Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T01:32:42.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Kant’s Standpoint Distinction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2018

Markus Kohl*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Abstract

I examine what Kant means when he appeals to different standpoints. I argue that Kant seeks to contrast an empirical, anthropocentric standpoint with a normative, more than human standpoint. Against common interpretations, I argue that the normative standpoint is not confined to practical reason, since theoretical reason is concerned with what ought to be as well. Finally, I defend the coherence of Kant’s distinction against important objections.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Kantian Review 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

Adams, Robert (1997) ‘Things in Themselves’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 57 (4), 801825.Google Scholar
Allais, Lucy (2015) Manifest Reality: Kant’s Idealism and his Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry (2004) Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry (2013) ‘Kant’s Practical Justification of Freedom’. In Mark Timmons and Sorin Baiasu (eds), Kant on Practical Justification (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 284299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameriks, Karl (2000) Kant’s Theory of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameriks, Karl (2003) Interpreting Kant’s Critiques. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan (1966) Kant’s Analytic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bojanowski, Jochen (2015) ‘Die Deduktion des kategorischen Imperativs’. In D Schönecker (ed.), Kants Begründung von Freiheit und Moral in Grundlegung III: Neue Interpretationen (Münster: Mentis 2015), pp. 83108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frierson, Patrick (2011) ‘Two Standpoints and the Problem of Moral Anthropology’. In Benjamin Bruxvoort Lipscomb and James Krueger (eds), Kant’s Moral Metaphysics (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), pp. 83110.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (1987) Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Thomas (1992) Dignity and Practical Reason in Kant’s Moral Theory. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hogan, Desmond (2009) ‘Three Kinds of Rationalism and the Non-Spatiality of Things in Themselves’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 47, 355382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine (1996) Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohl, Markus (2015a) ‘Kant on Determinism and the Categorical Imperative’. Ethics, 125 (2), 331356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohl, Markus (2015b) ‘Kant on Freedom of Empirical Thought’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 23 (2), 301326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohl, Markus (2016) ‘Kant on Idealism, Freedom, and Standpoints’. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 98 (1), 2154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohl, Markus ( forthcoming) ‘Kant’s Critique of Instrumental Reason’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.Google Scholar
Langton, Rae (1998) Kantian Humility: Our Ignorance of Things in Themselves. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice (2005) Kant on the Human Standpoint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, Dana (2000) ‘Two Standpoints and the Belief in Freedom’. Journal of Philosophy, 97 (10), 564576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, Onora (1989) Constructions of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmquist, Stephen (1993) Kant’s System of Perspectives. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Pollok, Konstantin (2017) Kant’s Theory of Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tolley, Clinton (2006) ‘Kant and the Nature of Logical Laws’. Philosophical Topics, 34, 471506.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, James (1999) Problems from Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Daniel (2001) Reality and Impenetrability in Kant’s Philosophy of Nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric (2002) ‘Kant’s Transcendental Idealism and the Categories’. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 19 (2), 191215.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric (2004) Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar