Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:00:11.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kant on Feelings, Sensations and the Gap Between Rationality and Morality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2020

Alexander Rueger
Alexander Rueger*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In §3 of the Critique of Judgement Kant argues that if the feeling of pleasure were a sensation distinct from whatever representation gives rise to the feeling, then we would be – in the terminology of the Metaphysics of Morals – rational beings (vernünftige Wesen) but not moral beings (Vernunftwesen); we would inescapably (and blamelessly) be hedonists. I reconstruct this at first glance strange argument and suggest, first, that Kant’s actual view of pleasure is an attitudinal theory that avoids the problem of hedonism. Second, the argument of §3 is to be understood in the context of Kant’s emphasis on moral feeling and its cultivation in his writings since the Critique of Practical Reason.

Keywords

feeling of pleasure and displeasuremoral feelingattitudinal theory of feelingaesthetic preconditions of receptivity to duty
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 125 - 148
Check for updates
Copyright
© Kantian Review, 2020

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, Henry E. (1990) Kant’s Theory of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139172295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alston, William (1968) ‘Pleasure’. In Edwards, P. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 6 (New York: Collier-Macmillan), 341–7.Google Scholar
Aydede, Murat (2018) ‘A Contemporary Account of Sensory Pleasure’. In Shapiro, L. (ed.), Pleasure. A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 239–66.Google Scholar
Beck, Lewis White (1960) A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brandt, Richard (1979) A Theory of the Good and the Right. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Di Giovanni, George (2005) Freedom and Religion in Kant and his Immediate Successors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511498084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul (1997) Kant and the Claims of Taste. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (2005) Values of Beauty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511840876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul (2014) A History of Modern Aesthetics, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (2018) ‘What is it Like to Experience the Beautiful and Sublime?’. In Sorensen, K. and Williamson, D. (eds), Kant and the Faculty of Feeling (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 147–65.10.1017/9781316823453.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulshoff, Allard (Zeno) (1790) Over ongeloof en zeden. Amsterdam: P. Meijer.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996) Practical Philosophy. Trans. and ed. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (1998) Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. and ed. Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (2000) Critique of the Power of Judgment. Ed. Paul Guyer, trans. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ludwig, Bernd (2010) ‘Die “consequente Denkungsart der speculativen Kritik”’. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 58, 595–628.10.1524/dzph.2010.58.4.595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelssohn, Moses (1971 [1755]) Über die Empfindungen . In Altmann, A. et al. (eds), Gesammelte Schriften. Jubiläumsausgabe, vol. 1 (Stuttgart: Frommann, 1971), 41–123.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (1971 [1771]) Über die Empfindungen . 2nd edn. In Altmann, A. et al. (eds), Gesammelte Schriften. Jubiläumsausgabe, vol. 1 (Stuttgart: Frommann, 1971), 233–334.Google Scholar
Onnasch, Ernst-Otto (2010) ‘Immanuel Kants Philosophie in den Niederlanden 1785–1804’. In Dietzsch, S. et al. (eds), Kant der Europäer – Europäer über Kant (Husum: Husum Verlag), 70–96.Google Scholar
Pollok, Konstantin (2006) ‘Von der Transzendentalphilosophie zum Vergnügen’. In Hiltscher, R. et al. (eds), Die Vollendung der Transzendentalphilosophie in Kants ‘Kritik der Urteilskraft’ (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot), 235–57.Google Scholar
Puls, Heiko (2016) Sittliches Bewusstein und kategorischer Imperativ in Kants ‘Grundlegung’. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110368864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reath, Andrews (2006) Agency and Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0199288836.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehberg, August Wilhelm (1975 [1788]) ‘Rezension der “Kritik der praktischen Vernunft”’. In Bittner, R. et al. (eds), Materialien zu Kants ‘Kritik der praktischen Vernunft’ (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1975), 179–96.Google Scholar
Rueger, Alexander (2018) ‘Pleasure and Purpose in Kant’s Theory of Taste’. Kant-Studien, 109, 101–23.10.1515/kant-2018-0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönecker, Dieter (1999) Kant: Grundlegung III. Freiburg: Alber.Google Scholar
Schulz, Eberhard G. (1975) Rehbergs Opposition gegen Kants Ethik. Berlin: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Sulzer, Johann Georg (1774) ‘Sinnlich’. In Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Weidmann), 1083–8.Google Scholar
Tetens, Johann Nikolaus (1913 [1777]) Philosophische Versuche über die menschliche Natur und ihre Entwickelung, vol. 1. Berlin: Kantgesellschaft (reprint 1913).Google Scholar
Ware, Owen (2017) ‘Kant’s Deductions of Morality and Freedom’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 47, 116–47.10.1080/00455091.2016.1235856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfsdorf, David (2013) Pleasure in Ancient Greek Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zuckert, Rachel (2007) Kant on Beauty and Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511487323CrossRefGoogle Scholar