Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:16:42.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Whole of Reason in Kant’s Critical Philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2018

FARSHID BAGHAI
FARSHID BAGHAI*
Affiliation:
Villanova University
*
*<[email protected]>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kant often compares reason to an organized body, which suggests that reason should be understood as a whole from which all possible uses of the faculties of reason are derived. However, Kant does not elaborate his conception of the whole of reason. Nor does the secondary literature. This paper suggests that the wholeness of reason is the apodictic modality of reason, i.e., the necessary standard that determines what can systematically belong to reason, and thus works as the systematic condition for all possible uses of the faculties of reason. This necessary standard is the discipline of pure reason.

Kant compare souvent la raison à un corps organisé, ce qui suggère que la raison devrait être comprise comme un tout à partir duquel dérivent systématiquement toutes les fonctions possibles des facultés de la raison. Ni Kant, ni la littérature secondaire n’élabore cependant sa conception de la raison comme un tout. Autrement dit, ils n’élaborent pas la notion d’unité de la raison. Je soutiens que l’unité de la raison devrait être comprise comme la modalité apodictique de la raison, c’est-à-dire le critère nécessaire qui détermine ce qui peut appartenir systématiquement à la raison. Ce critère nécessaire est la discipline de la raison pure.

Keywords

Kantreasonsystematicitywholemodalitynecessitydiscipline
Type
Original Article/Article original
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 251 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2018 

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

References

Br Correspondence. 1999.Google Scholar
EEKU “First Introduction,” in Critique of the Power of Judgement. 2000.Google Scholar
GMS Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. 2012.Google Scholar
KpV Critique of Practical Reason. 2015.Google Scholar
KrV Critique of Pure Reason. 1997.Google Scholar
KU Critique of the Power of Judgement. 2000.Google Scholar
Log The Jäsche Logic, in Lectures on Logic. 1992.Google Scholar
MS The Metaphysics of Morals. 1996.Google Scholar
OP Opus Postumum. 1995.Google Scholar
Prol Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. 2004.Google Scholar
Refl I Reflexionen zur Anthropologie. 1902.Google Scholar
Refl II Reflexionen zur Metaphysik. 1902.Google Scholar
V-Lo/Wiener The Vienna Logic, in Lectures on Logic. 1992.Google Scholar
WDO “What does it mean to orient oneself in thinking?” in Religion and Rational Theology. 2001.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry 2004 Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense. New Heaven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boer, Karin 2011 “Kant, Hegel, and the System of Pure Reason,” in Die Begründung der Philosophie im Deutschen Idealismus. Hrsg. Elena Ficara, Würzburg: Königshausen and Neumann, pp. 77–87.Google Scholar
Ferrarin, Alfredo 2015 The Powers of Pure Reason: Kant and the Idea of Cosmic Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fries, Jakob F. 1807 Neue oder anthropologische Kritik der Vernunft. Heidelberg: Christian Friedrich Winter.Google Scholar
Fries, Jakob F. 1989 Knowledge, Belief, and Aesthetic Sense. Köln: Jürgen Dinter Verlag für Philosophie.Google Scholar
Fulda, Hans F., and Stolzenberg, Jürgen (eds.) 2001 Architektonik und System der Philosophie Kants. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Genova, A.C. 1974 “Kant’s Epigenesis of Pure Reason.” Kant-Studien 65 (1-4): 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2005 Kant’s System of Nature and Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Guyer (ed.) 2010 The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg W.F. 1991 The Encyclopedia Logic. Part I. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg W.F. 2010 Science of Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heimsoeth, Heinz 1971 Transzendentale Dialektik: Ein Kommentar zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Vierter Teil: Die Methodenlehre. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ingensiep, H.W. 1994 “Die biologischen Analogien und die erkennistheortischen Alternativen in Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft B §27.” Kant-Studien 85 (4): 381–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingensiep, H.W. 2006 “Organism, Epigenesis, and Life in Kant’s Thinking.” Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology 11 (1): 59–84.Google Scholar
Kemp Smith, Norman 1962 A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Patricia 1990 Kant’s Transcendental Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline 1998 “Kant on the Unity of Theoretical and Practical Reason.” Review of Metaphysics 52 (2): 311–339.Google Scholar
Klemme, Heiner 2014 “Is the Categorical Imperative the Highest Principle of Both Practical and Theoretical Reason?” Kantian Review 19 (1): 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice 1998 Kant and the Capacity to Judge: Sensibility and Discursivity in the Transcendental Analytic of the Critique of Pure Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mensch, Jennifer 2013 Kant’s Organicism: Epigenesis and the Development of Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudd, Sasha 2013 “Rethinking the Priority of Practical Reason in Kant.” European Journal of Philosophy 24 (1): 78–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller-Sievers, Helmut 1997 Self-Generation: Biology, Philosophy, and Literature Around 1800. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Nancy, Jean-Luc 2003 A Finite Thinking. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Neiman, Susan 1994 The Unity of Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nuzzo, Angelica 2005 Kant and the Unity of Reason. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
Nuzzo, Angelica 2008 Ideal Embodiment. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora 1989 Constructions of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert 1982 Kant’s Theory of Form. New Heaven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhold, Karl 2005 Letters on the Kantian Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiller, Friedrich 2001 “Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man,” in Schiller: Essays, edited by Dahlstrom, Daniel and Hinderer, Walter. New York: Continuum, pp. 86–178.Google Scholar
Sloan, Phillip R. 2002 “Preforming the Categories: Eighteenth-Century Generation Theory and the Biological Roots of Kant’s A Priori.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 40 (2): 229–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Peter F. 1996 The Bounds of Sense. London: Methuen and Co.Google Scholar
Tonelli, Giorgio 1994 Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason within the Tradition of Modern Logic. Hildsheim: Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar
Vaihinger, Hans 1965 The Philosophy of ‘As If.’ London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vaihinger, Hans 1967 “The Transcendental Deduction of the Categories in the First Edition of the Critique of Pure Reason,” in Kant: Disputed Questions, edited by Gram, Moltke. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Wilson, Catherine 1993 “Interaction with the Reader in Kant’s Transcendental Theory of Method.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 10 (1): 83–97.Google Scholar
Windelband, Wilhelm 1924 “Kritische oder genetische Methode?” in Präludien, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr Verlag, pp. 99–135.Google Scholar
Wubnig, Judith 1969 “The Epigenesis of Pure Reason.” Kant-Studien 60 (2): 147–152.Google Scholar
Zammito, John H. 2003 “‘This inscrutable principle of an original organization’: epigenesis and ‘looseness of fit’ in Kant’s philosophy of science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 34: 73–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zöller, Günter 1988 “Kant on the Generation of Metaphysical Knowledge,” in Kant: Analysen, Probleme, Kritik, edited by Oberer, Harilof and Seel, Gerhard. Würzburg: Königschausen and Neumann, pp. 71–90.Google Scholar
Zöller, Günter 1989 “From Innate to A Priori: Kant’s Radical Transformation of Cartesian-Leibnizian Legacy.” The Monist 72 (2): 222–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Br Correspondence. 1999.Google Scholar
EEKU “First Introduction,” in Critique of the Power of Judgement. 2000.Google Scholar
GMS Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. 2012.Google Scholar
KpV Critique of Practical Reason. 2015.Google Scholar
KrV Critique of Pure Reason. 1997.Google Scholar
KU Critique of the Power of Judgement. 2000.Google Scholar
Log The Jäsche Logic, in Lectures on Logic. 1992.Google Scholar
MS The Metaphysics of Morals. 1996.Google Scholar
OP Opus Postumum. 1995.Google Scholar
Prol Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. 2004.Google Scholar
Refl I Reflexionen zur Anthropologie. 1902.Google Scholar
Refl II Reflexionen zur Metaphysik. 1902.Google Scholar
V-Lo/Wiener The Vienna Logic, in Lectures on Logic. 1992.Google Scholar
WDO “What does it mean to orient oneself in thinking?” in Religion and Rational Theology. 2001.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry 2004 Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense. New Heaven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boer, Karin 2011 “Kant, Hegel, and the System of Pure Reason,” in Die Begründung der Philosophie im Deutschen Idealismus. Hrsg. Elena Ficara, Würzburg: Königshausen and Neumann, pp. 77–87.Google Scholar
Ferrarin, Alfredo 2015 The Powers of Pure Reason: Kant and the Idea of Cosmic Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fries, Jakob F. 1807 Neue oder anthropologische Kritik der Vernunft. Heidelberg: Christian Friedrich Winter.Google Scholar
Fries, Jakob F. 1989 Knowledge, Belief, and Aesthetic Sense. Köln: Jürgen Dinter Verlag für Philosophie.Google Scholar
Fulda, Hans F., and Stolzenberg, Jürgen (eds.) 2001 Architektonik und System der Philosophie Kants. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Genova, A.C. 1974 “Kant’s Epigenesis of Pure Reason.” Kant-Studien 65 (1-4): 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2005 Kant’s System of Nature and Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Guyer (ed.) 2010 The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg W.F. 1991 The Encyclopedia Logic. Part I. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg W.F. 2010 Science of Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heimsoeth, Heinz 1971 Transzendentale Dialektik: Ein Kommentar zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Vierter Teil: Die Methodenlehre. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ingensiep, H.W. 1994 “Die biologischen Analogien und die erkennistheortischen Alternativen in Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft B §27.” Kant-Studien 85 (4): 381–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingensiep, H.W. 2006 “Organism, Epigenesis, and Life in Kant’s Thinking.” Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology 11 (1): 59–84.Google Scholar
Kemp Smith, Norman 1962 A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Patricia 1990 Kant’s Transcendental Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline 1998 “Kant on the Unity of Theoretical and Practical Reason.” Review of Metaphysics 52 (2): 311–339.Google Scholar
Klemme, Heiner 2014 “Is the Categorical Imperative the Highest Principle of Both Practical and Theoretical Reason?” Kantian Review 19 (1): 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice 1998 Kant and the Capacity to Judge: Sensibility and Discursivity in the Transcendental Analytic of the Critique of Pure Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mensch, Jennifer 2013 Kant’s Organicism: Epigenesis and the Development of Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudd, Sasha 2013 “Rethinking the Priority of Practical Reason in Kant.” European Journal of Philosophy 24 (1): 78–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller-Sievers, Helmut 1997 Self-Generation: Biology, Philosophy, and Literature Around 1800. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Nancy, Jean-Luc 2003 A Finite Thinking. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Neiman, Susan 1994 The Unity of Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nuzzo, Angelica 2005 Kant and the Unity of Reason. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
Nuzzo, Angelica 2008 Ideal Embodiment. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora 1989 Constructions of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert 1982 Kant’s Theory of Form. New Heaven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhold, Karl 2005 Letters on the Kantian Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiller, Friedrich 2001 “Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man,” in Schiller: Essays, edited by Dahlstrom, Daniel and Hinderer, Walter. New York: Continuum, pp. 86–178.Google Scholar
Sloan, Phillip R. 2002 “Preforming the Categories: Eighteenth-Century Generation Theory and the Biological Roots of Kant’s A Priori.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 40 (2): 229–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Peter F. 1996 The Bounds of Sense. London: Methuen and Co.Google Scholar
Tonelli, Giorgio 1994 Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason within the Tradition of Modern Logic. Hildsheim: Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar
Vaihinger, Hans 1965 The Philosophy of ‘As If.’ London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vaihinger, Hans 1967 “The Transcendental Deduction of the Categories in the First Edition of the Critique of Pure Reason,” in Kant: Disputed Questions, edited by Gram, Moltke. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Wilson, Catherine 1993 “Interaction with the Reader in Kant’s Transcendental Theory of Method.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 10 (1): 83–97.Google Scholar
Windelband, Wilhelm 1924 “Kritische oder genetische Methode?” in Präludien, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr Verlag, pp. 99–135.Google Scholar
Wubnig, Judith 1969 “The Epigenesis of Pure Reason.” Kant-Studien 60 (2): 147–152.Google Scholar
Zammito, John H. 2003 “‘This inscrutable principle of an original organization’: epigenesis and ‘looseness of fit’ in Kant’s philosophy of science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 34: 73–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zöller, Günter 1988 “Kant on the Generation of Metaphysical Knowledge,” in Kant: Analysen, Probleme, Kritik, edited by Oberer, Harilof and Seel, Gerhard. Würzburg: Königschausen and Neumann, pp. 71–90.Google Scholar
Zöller, Günter 1989 “From Innate to A Priori: Kant’s Radical Transformation of Cartesian-Leibnizian Legacy.” The Monist 72 (2): 222–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar