Advertisement

The Fundamental Ambiguity of Kant’s Teleology of Reason

  • Courtney D. FugateEmail author
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

In a previous study, I argued that Kant was guided throughout his intellectual career by a few fundamental insights regarding what, broadly, has been called “teleology.” In particular, I argued that Kant’s Critical and utterly original conception of the structure and unity of reason as teleological evolved out of his pre-Critical attempts to perfect the theocentric teleology typical of – to take just two relevant examples – Christian Wolff and Alexander Pope. In this process, Kant came to the general view that the previous picture of the cosmos as unified into an inexhaustibly productive and infinitely dense nexus of ends has its source in the intrinsic “needs” of finite human reason.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Bennett, Jonathan. 1983. “Teleology and Spinoza’s Conatus.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 8: 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benardete, Seth. (Unpublished). The Last Days of Socrates: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo. Lecture course delivered in New York at the New School beginning in February 1971.Google Scholar
  3. Blumenberg, Hans. 1983. “Self-Preservation and Inertia: On the Constitution of Modern Rationality.” In Contemporary German Philosophy, Volume 3. ed. Darrel E. Christensen, et. al. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 209–56.Google Scholar
  4. Curley, Edwin. 1990. “On Bennett’s Spinoza: The Issue of Teleology.” In Spinoza: Issues and Directions. ed. Curley, Edwin and Pierre-Francois Moreau. Leiden: Brill, 39–52.Google Scholar
  5. Dancy, R. M. 2004. Plato’s Introduction of Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Della Rocca, Michael. 2006. “Spinoza’s Metaphysical Psychology.” In The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza. ed. Garrett, Don. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 192–266.Google Scholar
  7. Dörflinger, Bernd. 1995. “The Underlying Teleology of the First Critique.” In Proceedings of the Eighth International Kant Congress: Memphis, 1995. ed. Robinson, Hoke. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 813–26.Google Scholar
  8. Dörflinger, Bernd. 2000. Das Leben theoretischer Vernunft. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  9. Dorter, Kenneth. 1982. Plato’s Phaedo: An Interpretation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  10. Düsing, Klaus. Die Teleologie in Kants Weltbegriff. Kantstudien Ergänzungshefte, 96. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Ferrarin, Alfredo. 2013. The Powers of Pure Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fugate, Courtney D. 2014a. “‘With a Philosophical Eye’: The Role of Mathematical Beauty in Kant’s Intellectual Development.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 44: 759–88.Google Scholar
  12. Fugate, Courtney D. 2014b. The Teleology of Reason. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  13. Fugate, Courtney D. 2016. “Reply to Huaping Lu-Adler.” Critique, URL=https://virtualcritique.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/reply-to-lu-adler/.
  14. Garrett, Don. 1999. “Teleology in Spinoza and Early Modern Rationalism.” In New Essays on the Rationalists. ed. Gennaro, Rocco and Charles Huenemann. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 310–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hegel, G. W. F. 1986. Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie I. Based on volume 18 of Werke, edited by Eva Moldenhauer and Karl Markus Michel. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  16. Hegel, G. W. F. 1991. The Encyclopaedia Logic. Translated T. F. Geraets, W. A. Suchting and H. S. Harris. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  17. Hegel, G. W. F. 1994. Wissenschaft der Logik: Die Lehre vom Begriff (1816). ed. Hans-Jürgen Gawoll with an introduction by Friedrich Hogemann. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Henrich, Dieter. 1972. “The Basic Structure of Modern Philosophy.” Cultural Hermeneutics, 2:1-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herbert, Gary B. 2009. “The Non-normative Nature of Hobbesian Natural Law.” Hobbes Studies, 22: 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hobbes, Thomas. 2004. Leviathan. With an essay by W. G. Pogson Smith and an introduction by Jennifer J. Popiel. New York: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
  21. Kleingeld, Pauline. 1998. “The Conative Character of Reason in Kant’s Philosophy. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 36: 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lin, Martin. 2006. “Teleology and Human Action in Spinoza.” Philosophical Review, 115: 317–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Longuenesse, Béatrice. 1998. Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Translated by Charles T. Wolfe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Longuenesse, Béatrice. 2000. “Kant’s Categories and the Capacity to Judge: Responses to Henry Allison and Sally Sedgwick.” Inquiry, 42: 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lu-Adler, Huaping. 2015. “Huaping Lu-Adler on Courtney Fugate’s ‘The Teleology of Reason.’” Critique. URL=https://virtualcritique.wordpress.com/2016/10/22/huaping-lu-adler-on-courtney-fugates-the-teleology-of-reason/.
  26. Maupertuis, Par. M. de. 1751. Essai de Cosmologie. Published in German the same year as Versuch einer Cosmologie. Berlin: C. G. Nicolai.Google Scholar
  27. MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1981. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. London: Gerald Duckworth.Google Scholar
  28. McDonough, Jeffrey K. 2011. “The Heyday of Teleology and Early Modern Philosophy.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 35:179-204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McLaughlin, Peter. 1989. Kants Kritik der teleologischen Urteilskraft. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Mensch, Jennifer. Kant’s Organicism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mueller, Ian. 1998. “Platonism and the Study of Nature (Phaedo 95e ff.).” In Method in Ancient Philosophy. ed. Genzler, Jyl. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  32. Plato. 2007. The Republic. Translated by Desmond Lee, with an introduction by Melissa Lane. London/New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  33. Schönfeld, Martin. 2000. The Philosophy of the Young Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Schneider, Friedrich. 1966. „Kant’s ‚Allgemeine Naturgeschichte‘ und ihre philosophische Bedeutung.“ Kant-Studien, 57: 167–77.Google Scholar
  35. Shea, William R. 1986. “Filled with Wonder: Kant’s Cosmological Essay, the Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens.” In Kant’s Philosophy of Physical Science. ed. Butts, Robert E. Dordrecht: Reidel, 95–124.Google Scholar
  36. Spinoza, Baruch. 1992. Ethics, Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect and Selected Letters. Translated by Samuel Shirley, edited and introduced by Seymour Feldman. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  37. Tonelli, Giorgio. 1959. Elementi methodologici e metaphysici in Kant dal 1747 al 1768. Studi ricerche di storia della filosophia, 29. Torino: Edizione di “Filosofia.”Google Scholar
  38. Velkley, Richard. 1989. Freedom and the End of Reason: On the Moral Foundations of Kant’s Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Vlastos, Gregory. 1971. “Reasons as Causes in the Phaedo.” In: Plato: A Collection of Critical Essays. ed. Gregory Vlastos. 2 vols. New York: Anchor Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zöller, Günter. 2001. „‚Die Seele des Systems‘: Systembegriff und Begriffssystem in Kants Transzendentalphilosophie.“ In: Architektonik und System der Philosophie Kants. hrsg. Fulda, H. F. and J. Stolzenberg. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 53–72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.America University of BeirutBeirutLibanon

Personalised recommendations