating to the argument strategy of the Deduction, see 307–19.
6 Bird is assiduous in detailing the ways in which the two versions of the arguments ought to be taken to be consistent throughout his discussions of the Deduction. For introductory consideration of these issues, see 295–301.
7 Bird cites this passage at 296.
8 Bird takes issue with a number of traditional way in which ‘constituting’ experience has been taken to point towards the ‘mind making nature’. Cf. 298.