Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:21:47.358Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kant’s Letter to Fichte, the Pure Intellect and his ‘All-Crushing’ Metaphysics: Comments on De Boer’s Kant’s Reform of Metaphysics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2022

Brian A. Chance
Brian A. Chance*
Affiliation:
University of Oklahoma/Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics, Norman, OK, USA
*
Email: brianchance@ou.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I raise three questions relevant to De Boer’s overall project in Kant’s Reform of Metaphysics. The first is whether Kant’s 1799 open letter to Fichte supports or threatens her contention that Kant had an abiding interest in developing a reformed metaphysics from 1781 onwards. The second is whether De Boer’s conception of the pure intellect and its place in Kant’s projected system of metaphysics captures the role of pure sensibility in the Analytic of Principles, rational physics and rational psychology. The third is whether one might accept the outline of this system as De Boer develops it while still holding that it is more accurate to characterize it as revolution rather than reform.

Keywords

transcendental philosophypure intellectrational psychologyrational physicsMoses Mendelssohn
Type
Author Meets Critics
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 119 - 125
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Kantian Review

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

Anonymous (1799) Review of J. G. Buhle’s Entwurf der Transscendentalphilosophie. Litteratur-Zeitung, 8, 57–62. https://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10501949_00039.html?zoom=0.55 Google Scholar
Buhle, Johann G. (1798) Entwurf der Transscendentalphilosophie. Göttingen: Philipp Georg Schröder.Google Scholar
Chance, Brian A. (2018a) ‘Wolff’s Empirical Psychology and the Structure of the Transcendental Logic’. In Dyck, C. and Wunderlich, F. (eds), Kant and his German Contemporaries: Logic, Mind, Epistemology, Science and Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 17–34.10.1017/9781316493229.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chance, Brian A. (2018b) ‘Pure Understanding, the Categories, and Kant’s Critique of Wolff’. In Moran, K. (ed.), Kant on Freedom and Spontaneity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 30–47.10.1017/9781316421888.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boer, Karin (2020) Kant’s Reform of Metaphysics: The Critique of Pure Reason Reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108897983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, David (1975) Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals. Ed. Selby-Bigge, L. A. and Nidditch, P. H.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/actrade/9780198245353.book.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1998) Critique of Pure Reason. Ed. and trans. Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511804649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1999) Correspondence. Ed. and trans. Arnulf Zweig. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511527289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollok, Konstantin (2001) Kants Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft: Ein kritischer Kommentar. Hamburg: Meiner.10.28937/978-3-7873-2439-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar