Book contents
- The Critique of Judgment and the Unity of Kant’s Critical System
- The Critique of Judgment and the Unity of Kant’s Critical System
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Note on Sources
- Kant’s Writings by Abbreviations Used for German Titles with Corresponding Translations
- Introduction
- Part I The Highest Good and the Postulates
- Part II Aesthetic Judgment and the “Moral Image”
- Part III Teleological Judgment and the “Moral Image”
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 August 2023
Book contents
- The Critique of Judgment and the Unity of Kant’s Critical System
- The Critique of Judgment and the Unity of Kant’s Critical System
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Note on Sources
- Kant’s Writings by Abbreviations Used for German Titles with Corresponding Translations
- Introduction
- Part I The Highest Good and the Postulates
- Part II Aesthetic Judgment and the “Moral Image”
- Part III Teleological Judgment and the “Moral Image”
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Critique of Judgment and the Unity of Kant's Critical System , pp. 267 - 276Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Adams, Robert. 1979. “Moral Arguments for Theistic Belief.” In Rationality and Religious Belief, ed. Delaney, Cornelius, 116–40. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Adickes, Erich. 1925. Kant als Naturforscher. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, vols. 1 and 2.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry. 1989. “Justification and Freedom.” In Kant’s Transcendental Deductions, ed. Foerster, Eckart, 114–30. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry 1991. “Kant’s Antinomy of Teleological Judgment.” Southern Journal of Philosophy, 30.Supplement: 25–42.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry 2000. “Is the Critique of Judgment ‘Post-Critical’?” In The Reception of Kant’s Critical Philosophy – Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, ed. Sedgwick, Sally, 78–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry 2004. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense, 2nd edn. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry 2012. “Kant’s Practical Justification of Freedom.” In Essays on Kant, 110–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ameriks, Karl. 1983. “Kant and the Objectivity of Taste.” British Journal of Aesthetics, 23.1: 3–17.Google Scholar
Ameriks, Karl 2000b. Kant and the Fate of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ameriks, Karl 2006. Kant and the Historical Turn: Philosophy as Critical Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bacin, Stefano. 2016. “Praktische Erkenntnis.” In Kant-Lexikon, eds. Willaschek, Marcus et al., 560f. Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baumgarten, Alexander Gottlieb. 1757. Metaphysica, 4th edn. Halle: Carl Hermann Hemmerde.Google Scholar
Baumgarten, Alexander Gottlieb 2011. Metaphysica/Metaphysik, historisch-kritische Ausgabe. Stuttgart Bad-Cannstatt: Frommann Holzboog.Google Scholar
Baumgarten, Alexander Gottlieb 2013. Metaphysics, trans. and ed. Courtney D. Fugate and John Hymers. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Baxley, Anne M. 2005. “The Practical Significance of Taste in Kant’s Critique of Judgment: Love of Natural Beauty as a Mark of Moral Character.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 63.1: 33–45.Google Scholar
Beck, Lewis White. 1960. A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Jay M. 1992. The Fate of Art: Aesthetic Alienation from Kant to Derrida and Adorno. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brandt, Reinhardt. 1989. “The Deductions in the Critique of Judgment: Comments on Hampshire and Horstmann.” In Kant’s Transcendental Deductions – The Three Critiques and the ‘Opus postumum’, ed. Förster, Eckart, 177–92. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Brandt, Reinhardt 1994. “Die Schönheit der Kristalle und das Spiel der Erkenntniskräfte. Zum Gegenstand und zur Logik des ästhetischen Urteils bei Kant.” In Autographen, Dokumente und Berichte. Zu Edition, Amtsgeschäften und Werk Immanuel Kants, eds. Brandt, Reinhardt and Stark, Werner, 19–57. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, Kant-Forschungen V.Google Scholar
Brandt, Reinhardt and Stark, Werner eds. 1987. Neue Autographen und Dokumente zu Kants Leben, Schriften, und Vorlesungen. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Breitenbach, Angela. 2008.“Two Views on Nature: A solution to Kant’s Antinomy of Mechanism and Teleology.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 16.2: 351–69.Google Scholar
Breitenbach, Angela 2009. Die Analogie von Vernunft und Natur: Eine Umwelt Philosophie nach Kant. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Budd, Malcolm. 2001. “The Pure Judgment of Taste as an Aesthetic Reflective Judgment.” British Journal of Aesthetics, 41: 247–60.Google Scholar
Butts, Robert. 1990. “Teleology and Scientific Methods in Kant’s Critique of Judgment.” Nous 24, 1: 1–16.Google Scholar
Cheung, Tobias. 2006. “From the Organism of a Body to the Body of an Organism: Occurrence and Meaning of the Word ‘Organism’ From the Seventeenth to the Nineteenth Century.” British Society for the History of Science, 39.3: 319–39.Google Scholar
Chignell, Andrew 2014. “Rational Hope, Possibility, and Divine Action.” In Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: A Critical Guide, ed. Michalson, Gordon, 98–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Alix. 2013. “Kant on the Possibility of Ugliness.” British Journal of Aesthetics, 53.2: 199–209.Google Scholar
Coleman, Francis X.J. 1974. The Harmony of Reason: A Study in Kant’s Aesthetics. Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Courtine, Jean-François. 1992. “Realitas.” In Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, eds. Ritter, Joachim et al., 178–86. Basel: Schwabe & Co. Verlag.Google Scholar
Crawford, Donald W. 1974. Kant’s Aesthetic Theory. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Costelloe, Timothy M. 2013. The British Aesthetic Tradition: From Shaftesbury to Wittgenstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deligiorgi, Katerina. 2012. The Scope of Autonomy: Kant and the Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Düsing, Klaus 1971. “Das Problem des höchsten Gutes in Kants praktischer Philosophie.” Kant-Studien, 62.1: 5–42.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Stephen.1992. “The Concept of the Highest Good in Kant’s Moral Theory.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52.4: 747–80.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Stephen 2010. “The Triebfeder of Pure Practical Reason.” In Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide, eds. Reath, Andrews and Timmermann, Jens, 90–118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fenves, Peter. 1993. Raising the Tone of Philosophy: Late Essays by Immanuel Kant, Trasformative Critique by Jacques Derrida. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Fichte, Johann G. 1971. Fichte Sämmtliche Werke, ed. Fichte, Immanuel Hermann, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fischer, Naomi. 2019. “Organisms and the Form of Freedom in Kant’s third Critique.” European Journal of Philosophy, 27.1: 55–74.Google Scholar
Förster, Eckart.1998. “Die Wandlungen in Kants Gotteslehre.” Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 52.3: 341–62.Google Scholar
Förster, Eckart 2000. Kant’s Final Synthesis: An Essay on the Opus Postumum. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Förster, Eckart 2002a. “Die Bedeutung von §§76,77 der Kritik der Urteilskraft für die Entwicklung der nachkantischen Philosophie [Teil 1].” Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 56.2: 169–90.Google Scholar
Förster, Eckart 2002b. “Die Bedeutung von §§76,77 der Kritik der Urteilskraft für die Entwicklung der nachkantischen Philosophie [Teil 2].” Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 56.3: 321–45.Google Scholar
Förster, Eckart 2008. “Von der Eigentümlichkeit unseres Verstandes in Ansehung der Urteilskraft (§§74-78).” In Immanuel Kant. Kritik der Uretilskraft, ed. Höffe, Otfried, 259–88. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Förster, Eckart 2012. The Twenty-Five Years of Philosophy: A Systematic Reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Frank, Manfred. 1997. ‘Unendliche Annäherung’: Die Anfänge der philosophischen Frühromantik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Frank, Manfred and Zanetti, Véronique. 1996. “Kommentar zur ersten und zweiten Einleitung der Kritik der Urteilskraft.” In Kants Schriften zur Ästhetik und Naturphilosophie. Frankfurt am Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag.Google Scholar
Franks, Paul. 2005. All or Nothing: Systematicity, Transcendental Arguments and Skepticism in German Idealism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fricke, Christel. 1990. Kants Theorie des reinen Geschmacksurteils. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2013. Kant’s Construction of Nature: A Reading of the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, Sebastian. 2006. “The Primacy of Practical Reason.” In A Companion to Kant, ed. Bird, Graham, 259–74. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gardner, Sebastian 2011. “Kant’s Practical Postulates and the Limits of the Critical System.” Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain, 32: 187–215.Google Scholar
Gardner, Sebastian 2016. “Kant’s Third Critique: The Project of Unification.” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 78: 161–85.Google Scholar
Gibbons, Sarah. 1994. Kant’s Theory of Imagination: Bridging Gaps in Judgment and Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah. 1990a. The Role of Taste in Kant’s Theory of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah 1997. “Lawfulness without a Law: Kant on the Free Play of Imagination and Understanding.” Philosophical Topics, 25.1: 37–82.Google Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah 2001. “Kant on Understanding Organisms as Natural Purposes.” In Kant and the Sciences, ed. Watkins, Eric, 231–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah 2003. “Aesthetic Judging and the Intentionality of Pleasure.” Inquiry, 46: 164–81.Google Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah 2004. “Two Kinds of Mechanical Inexplicability in Kant and Aristotle.” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 42.1: 33–65.Google Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah 2015. The Normativity of Nature: Essays on Kant’s Critique of Judgment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goy, Ina 2017. Kants Theorie der Biologie: ein Kommentar, eine Leseart, eine historische Einordnung. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gracyk, Theodore A. 1986. “Sublimity, Ugliness, and Formlessness in Kant’s Aesthetic Theory.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 45.1: 49–56.Google Scholar
Grier, Michelle. 2001. Kant’s Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 1979. Kant and the Claims of Taste, 1st edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 1990. “Reason and Reflective Judgment: Kant on the Significance of Systematicity.” Noûs 24: 17–43.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 1996. Kant and the Experience of Freedom – Essays on Aesthetics and Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 1997. Kant and the Claims of Taste. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2000. Kant on Freedom, Law and Happiness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2005a. Kant’s System of Nature and Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2005b. Values of Beauty: Historical Essays in Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2007. “Naturalistic and Transcendental Moments in Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Inquiry, 50: 444–64.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2014. “Freedom, Happiness, and Nature: Kant’s Moral Teleology (KU §§83–4, 86–7).” In Kant’s Theory of Biology, eds. Watkins, Eric and Goy, Ina, 221–37. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haag, Johannes. 2012. “Die Funktion der Grenzbegriffen.” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 60: 993–1001.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1955. Lectures on the History of Philosophy, eds. Haldane, Elizabeth Sanderson and Frances, H. Simpson, vol. 3. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1977. Faith and Knowledge, trans. Walter Cerf and Henry Silton Harris. Albany: SUNY.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1986. Glauben und Wissen oder die Reflexionsphilosophie der Subjektivität, in der Vollständigkeit ihrer Formen, als Kantische, Jacobische und Fichtesche Philosophie, eds. Brockard, Hans and Buchner, Hartmut. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1991. The Encyclopaedia Logic (1817) (Part I of the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Basic Outline), trans. Theodore F. Geraets, Wal A. Suchting, and Henry S. Harris. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. 1982. Basic Problems of Phenomenology, trans. Albert Hofstadter, revised edn. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin 1991. Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik, Martin Heidegger Gesamtausgabe, vol. 3. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 1992. Aesthetic Judgement and the Moral Image of the World: Studies in Kant. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter 1994. The Unity of Reason: Essays on Kant’s Philosophy, ed. Velkley, Richard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter 1994a. “The Concept of Moral Insight and Kant’s Doctrine of the Fact of Reason.” In The Unity of Reason: Essays on Kant’s Philosophy, ed. Velkley, Richard, 55–88. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter 2012. “Concerning Kant’s Earliest Ethics: An Attempt at a Reconstruction.” In Kant’s Observations and Remarks: A Critical Guide, eds. Shell, Susan Meld and Velkley, Richard, 13–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Höffe, Otfried. 1994. Immanuel Kant, trans. Marshall Farrier. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Höffe, Otfried 2008. “Der Mensch als Endzweck.” In Immanuel Kant: Kritik der Urteilskraft, ed. Höffe, Otfried, 289–308. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel. 2007. “The Irreducibility of Progress: Kant’s Account of the Relationship Between Morality and History.” Critical Horizons: A Journal of Philosophy and Social Theory, 8.1: 1–17.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Gregg. 2006. “The Residue of History: Dark Play in Schiller and Hegel.” In Internationales Jahrbuch des Deutschen Idealismus/International Yearbook of German Idealism, eds. Stolzenberg, Jürgen and Ameriks, Karl, vol. 4, 179–98. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Horstmann, Rolf-Peter. 1998. “Der Anhang zur transzendentalen Dialektik.” In Immanuel Kant: Kritik der reinen Vernunft, eds. Mohr, Georg and Willaschek, Marcus, 525–45. Berlin: Akedemie Verlag.Google Scholar
Horstmann, Rolf-Peter 2018. Kant’s Power of Imagination. Cambridge Elements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Hud. 1991. “The Significance of an Analytic of the Ugly in Kant’s Deduction of Pure Judgments of Taste.” In Kant’s Aesthetics, North American Kant Society Studies in Philosophy, eds. Meerbote, Ralf and Hudson, Hud, vol. 1. Atascadero: Ridgeview Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Hutcheson, Francis. 1758. Thoughts on Laughter and Observations on the ‘Fable of the Bees’ in Six Letters. Glasgow: Andrew and Robert Foulis.Google Scholar
Hudson, Hud 1973. An Inquiry Concerning Beauty, Order, Harmony, Design, ed. Kivy, Peter. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
Hughes, Fiona. 2007. Kant’s Aesthetic Epistemology: Form and World. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 2007. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kain, Patrick. 2010. “Practical Cognition, Intuition, and the Fact of Reason.” In Kant’s Moral Metaphysics: God, Freedom and Immortality, eds. Kruger, James and Lipscomb, Benjamin, 211–30. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kern, Andrea. 2000. Schöne Lust: Eine Theorie der ästhetischen Erfahrung nach Kant. Frankfrut am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline. 1999. “Kant, History, and the Idea of Moral Development.” History of Philosophy Quarterly, 16.1: 59–80.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline 2010. “Moral Consciousness and the ‘Fact of Reason’.” In Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide, eds. Timmermann, Jens and Reath, Andrews, 55–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klemme, Heiner F. 2010. “The Origin and Aim of Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason.” In Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide, eds. Reath, Andrews and Timmermann, Jens, 11–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kosch, Michelle. 2006. Freedom and Reason in Kant, Schelling and Kierkegaard. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. 1996. Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kukla, Rebecca. ed. 2006. Aesthetics and Cognition in Kant’s Critical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kulenkampff, Jens. 1978. Kants Logik des ästhetischen Urteils. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
La Rocca, Claudio. 1997. “Schematizzare senza concetto. Immaginazione ed esperienza estetica in Kant.” Rivista di estetica, 37.4: 3–19.Google Scholar
Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim. 1985. “Laocoon, or On the Limits of Painting and Poetry.” In German Aesthetic and Literary Criticism: Winckelmann, Lessing, Hamann, Herder, Schiller, Goethe, ed. Nisbet, Hugh Barr, 58–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lohmar, Dieter. 1998. “Das Geschmacksurteil über das faszinierend Häβliche.” In Kants Ästhetik/Kant’s Aesthetics/L’esthétique de Kant, ed. Parret, Herman, 498–512. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice. 1995. “The Transcendental Ideal and the Unity of the Critical System.” Proceedings of the Eighth International Kant Congress 1995. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
Lohmar, Dieter 1998. Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lohmar, Dieter 2000. “Point of View of Man or Knowledge of God: Kant and Hegel on Concept, Judgment and Reason.” In The Reception of Kant’s Critical Philosophy – Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, ed. Sedgwick, Sally, 253–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lohmar, Dieter 2003a. “Kant’s Theory of Judgment, and Judgments of Taste: On Henry Allison’s Kant’s Theory of Taste.”Inquiry, 46.2: 143–63.Google Scholar
Lohmar, Dieter 2003b. “Review of Henry E. Allison’s Kant’s Theory of Taste: A Reading of the Critique of Aesthetic Judgment.” Journal of Philosophy, 100.9: 487–92.Google Scholar
Lohmar, Dieter 2005. Kant on the Human Standpoint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lohmar, Dieter 2006. “Kant’s Leading Thread in the Analytic of the Beautiful.” In Aesthetics and Cognition in Kant’s Critical Philosophy, ed. Kukla, Rebecca, 194–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Louden, Robert. 2000. Kant’s Impure Ethics: From Rational Beings to Human Beings. New York/Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Makkreel, Rudolf. 1990. Imagination and Interpretation in Kant: The Hermeneutical Import of the Critique of Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Maly, Sebastian. 2012. Kant über die symbolische Erkenntnis Gottes. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
McConnell, Sean. 2008. “How Kant Might Explain Ugliness.” British Journal of Aesthetics, 48.2: 205–28.Google Scholar
McFarland, John D. 1970. Kant’s Concept of Teleology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Peter. 1990. Kant’s Critique of Teleology in Biological Explanation. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Meier, Georg Friedrich. 1752. Auszug aus der Vernunftlehre. Halle, 2nd edn. 1760; repr. and ed. Erich Adickes in Kant Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 16. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1914.Google Scholar
Meerbote, Ralf. 1982. “Reflection on Beauty.” In Essays in Kant’s Aesthetics, eds. Cohen, Ted and Guyer, Paul, 55–86. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Munzel, Felicitas G. 1995. “‘The Beautiful Is the Symbol of the Morally Good’: Kant’s Philosophical Basis of Proof for the Idea of the Morally-Good.” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 33.2: 301–30.Google Scholar
Nieman, Susan. 1994. The Unity of Reason: Rereading Kant. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nuzzo, Angelica. 2005. Kant and the Unity of Reason. Lafayette: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora. 2002. “Autonomy and the Fact of Reason in the Kritik der praktischen Vernunft (§§7–8, 30–31).” In Immanuel Kant: Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, ed. Höffe, Otfried, 81–97. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Ostaric, Lara. 2010. “Works of Genius as Sensible Exhibitions of the Idea of the Highest Good.” Kant-Studien, 101.1: 22–39.Google Scholar
Ostaric, Lara 2012. “Kant on the Normativity of Creative Production.” Kantian Review, 17.1: 75–107.Google Scholar
Ostaric, Lara 2016. “Creating the Absolute: Kant’s Conception of Genial Creation in Schlegel, Novalis and Schelling.” Kant Yearbook, 8: 63–85.Google Scholar
Ostaric, Lara 2017. “The Free Harmony of the Faculties and the Primacy of Imagination in Kant’s Aesthetic Judgment.” European Journal of Philosophy, 25.4: 1376–1410.Google Scholar
Ostaric, Lara 2020. “Nature as a World of Action, Not of Speculation: Schelling’s Critique of Kant’s Postulates in His ‘Philosophical Letters on Dogmatism and Criticism’.” In Schelling’s Philosophy: Freedom, Nature, and Systematicity, ed. Bruno, Anthony G., 11–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Philips, James. 2011. “Placing Ugliness in Kant’s Third Critique: A Reply to Paul Guyer.” Kant-Studien, 102: 385–95.Google Scholar
Pieper, Annemarie. 2002. “Zweites Hauptstück (57–71).” In Immanuel Kant: Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, ed. Höffe, Otfried, 115–33. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert. 1997. Idealism as Modernism–Hegelian Variations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert 2008. Hegel’s Practical Philosophy: Rational Agency as Ethical Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prauss, Gerold. 1983. Kant über Freiheit als Autonomie. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1989. “Themes in Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” In Kant’s Transcendental Deductions: The Three ‘Critiques’ and the ‘Opus postumum,’ ed. Förster, Eckart, 81–113. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Recki, Birgit. 2001. Ästhetik der Sitten: die Affinität von ästhetischem Gefühl und praktischer Vernunft bei Kant. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Recki, Birgit 2006. Die Vernunft, ihre Natur, ihr Gefühl und der Fortschritt: Aufsätze zu Immanuel Kant. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas. 2010. Essays on the Active Powers of Man, eds. Haakonssen, Knud and Harris, James A.. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Robert J. 2000. “Kant and Blumenbach on the Bildungstrieb: A Historical Misunderstanding.” In Studies in the History of Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 31: 11–32.Google Scholar
Rind, Miles. 2002. “Can Kant’s Deduction of Judgments of Taste Be Saved?” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 84: 20–45.Google Scholar
Ritter, Joachim, Karlfried, Gründer, Gottfried, Gabriel. eds. 1971. Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie. Basel: Schwabe Verlag.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1969. Oeuvres complètes, ed. John, S. Spink. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Rush, Fred L. Jr. 2000. “Reason and Regulation in Kant.” The Review of Metaphysics, 53: 837–62.Google Scholar
Schaper, Eva. 1992. “Taste, Sublimity, and Genius: The Aesthetics of Nature and Art.” In Cambridge Companion to Kant, ed. Guyer, Paul, 367–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph. 1994. On the History of Modern Philosophy, ed. and trans. Andrew Bowie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, Arthur. 1965. On the Basis of Morality, trans. Eric. F. J. Payne. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co.Google Scholar
Seel, Gerhard. 1988. “Über den Grund der Lust an schönen Gegenständen: Kritische Fragen an die Ästhetik Kants.” In Kant: Analysen – Probleme – Kritik, eds. Oberer, Hariolf and Seel, Gerhard. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
Sedgwick, Sally. 2000. The Reception of Kant’s Critical Philosophy – Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shaftesbury, The Third Earl of (Anthony Ashley Cooper). 1999. Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, ed. Klein, Lawrence E.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shell, Susan. 2021. “Kant as Soothsayer: The Problem of Progress and the ‘Sign’ of History.” In Kant and the Possibility of Progress: From Modern Hopes to Postmodern Anxieties, ed. Paul, T. Wilford and Samuel, A. Stoner, 115–34. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Shier, David. 1998. “Why Kant Finds Nothing Ugly.” British Journal of Aesthetics, 38: 412–18.Google Scholar
Strub, Christian. 1989. “Das Häßliche und die ‘Kritik der ästhetischen Urteilskraft’. Überlegungen zu einer Systematischen Lücke.” Kant-Studien, 80: 416–46.Google Scholar
Sussman, David. 2008. “From Deduction to Deed: Kant’s Grounding of the Moral Law.” Kantian Review, 13: 52–81.Google Scholar
Sweet, Kristi E. 2010. “The Moral Import of the Critique of Judgment.” In Rethinking Kant, ed. Muchnik, Pablo, vol. 2, 222–36. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Sweet, Kristi E. 2013. Kant on Practical Life: From Duty to History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Timmermann, Jens. 2010. “Reversal or Retreat? Kant’s Deductions of Freedom.” In Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide, eds. Reath, Andrews and Timmermann, Jens, 73–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tonelli, Giorgio. 1959. “La nécessité des lois de la nature au XVIIIe siècle et chez Kant en 1762. Revue d’histoire des sciences, 12.3: 225–41.Google Scholar
Tonelli, Giorgio 1969. “Divinae Particula Aurae; Genial Ideas, Organism, and Freedom: A Note on Kant’s Reflection N. 938.” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 7.2: 192–98.Google Scholar
Velkley, Richard L. 1989. Freedom and the End of Reason: On the Moral Foundations of Kant’s Critical Philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Velkley, Richard L. 2002. Being after Rousseau: Philosophy and Culture in Question. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ware, Owen. 2014. “Rethinking Kant’s Fact of Reason.” Philosopher’s Imprint, 14.32: 1–21.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 2008. “Die Antinomie der teleologischen Urteilskraft und Kants Ablehnung alternativer Teleologien (§§69–71 und §§72–73).” In Immanuel Kant: Kritik der Urteilskraft, ed. Höffe, Otfried, 241–58. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Ware, Owen 2010. “The Antinomy of Practical Reason: Reason, the Unconditioned, and the Highest Good.” In Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide, eds. Reath, Andrews and Timmermann, Jens, 145–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wenzel, Christian Helmut. 2012. “Do Negative Judgments of Taste Have a priori Grounds in Kant?” Kant-Studien, 103: 472–93.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 1991. “Die Tat der Vernunft. Zur Bedeutung der Kantischen These vom ‘Factum der Vernunft’.” In Akten des Siebenten Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, eds. Funke, Gerhard and Kleinschnieder, Manfred, 455–66. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus 1992. Praktische Vernunft. Handlungstheorie und Moralbegründung bei Kant. Stuttgart: Verlag J.B. Metzler.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus 2010. “The Primacy of Practical Reason and the Idea of a Practical Postulate.” In Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide, eds. Reath, Andrews and Timmermann, Jens, 168–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus 2017. “Freedom as a Postulate.” In Kant on Persons and Agency, ed. Watkins, Eric, 102–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. 1991. “Unsociable Sociability: The Anthropological Basis of Kantian Ethics.” Philosophical Topics, 19.1: 325–51.Google Scholar
Yovel, Yirmiyahu. 1989. Kant and the Philosophy of History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Zammito, John. 1992. The Genesis of Kant’s Critique of Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Yovel, Yirmiyahu 2007. “Kant’s Persistent Ambivalence Toward Epigenesis, 1764-90.” In Understanding Purpose. Kant and the Philosophy of Biology, ed. Huneman, Philippe. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
Zanetti, Véronique. 1993. “Die Antinomie der teleologischen Urteilskraft.” Kant-Studien, 84.3: 341–55.Google Scholar
Zöller, Günter. 2006. “Die Wirkung der ‘Kritik der Urteilskraft’ auf Fichte und Schelling.” In Die Vollendung der Transzendentalphilosophie in Kants “Kritik der Urteilskraft,” eds. Hiltscher, Reinhard, Klingner, Stefan and Süß, David, 315–49. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Zuckert, Rachel. 2007. Kant on Beauty and Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zuckert, Rachel 2021. “Loneliness and Ambiguity in Kant’s Philosophy of History.” In Kant and the Possibility of Progress: From Modern Hopes to Postmodern Anxieties, eds. Wilford, Paul T. and Stoner, Samuel A., 62–76. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar