Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:50:07.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mental powers and the soul in Kant’s Subjective Deduction and the Second Paralogism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Steven Tester
Steven Tester*
Affiliation:
Philosophisches Seminar, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany Lichtenberg Kolleg, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Goettingen, Germany
*
Email: steven.tester@zentr.uni-goettingen.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kant’s claim in the Subjective Deduction that we have multiple fundamental mental powers appears to be susceptible to some a priori metaphysical arguments made against multiple fundamental mental powers by Christian Wolff who held that these powers would violate the unity of thought and entail that the soul is an extended composite. I argue, however, that in the Second Paralogism and his lectures on metaphysics, Kant provides arguments that overcome these objections by showing that it is possible that a composite could ground the unity of thought, that properties are powers and therefore the soul could possess multiple powers, and the soul is a thing in itself so it cannot be an extended composite. These arguments lend additional support to the attribution of multiple mental powers to us in the Subjective Deduction.

Keywords

KantrationalismGerman PhilosophyWolffsoulmetaphysics
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , June 2016 , pp. 426 - 452
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2016

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

Allais, Lucy. 2015. Manifest Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameriks, Karl. 2000. Kant’s Theory of Mind. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgarten, Alexander. 1757. Metaphysica. Halle: Hemmerde.Google Scholar
Beck, Lewis White. 1969. Early German Philosophy. Cambridge: Belknap/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bird, Graham H. 2000. “The Paralogisms and Kant’s Account of Psychology.” Kant-Studien 91(2): 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, Richard J. 1961. “Christian Wolff’s Doctrine of the Soul.” Journal of the History of Ideas 22(3): 339–354. 10.2307/2708129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crusius, Christian August. (1745) 1766. Entwurf der nothwendigen Vernunft-Wahrheiten . Leipzig: Gleditschen.Google Scholar
Dyck, Corey W. 2008. “The Subjective Deduction and the Search for a Fundamental Force.” Kant-Studien 99(2): 152–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyck, Corey W. 2014. Kant and Rational Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ertl, Wolfgang. 1998. Kants Auflösung der “dritten Antinomie”: Zur Bedeutung des Schöpfungskonzepts für die Freiheitslehre . Freiburg: Karl Alber Verlag.Google Scholar
Grier, Michelle Gilmore. 1993. “Illusion and Fallacy in Kant’s First Paralogism.” Kant-Studien 84(3): 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grier, Michelle. 2001. Kant’s Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heßbrüggen-Walter, Stefan. 2004. Die Seele und ihre Vermögen: Kants Metaphysik des Mentalen in der “Kritik der reinen Vernunft” . Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 1994. “On the Unity of Subjectivity.” In The Unity of Reason: Essays in Kant’s Philosophy, edited by Velkley, Richard, 19–40. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Horstmann, Rolf-Peter. 1993. “Kants Paralogismen.” Kant-Studien 83: 408–425.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1900–. Kants gesammelte Schriften. Edited by Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften and Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin [Kant's Collected Writings. Edited by the Prussian Academy of Sciences and the German Academy of Sciences in Berlin]. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1992. Theoretical Philosophy 1755–1770. Edited and translated by Walford, D. with Meerbote, R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1997. Lectures on Metaphysics. Edited and translated by Ameriks, Karl and Naragon, Steve. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited and translated by Guyer, Paul and Wood, Allen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 2002. Theoretical Philosophy after 1781. Edited by Allison, H., Heath, P. and translated by Hatfield, G., Friedman, M., Allison, H., Heath, P.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Patrica. 1982. “Kant’s Paralogisms.” The Philosophical Review 91(4): 515–547. 10.2307/2184800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knutzen, Martin. 1744. Philosophische Abhandlung von der immateriellen Natur der Seele . Königsberg: Hartung.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Beatrice. 1998. Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Colin. 2010. “Kant’s Metaphysics of the Self.” Philosophers’ Imprint 10(8): 1–21.Google Scholar
Marshall, Colin. 2014. “Does Kant Demand Explanations for All Synthetic a Priori Claims?” Journal of the History of Philosophy 52(3): 549–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proops, Ian. 2010. “Kant’s First Paralogism.” Philosophical Review 119(4): 449–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulting, Dennis. 2011. “Kant’s Idealism: The Current Debate.” In Kant’s Idealism, edited by Schulting, Dennis and Verburgt, Jacco, 1–28. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1966. The Bounds of Sense. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Tester, Steven. 2016. “On the Real Progress of Kant’s Thoughts on Freedom and Psychological Personality.” In Kants Metaphysik, edited by Hahmann, Andree and Ludwig, Bernd. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 2004. Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 2006. “On the Necessity and Nature of Simples: Leibniz, Wolff, Baumgarten, and the Pre-Critical Kant.” In Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy Volume 3, edited by Garber, Daniel and Nadler, Stephen, 261–314. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric, ed. and trans. 2009. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: Background Source Materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, Christian. (1720) 1751. Vernünfftige Gedancken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen, auch allen Dingen überhaupt . Halle: Regnerische Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian. 1734. Psychologia rationalis . Frankfurt. Reprinted in Wolff, Christian, Gesammelte Werke II/6, edited by École, Jean. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1972.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian. 1737. Cosmologia generalis. Frankfurt. Reprinted inWolff, , Gesammelte Werke II/4 . Hildesheim: Goerg Olms, 1964.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian. 1763. Philosophia prima; sive, Ontologia. Franfkfurt. Reprinted inWolff, , Gesammelte Werke II/3 . Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2001.Google Scholar
Wuerth, Julian. 2014. Kant on Mind, Action, and Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Falk. 2001. “Kant’s Second Paralogism in Context.” In Between Leibniz, Newton and Kant, edited by Lefèvre, Wolfgang, 175–188. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar