One of the most significant philosophical events during the final decades of the eighteenth century was the so-called ‘pantheism controversy.’ An important event during the controversy was the initially anonymous publication of Thomas Wizenmann’s 1786 book entitled The Results of the Jacobian and Mendelssohnian Philosophy, Critically Examined by A Neutral Party. Kant responds to this book in his essay ‘What does it mean to orient oneself in thinking?’. This chapter contains a complete translation of Wizenmann’s subsequent response to the ‘Orientation’ essay, written in the form of an open letter to Kant. The most important claim of the letter is Wizenmann’s example of the lover who infers the existence of their beloved’s reciprocal love, simply because the lover needs this to be the case. Kant responds to Wizenmann, and this example, primarily in the second Critique’s chapter ‘On Assent from A Need of Pure Reason’ (5:142–6)

August Wilhelm Rehberg (1757–1836) was a civil servant in Hanover, but he also made several important contributions to the philosophical debates of his time. This chapter contains the first English translation of Rehberg’s review of the second Critique, which was highly influential and read by figures such as Reinhold and possibly Fichte as well. In the review, Rehberg doubts that pure reason can be practical. One of the most important statements of the review is Rehberg’s claim that the feeling of respect must be something sensible and, as such, must contain an element of pleasure, despite what Kant says. Kant was aware of the review and is thought to have responded to it in later works such as the third Critique.

This chapter comments on moderation as an antidote to fanaticism by drawing on the lessons of Eugene Ionesco’s famous play, Rhinoceros. It traces the transformation of the main character of the play into a real rhinoceros and warns against the possibility of fanaticism appearing in all aspects of modern life. Finally, it comments on humor as an antidote to fanaticism.

Chapter 1 explores the process of adjusting to England's new and uncertain religious settlement, and the broader impact that this process had on the way that religious differences were discussed. It does so by seeking answers to two questions. First, why was the legislation of 1689 an inadequate framework for managing religious difference? Secondly, how did contemporaries seek to overcome these perceived inadequacies? Through exploring these questions, it becomes apparent that adaptation to toleration involved the development of rhetorical strategies – particularly in contemporary print – that set up oppositions between Church and Dissent not just in political or religious terms, but also in terms of social status and behaviour. As the process of coming to terms with toleration unfolded, therefore, religious difference came to shape the developing social and cultural norms of the period.