Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T21:23:47.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From the clarity of ideas to the validity of judgments: Kant’s farewell to epistemic perfectionism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Konstantin Pollok
Konstantin Pollok*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina, Associate Professor, Columbia, SC29208, USA
*
*Email: pollok@sc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Against the standard interpretation of Kant’s ‘Copernican revolution’ as the prioritization of epistemology over ontology, I argue in this paper that his critique of traditional metaphysics must be seen as a farewell to the perfectionism on which early modern rationalist ontology and epistemology are built. However, Kant does not simply replace ‘perfection’ with another fundamental concept of normativity. More radically, Kant realizes that it is not simply ideas but only the relation of ideas that can be subject to norms, and thus he shifts the focus from the reality of ideas to the validity of judgments. Section 1 of this paper clarifies the pre-Kantian role of the concept of perfection and examines Kant’s critical response to that concept. Section 2 identifies Kant’s point of departure from the Cartesian ‘way of ideas.’ Section 3 explains the key problem of his novel account of epistemic normativity. I conclude that Kant’s anti-perfectionism must be seen as the driving force behind his ‘Copernican revolution’ in order to fully appreciate his mature account of epistemic normativity.

Keywords

KantCopernican revolutionepistemic normativityjudgmentrationalismperfectionismintellectus archetypus
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 18 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2014

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

Adams, Robert M. 2000. “God, Possibility, and Kant.” Faith and Philosophy 17: 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Robert M. 2007. “The Priority of the Perfect in the Philosophical Theology of the Continental Rationalists.” Proceedings of the British Academy 149: 91–116.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry. 2004. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense. Revised and enlarged edition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. Lanier. Forthcoming. The Poverty of Containment Truth: Kant’s Analytic/Synthetic Distinction and the Limits of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bird, Graham. 1962. Kant’s Theory of Knowledge: An Outline of One Central Argument in the ‘Critique of Pure Reason’. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 2002. Tales of the Mighty Dead: Historical Essays in the Metaphysics of Intentionality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
De Pierris, Graciela. 1992. “The Constitutive A Priori.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume 18: 179–214.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. 1964–1974. Oeuvres de Descartes. Edited by Adam, Charles, and Tannery, Paul. Revised edition. 12 vols. Paris: J. Vrin [AT].Google Scholar
Fisher, Mark, and Watkins, Eric. 1998. “Kant on the Material Ground of Possibility: From The Only Possible Argument to the Critique of Pure Reason.” The Review of Metaphysics 52: 369–395.Google Scholar
Grier, Michelle. 2001. Kant’s Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan. London: Crooke.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1900. Gesammelte Schriften. Edited by der Wissenschaften, Preußische Akademie. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kästner, Abraham G. 1758. Anfangsgründe der Arithmetik, Geometrie, ebenen und sphärischen Trigonometrie und Perspectiv. Göttingen: Vandenhoek.Google Scholar
Kühn, Manfred. 2001. Kant: A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 1989. Philosophical Essays. Edited and translated by Roger Ariew, and Daniel Garber. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1690. Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Basset/Mory.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
Meier, Georg F. 1749. Versuch eines neuen Lehrgebäudes von den Seelen der Thiere. Halle: Hemmerde.Google Scholar
Meier, Georg F. 1752. Auszug aus der Vernunftlehre. Halle: Gebauer.Google Scholar
Pollok, Konstantin. 2013. “Naturalism and Kant’s Resolution of the Third Antinomy.” Proceedings of the XI International Kant Congress: Kant and Philosophy in a Cosmopolitan Sense. Edited by Bacin, Stefano, Ferrarin, Alfredo, La Rocca, Claudio, and Ruffing, Margit, Vol. 3, 731–742. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pollok, Konstantin. 2010. “The ‘Transcendental Method’: On the Reception of the Critique of Pure Reason in Neo-Kantianism.” Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Edited by Guyer, P., 346–379. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, Donald. 1995. Leibniz and the Rational Order of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinoza, Baruch. 1925. Opera Omnia. Epistolae. Vol. 4. Edited by Gebhardt, Carl. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian. 1732. Philosophia rationalis, sive, Logica. Frankfurt & Leipzig: Renger.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen. 1978. Kant’s Rational Theology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar