Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:00:35.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Principle of Reason's Self-Preservation in Kant's Essay on the Pantheism Controversy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2021

FARSHID BAGHAI Open the ORCID record for FARSHID BAGHAI [Opens in a new window]
FARSHID BAGHAI*
Affiliation:
VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY farshid.baghai@villanova.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In his 1786 essay on the pantheism controversy, ‘What Does It Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking?’, Kant implies that ‘the maxim of reason's self-preservation [Selbsterhaltung]’ is reason's first principle for orienting itself in thinking supersensible objects. But Kant does not clearly explain what the maxim or principle of reason's self-preservation is and how it fits into his larger project of critical philosophy. Nor does the secondary literature. This article reconstructs Kant's discussion of the principle of reason's self-preservation in ‘What Does It Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking?’ It suggests that this principle is best understood as the discipline of pure reason. The principle of reason's self-preservation performs the same methodological function that Kant assigns to the discipline of pure reason. This principle establishes the rule of law in reason and subjects reason to its own laws. In so doing, it prevents reason's dialectical errors and also grounds reason's faith (Vernunftglaube), which in turn systematically conditions the practical use of reason.

Keywords

Kantcritical methoddisciplinereason's self-preservationfaith
Type
Article
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , Winter 2022 , pp. 623 - 644
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Philosophical Association

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.)

Footnotes

I thank several anonymous reviewers, especially the two reviewers of Journal of the American Philosophical Association, and Rachel Bryant for their comments and criticisms that helped me improve this article. I also thank Ellen Wert for her editorial suggestions and copyediting of this article.

References

Altmann, Alexander. (1973) Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Baghai, Farshid. (2019) ‘The Whole of Reason in Kant's Critical Philosophy’. Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review/Revue canadienne de philosophie, 58, 251–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beiser, Frederick C. (1987) The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chance, Brian, and Pasternack, Lawrence. (2018) ‘Rational Faith and the Pantheism Controversy: Kant's ‘Orientation’ Essay and the Evolution of his Moral Argument’. In Dahlstrom, Daniel (ed.), Aesthetics, History, Politics, and Religion, vol. 2 of Kant and His German Contemporaries (New York: Cambridge University Press), 195–214.Google Scholar
Deligiorgi, Katerina. (2005) Kant and the Culture of Enlightenment. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Di Giovanni, George. (1992) ‘The First Twenty Years of Critique: The Spinoza Connection’. In Guyer, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant (New York: Cambridge University Press), 417–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrarin, Alfredo. (2015) The Powers of Pure Reason: Kant and the Idea of Cosmic Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Heinrich. (2007) On the History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany and Other Writings. Edited by Pinkard, Terry. Translated by Pollack-Milgate, Howard. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hogan, Desmond. (2009) ‘How to Know Unknowable Things in Themselves’. Nous, 43, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobi, Friedrich Heinrich. (1995) Concerning the Doctrine of Spinoza in Letters to Herr Moses Mendelssohn (1785). In The Main Philosophical Writings and the Novel ‘Allwill’. Translated by Giovanni, George di (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press), 173–252.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (1901–). Kants Gesammelte Schriften. 23 vols. Edited by the Königlich-Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Berlin: De Gruyter. [I consulted volumes 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 15, and 16.]Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (1996a) ‘An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment? (1784)’. In Gregor, Mary J. (ed. and trans.), Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 17–22.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (1996b) The Metaphysics of Morals. In Gregor, Mary J. (ed. and trans.), Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 363–603.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (1997) Critique of Pure Reason. Edited and translated by Guyer, Paul and Allen, Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (1999a) Reflexionen zur Anthropologie. Kants Gesammelte Schriften 15. Digital edition. Charlottesville: IntelLex Corporation.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (1999b) Reflexionen zur Logik. Kants Gesammelte Schriften 16. Digital edition. Charlottesville: IntelLex Corporation.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (2000) Critique of the Power of Judgement. Edited by Guyer, Paul. Translated by Guyer, Paul and Matthews, Eric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (2001) ‘What Does It Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking?’ In Wood, Allen W. and Giovanni, George Di (eds. and trans.), Religion and Rational Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 7–18.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (2004) Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science. Edited and translated by Hatfield, Gary. 2nd. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (2011) ‘Some Remarks on Ludwig Heinrich Jakob's Examination of Mendelssohn's Morning Hours.’ In Anthropology, History, and Education. Edited by Zoller, Gunter and Louden, Robert B.. Translated by Gregor, Mary J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 178–81.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (2015) Critique of Practical Reason. Edited and translated by Gregor, Mary J.. Rev. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langthaler, Rudolf. (2011) ‘“Das Prinzip der Selbsterhaltung der Vernunft ist das Fundament des Vernunftglaubens”. Eine frühe programmatische These Kants und ihre spätere systematiche Entfaltung’. Internationales Jahrbuch des Deutschen Idealismus, 7, 58–94.Google Scholar
Langthaler, Rudolf. (2018) Kant über den Glauben und die ‘Selbsterhaltung der Vernunft’. Munich: Verlag Karl Alber.Google Scholar
Mendelssohn, Moses. (2012) Last Works. Translated by Bruce Rosenstock. Chicago: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Munzel, G. Felicitas. (1999) Kant's Conception of Moral Character: The ‘Critical’ Link of Morality, Anthropology, and Reflective Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
O'Neill, Onora. (1989) Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant's Practical Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O'Neill, Onora. (2015) Constructing Authorities: Reason, Politics, and Interpretation in Kant's Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasternack, Lawrence. (2017) ‘Kant on Faith: Religious Assent and the Limits of Knowledge’. In Altmann, Matthew C. (ed.), The Palgrave Kant Handbook (London: Palgrave-Macmillan), 515–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhold, Karl. (2005) Letters on the Kantian Philosophy. Edited by Karl Ameriks. Translated by James Hebbeler. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. (1970) Kant's Moral Religion. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Zammito, John H. (1992) The Genesis of Kant's Critique of Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar