Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T22:43:30.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transcendental Idealism and Ontological Agnosticism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2012

Dustin McWherter
Dustin McWherter*
Affiliation:
Middlesex University
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the initial reception of the Critique of Pure Reason transcendental idealism has been perceived and criticized as a form of subjective idealism regarding space, time, and the objects within them, despite Kant's protestations to the contrary. In recent years, some commentators have attempted to counter this interpretation by presenting transcendental idealism as a primarily epistemological doctrine rather than a metaphysical one. Others have insisted on the metaphysical character of transcendental idealism. Within these debates, Kant's rejection of ontology (of the kind exemplified by Wolff and Baumgarten) has received comparatively little treatment, although it is often acknowledged. The present essay seeks to contribute to the secondary literature on Kant by offering an analysis of this claim and elaborating its consequences for transcendental idealism. This will take the form of a critical examination of transcendental idealism's supposed ontological agnosticism—that is, its disavowal of any ontological claims. The overall conclusion is that Kant's rejection of ontology is deeply problematic, and to such an extent that it may be necessary to reconsider the possibilities of defending transcendental idealism as a purely epistemological, non-ontological doctrine.

Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , 27 January 2012 , pp. 47 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Kantian Review 2012

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

Allison, Henry E. (1996) Idealism and Freedom: Essays on Kant's Theoretical and Practical Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry E. (2004) Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgarten, Alexander (2009) ‘Selections from Metaphysics’. In Eric Watkins (ed.), Kant's Critique of Pure Reason: Background Source Materials (New York: Cambridge University Press), 87–131.Google Scholar
Beiser, Frederick C. (2002) German Idealism: The Struggle against Subjectivism, 1781–1801. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caygill, Howard (1995) A Kant Dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Arthur (1999) Possible Experience: Understanding Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. London: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkenstein, Lorne (1995) Kant's Intuitionism: A Commentary on the Transcendental Aesthetic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Falkenstein, Lorne (2001) Critique of Kantian Humility. Kantian Review, 5, 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fichte, J. G. (1982) The Science of Knowledge: With the First and Second Introductions. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Groff, Ruth (2007) Critical Realism, Post-positivism and the Possibility of Knowledge. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (1987) Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, Robert (2006) Kant, Science, and Human Nature. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, David (1975) Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobi, Friedrich Heinrich (2007) ‘On Transcendental Idealism’. In Brigitte Sassen (ed.), Kant's Early Critics: The Empiricist Critique of the Theoretical Philosophy (New York: Cambridge University Press), 169–175.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996) Critique of Pure Reason. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1997) Lectures on Metaphysics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1998) Critique of Pure Reason. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2002) Theoretical Philosophy, 1755–1770. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2004) Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics: With Selections from the Critique of Pure Reason. Rev. edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langton, Rae (1998) Kantian Humility: Our Ignorance of Things in Themselves. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langton, Rae (2001) ‘Reply to Lorne Falkenstein’. Kantian Review, 5, 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice (1998) Kant and the Capacity to Judge: Sensibility and Discursivity in the Transcendental Analytic of the Critique of Pure Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meillassoux, Quentin (2008) After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pistorius, Hermann Andreas (2007) ‘Elucidations of Professor Kant's “Critique of Pure Reason”, by Johann Schultze’. In Brigitte Sassen (ed.), Kant's Early Critics: The Empiricist Critique of the Theoretical Philosophy (New York: Cambridge University Press), 93–105.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R. (2004) Kant's Transcendental Proof of Realism. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, Christian (1963) Preliminary Discourse on Philosophy in General. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian (2009) ‘Selections from Rational Thoughts on God, the World and the Soul of Human Beings, Also All Things in General’. In Eric Watkins (ed.), Kant's Critique of Pure Reason: Background Source Materials (New York: Cambridge University Press), 7–53.Google Scholar