Kant's Late Philosophy of Nature: The <i>Opus postumum</i>

Stephen Howard

doi:10.1017/9781009031028

Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant

Kant's Late Philosophy of Nature

The Opus postumum

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2023

Stephen Howard

Show author details

Stephen Howard: Affiliation:
KU Leuven, Belgium

Summary

Kant's final drafts, known as his Opus postumum, attempt to make what he calls a 'transition from the metaphysical foundations of natural science to physics.' Interpreters broadly agree that in this project Kant seeks to connect the general a priori principles of natural science, as set out in the major critical works, to the specific results of empirical physics. Beyond this, however, basic interpretative issues remain controversial. This Element outlines a framework that aims to combine the systematic ambition of early twentieth-century readings with the rigor of more recent studies. The author argues that a question that has animated much recent scholarship – which 'gap' in Kant's previous philosophy does the Opus postumum seek to fill? – can be profitably set aside. In its place, renewed attention should be given to a crucial part of the manuscript, fascicles X/XI, and to the problematic 'arrival point' of the transition, namely, Kant's question: What is physics?

Element contents

Summary
References

Get access

Keywords

Kant Opus postumum transition metaphysical foundations philosophy of nature

Type: Element
Information: Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009031028 [Opens in a new window]

Online ISBN: 9781009031028

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication: 30 March 2023

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

Primary Sources

Kant, Immanuel (1902–). Kants Gesammelte Schriften. Ed. der Wissenschaften, Königlich Preußischen Akademie, later the Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Berlin: de Gruyter (and predecessors).Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel (1950). Opus postumum. Textes choisis et traduits. Ed. and (French) trans. Gibelin, Jean. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel (1963). Opus postumum. Ed. and (Italian) trans. Mathieu, Vittorio. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel (1983). Transición de los Principios metafísicos de la ciencia natural a la física (Opus postumum). Ed. and (Spanish) trans. Pajuelo, Félix Duque. Madrid: Editora Nacional.Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel (1986). Opus postumum. Passage des principes métaphysiques de la science de la nature à la physique. Ed. and (French) trans. Marty, François. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel (1993). Opus postumum. Ed. Förster, Eckart, (English) trans. Förster, Eckart and Rosen, Michael. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel (1999). Opus postumum. Mikroficheausgabe. Ed. Brandis, Tilo. Berlin: Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz.Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel (2007) Das Bonner Kant-Korpus. https://korpora.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/verzeichnisse-gesamt.html, accessed September 23, 2022.Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel (2020) Opus postumum Online-Edition. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. http://telota.bbaw.de/kant_op/index.html, accessed September 23, 2022.Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

Adickes, Erich (1897a). “Die bewegenden Kräfte in Kants philosophischer Entwicklung und die beiden Pole seines Systems.” Kant-Studien 1: 9–59, 161–96, 352–415.Google Scholar

Adickes, Erich (1897b). “Lose Blätter aus Kants Nachlass.” Kant-Studien 1: 232–300.Google Scholar

Adickes, Erich (1920). Kants Opus postumum. Dargestellt und beurteilt. Berlin: Reuther und Reichard.Google Scholar

Adickes, Erich (1922). “Zur Lehre von der Wärme von Fr. Bacon bis Kant.” Kant-Studien 27: 328–68.Google Scholar

Adickes, Erich (1924–5). Kant als Naturforscher. 2 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Adickes, Erich (1929). Kants Lehre von der Doppelten Affektion unseres Ich als Schlüssel zu seiner Erkenntnistheorie. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar

Basile, Giovanni Pietro (2013). Kants Opus postumum und seine Rezeption. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Basile, Giovanni Pietro (2019). “The Doctrine of Double Affection in the Earlier Reception of Kant’s Opus postumum” in Waibel, Violetta L., Ruffing, Margit, and Wagner, David eds., Natur und Freiheit. Akten des XII. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses. Berlin: de Gruyter, 3639–47.Google Scholar

Baumgarten, Alexander [1739] (2013). Metaphysics. Ed. and trans. Fugate, Courtney D. and Hymers, John. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Beiser, Frederick C. (2002). German Idealism: The Struggle against Subjectivism 1781–1801. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Blasche, Siegfried, Köhler, Wolfgang, Kuhlmann, Wolfgang, and Rohs, Peter. Eds. (1991). Übergang. Untersuchungen zum Spätwerk Immanuel Kants. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar

Blomme, Henny (2015). “La notion de ‘système’ chez Wolff, Lambert et Kant.” Estudos Kantianos 3.1: 105–26.Google Scholar

Borowski, Ludwig Ernst [1804] (2012). Darstellung des Lebens und Charakters Immanuel Kants in Immanuel Kant. Sein Leben in Darstellungen von Zeitgenossen. Darmstadt: WBG.Google Scholar

Brandt, Reinhard (1991). “Kants Vorarbeiten zum Übergang von der Metaphysik der Natur zur Physik. Probleme der Edition” in Blasche, Köhler, Kuhlmann, and Rohs eds., 1–27.Google Scholar

Breitenbach, Angela (2018). “Laws and Ideal Unity” in Ott, Walter and Patton, Lydia eds., Laws of Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 108–22.Google Scholar

Cassirer, Ernst [1921] (1923). Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in Substance and Function and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Trans. William Curtis Swabey and Marie Collins Swabey. Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar

Caygill, Howard (2005). “The Force of Kant’s Opus postumum: Kepler and Newton in the XIth Fascicle.” Angelaki 10: 33–42.Google Scholar

de Vleeschauwer, Herman J. (1937). La Déduction Transcendantale dans l’œuvre de Kant. Tome III: La Déduction Transcendantale de 1787 Jusqu’à l’Opus postumum. Antwerp: De Sikkel.Google Scholar

Dyck, Corey (2014). Kant and Rational Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Edwards, Jeffrey (1991). “Der Ätherbeweis des Opus postumum und Kants 3. Analogie der Erfahrung” in Blasche, Köhler, Kuhlmann, and Rohs eds., 77–104.Google Scholar

Edwards, Jeffrey (2000). Substance, Force, and the Possibility of Knowledge: On Kant’s Philosophy of Nature. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Edwards, Jeffrey (2004). “One More Time: Kant’s Metaphysics of Nature and the Idea of Transition” in Ferrini, Cinzia ed., Eredità kantiane (1804–2004). Questioni emergenti e problemi irrisolti. Naples: Bibliopolis, 155–88.Google Scholar

Edwards, Jeffrey (2008). “‘Transition’ and ‘Gap’ in Kant’s Opus postumum” in Rohden, Valerio, Terra, Ricardo R., de Almeida, Guido A., and Ruffing, Margit eds., Akten des 10. internationalen Kant-Kongresses vol. 5. Berlin: de Gruyter, 231–43.Google Scholar

Emundts, Dina (2004). Kants Übergangskonzeption im Opus postumum. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Engelhard, Kristina (2018). “The Problem of Grounding Natural Modality in Kant’s Account of Empirical Laws of Nature.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 71: 24–34.Google Scholar

Förster, Eckart (1987). “Is There ‘a Gap’ in Kant’s Critical System?” Journal of the History of Philosophy 25.4: 533–55.Google Scholar

Förster, Eckart (2000). Kant’s Final Synthesis: An Essay on the Opus postumum. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Förster, Eckart (2003). “Reply to Friedman and Guyer.” Inquiry 46.2: 228–38.Google Scholar

Friedman, Michael (1992). Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Friedman, Michael (2001). Dynamics of Reason. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Friedman, Michael (2003). “Eckart Förster and Kant’s Opus postumum.” Inquiry 46.2: 215–27.Google Scholar

Gloy, Karen (1976). Die Kantische Theorie der Naturwissenschaft. Eine Strukturanalyse ihrer Möglichkeit, ihres Umfangs und ihrer Grenzen. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hacking, Ian (1996). “The Disunities of the Sciences” in Galison, Peter and Stump, David eds., The Disunity of Science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 37–74.Google Scholar

Hall, Bryan Wesley (2015). The Post-Critical Kant: Understanding the Critical Philosophy through the Opus Postumum. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Helbig, Daniela K. (2020). “Gebäude auf Abbruch? The Digital Archive of Kant’s Opus postumum.” Aisthesis 13.2: 59–77.Google Scholar

Heßbrüggen-Walter, Stefan (2004). Die Seele und ihre Vermögen: Kants Metaphysik des Mentalen in der Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar

Hogan, Desmond (2009). “Noumenal Affection.” Philosophical Review 118.4: 501–32.Google Scholar

Hoppe, Hansgeorg (1969). Kants Theorie der Physik. Eine Untersuchung über das Opus postumum von Kant. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar

Hoppe, Hansgeorg (1991). “Forma dat esse rei. Inwiefern heben wir in der Erkenntnis das aus der Erfahrung nur heraus, was wir zuvor in sie hineingelegt haben?” in Blasche, Köhler, Kuhlmann, and Rohs eds., 49–64.Google Scholar

Howard, Stephen (2018). “The Material Literary Form of Kant’s Opus postumum.” Pli: The Warwick Journal of Philosophy 29: 65–87.Google Scholar

Howard, Stephen (2019). “The Transition within the Transition: the Übergang from the Selbstsetzungslehre to the Ether Proofs in Kant’s Opus postumum.” Kant-Studien 110.4: 595–617.Google Scholar

Howard, Stephen (2022). “Kant on Limits, Boundaries, and the Positive Function of Ideas.” European Journal of Philosophy 30: 64–78.Google Scholar

Howard, Stephen (2023). “Physics as System in Fascicles X/XI” in Basile, Giovanni Pietro and Lyssy, Ansgar eds., Perspectives on Kant’s Opus postumum. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kain, Patrick (2010). “Practical Cognition, Intuition, and the Fact of Reason” in Krueger, James and Bruxvoort Lipscomb, Benjamin J. eds., Kant’s Moral Metaphysics. Berlin: de Gruyter, 211–30.Google Scholar

Karl, Jacqueline (2007). “Immanuel Kant – der Autor, der ‘mit der Feder in der Hand’ denkt: Die Arbeitsweise Kants als ein Kriterium für die Neuedition des Opus postumum” in Sell, Annette ed., Editionen – Wandel und Wirkung. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 127–44.Google Scholar

Laywine, Alison (2003). “Kant on Sensibility and Understanding in the 1770s.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 33: 443–82.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Gerhard (1969). Beiträge zur Geschichte und Interpretation des Philosophie Kants. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Louden, Robert B. (2000). Kant’s Impure Ethics: From Rational Beings to Human Beings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Marcucci, Silvio (2001). “Système scientifique et système philosophique. Kant et Linné” in Schüssler, Ingeborg ed., Kant, les années 1796–1803. Opus postumum. Paris: Vrin, 107–26.Google Scholar

Mathieu, Vittorio (1989). Kants Opus postumum. Ed. Held, Gerd. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar

McNulty, Bennett (2015). “Rehabilitating the Regulative Use of Reason: Kant on Empirical and Chemical Laws.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 54: 1–10.Google Scholar

Messina, James (2017). “Kant’s Necessitation Account of Laws and the Nature of Natures” in Massimi, Michela and Breitenbach, Angela eds., Kant and the Laws of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 131–49.Google Scholar

Pollok, Konstantin (2017). Kant’s Theory of Normativity: Exploring the Space of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Reichenbach, Hans [1920] (1965). The Theory of Relativity and A Priori Knowledge. Trans. Reichenbach, Maria. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Rollman, Veit Justus (2015). Apperzeption und dynamisches Naturgesetzt in Kants Opus Postumum. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Schick, Stefan (2006). Vermittelte Unmittelbarkeit. Jacobis “Salto mortale” als Konzept zur Aufhebung des Gegensatzes von Glaube und Spekulation in der intellektuellen Anschauung der Vernunft. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar

Schlick, Moritz [1915] (2019). “Die philosophische Bedeutung des Relativitätsprinzips” in Engler, Fynn Ole ed., Texte zu Einsteins Relativitätstheorie. Hamburg: Meiner, 3–56.Google Scholar

Schwaiger, Clemens (2004). “Denken des ‘Übersinnlichen’ bei Kant. Zu Herkunft und Verwendung einer Schlüsselkategorie seiner praktischen Metaphysik” in Fischer, Norbert ed., Kants Metaphysik und Religionsphilosophie. Hamburg: Meiner, 331–45.Google Scholar

Stang, Nicolas F. (2013). “Adickes on Double Affection” in Bacin, Stefano, Ferrarin, Alfredo, Rocca, Claudio La, and Ruffing, Margit eds., Kant und die Philosophie in weltbürgerlicher Absicht. Akten des XI. Kant-Kongresses 2010. Berlin: de Gruyter, 787–98.Google Scholar

Stang, Nicolas F. (2015). “Who’s Afraid of Double Affection?” Philosophers’ Imprint 15.18: 1–28.Google Scholar

Stark, Werner (1993). Nachforschungen zu Briefen und Handschriften Immanuel Kants. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar

Sturm, Thomas (2009). Kant und die Wissenschaften vom Menschen. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar

Thorndike, Oliver (2018). Kant’s Transition Project and Late Philosophy: Connecting the Opus postumum and Metaphysics of Morals. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Tuschling, Burkhard (1971). Metaphysische und transzendentale Dynamik in Kants opus postumum. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Vaihinger, Hans (1891). “Rezension zu Albrecht Krause, Das nachgelassene Werk Immanuel Kants.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 4: 731–6.Google Scholar

Vaihinger, Hans (1911). Die Philosophie des Als-Ob. System der theoretischen, praktischen und religiösen Fiktionen der Menschheit auf Grund eines idealistischen Positivismus. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.Google Scholar

Watkins, Eric (2019). Kant on Laws. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Westphal, Kenneth R. (1995). “Kant’s Dynamic Constructions.” Journal of Philosophical Research 20: 382–429.Google Scholar

Willaschek, Marcus (2017). “Freedom as a Postulate” in Watkins, Eric ed., Kant on Persons and Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Willaschek, Marcus (2018). Kant on the Sources of Metaphysics: The Dialectic of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Zöller, Günter (2001). “‘Die Seele des Systems’: Systembegriff und Begriffssystem in Kants Transzendentalphilosophie” in Fulda, Hans Friedrich und Stolzenberg, Jurgen eds., Architektonik und System in der Philosophie Kants. System der Vernunft. Hamburg: Meiner, 53–72.Google Scholar