Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:19:39.301Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Categories of Freedom as Categories of Practical Cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2015

Jochen Bojanowski
Jochen Bojanowski*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
*
Email: job39@illinois.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kant famously claims that the table of the categories of freedom does not require explanation, ‘since it is intelligible enough of itself’ (Critique of Practical Reason 5: 67). Kant interpreters have been baffled by this claim, and the disagreement among the increasing number of studies in more recent years suggests that the table is not as straightforward as Kant took it to be. In this article I want to show that a coherent interpretation of the table depends essentially on a clarification of what have been taken to be three fundamental ambiguities in Kant’s presentation of the table. This assumption about ambiguities in Kant’s text is, I argue, rooted in a hybrid conception of practical rationality assumed by his interpreters. I believe the task of disambiguating the table in all three cases can be completed. But it will require spelling out Kant’s moral cognitivism in such a way that he emerges as holding what I will call a unitary account of practical rationality.

Keywords

Kantcategories of freedompractical reasonpractical cognition
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , July 2015 , pp. 211 - 234
Copyright
© Kantian Review 2015 

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

Bader, Ralph (2009) ‘Kant and the Categories of Freedom’. British Journal of the History of Philosophy, 17, 799–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Lewis White (1960) A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Benton, Robert J. (1977) Kant’s Second Critique and the Problem of Transcendental Arguments. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Benton, Robert J. (1980) ‘Kant’s Categories of Practical Reason as Such’. Kant-Studien, 71, 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobzien, Susanne (1988) ‘Die Kategorien der Freiheit bei Kant’. In H. Oberer and G. Seel (eds), Kant: Analysen – Probleme – Kritik, vol. 1 (Würzburg: Könighausen und Neumann), 193–220.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Stephen (2009) The Form of Practical Knowledge: A Study of the Categorical Imperative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graband, Claudia (2005) ‘Das Vermögen der Freiheit: Kants Kategorien der praktischen Vernunft’. Kant-Studien, 96, 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, Bruno (1997) ‘Die Kategorien der Freiheit’. In H. Oberer (ed.), Kant: Analysen – Probleme – Kritik, vol. 3 (Würzburg: Könighausen und Neumann), 41–80.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (1996) The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellin, Georg S. A. (1802) Encyclopädisches Wörterbuch der kritischen Philosophie, vol. 4. Jena and Leipzig: Friedrich Fromann.Google Scholar
Newton, Alexandra (n.d.) ‘Hypothetical Imperative: Principle or Conclusion of Practical Reasoning?’ (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
Schroeder, Mark (2006) ‘The Hypothetical Imperative?’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83, 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütz, Christian Gottfried (1788) Letter to Kant of 23 June 1788. In Immanuel Kant, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 10 (Berlin: de Gruyter 1902–), 540–543.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Stephan (2011) Kants ‘Kategorien der Freiheit’. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar