Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 7 - Thomas Wizenmann

  • from Part II - Between the Critiques
  • Michael Walschots, Martin Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
  • Book:
    Kant's <i>Critique of Practical Reason</i>
    Published online:
    31 January 2025
    Print publication:
    28 March 2024, pp 165-168

  • Summary

    One of the most significant philosophical events during the final decades of the eighteenth century was the so-called ‘pantheism controversy.’ An important event during the controversy was the initially anonymous publication of Thomas Wizenmann’s 1786 book entitled The Results of the Jacobian and Mendelssohnian Philosophy, Critically Examined by A Neutral Party. Kant responds to this book in his essay ‘What does it mean to orient oneself in thinking?’. This chapter contains a complete translation of Wizenmann’s subsequent response to the ‘Orientation’ essay, written in the form of an open letter to Kant. The most important claim of the letter is Wizenmann’s example of the lover who infers the existence of their beloved’s reciprocal love, simply because the lover needs this to be the case. Kant responds to Wizenmann, and this example, primarily in the second Critique’s chapter ‘On Assent from A Need of Pure Reason’ (5:142–6)