Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:33:19.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Implied Standpoint of Kant's Religion: An Assessment of Kant's Reply to (and an English Translation of) an Early Book Review of Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2013

Stephen R. Palmquist  and
Steven Otterman
Stephen R. Palmquist*
Affiliation:
Hong Kong Baptist University
Steven Otterman*
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
*
Email: stevepq@hkbu.edu.hk
Email: sso9@cornell.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the second edition Preface of Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason Kant responds to an anonymous review of the first edition. We present the first English translation of this obscure book review. Following our translation, we summarize the reviewer's main points and evaluate the adequacy of Kant's replies to five criticisms, including two replies that Kant provides in footnotes added in the second edition. A key issue is the reviewer's claim that Religion adopts an implied standpoint, described using transcendental terminology. Kant could have avoided much confusion surrounding Religion, had he taken this review more seriously. We therefore respond to three objections that Kant failed to address: how the Wille–Willkür distinction enables the propensity to evil to be viewed as coexisting with freedom of choice; how moral improvement is possible, even though the propensity to evil is necessary and universal; and how a ‘deed’ can be regarded as ‘noumenal’.

Keywords

Kantmoral interpretation of scripturepropensity to evilReligion Within the Bounds of Bare ReasontranscendentalWille and Willkür
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 73 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © Kantian Review 2013

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

Allison, H. E. (1990) Kant's Theory of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, H. (1991) ‘Wille, Willkür, and the Imputability of Immoral Actions’. Kant-Studien, 82, 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, S. (2005) ‘The Missing Formal Proof of Humanity's Radical Evil in Kant's Religion’. Philosophical Review, 114, 63–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmquist, S. R. (2006) ‘Philosophers in the Public Square: A Religious Resolution of Kant's Conflict’. In C. L. Firestone and S. R. Palmquist (eds.), Kant and the New Philosophy of Religion (Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press), pp. 230–254.Google Scholar
Palmquist, S. R. (2008) ‘Kant's Quasi-Transcendental Argument for a Necessary and Universal Evil Principle in Human Nature’. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 46, 261–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmquist, S. R. (2010) ‘Kant's Ethics of Grace: Perspectival Solutions to the Moral Problems with Divine Assistance’. Journal of Religion, 90, 530–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pluhar, W. S. (2009) Trans. of Immanuel Kant, Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co.Google Scholar