Contemporaneous Philosophy

  • Samuel Atlas
Chapter

Abstract

Kant, who set himself the task of reconciling empiricism with rationalism, retained a certain dualism in his thought, that was fully overcome only by the philosophy of identity. The whole period between Kant and Fichte, the first representative of the post-Kantian speculative metaphysics, which culminated in the philosophy of identity, was dominated by the struggle against this dualism and by the attempt to replace it with a monism. The given object (thing-in-itself) and pure thought (a priori thought), matter and form, receptivity and spontaneity, a posteriori and a priori, the empirical and the intelligible, nature and man, causality and freedom — these are the characteristic features of Kantian dualism. It is true that Kant emphasized the priority of the second element in his dichotomy, i.e., form over matter, pure transcendental subjectivity over thing-in-itself, a priori over a posteriori, and so forth. Nevertheless, the first element — matter, thing-in-itself, and a posteriori — was not, so it seemed to the first interpreters of Kant, entirely discarded by the master but retained a definite and legitimate place in his system.

Keywords

Scientific Experience Objective Truth Pure Reason Critical Idealism Critical Philosophy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Str., p. 217.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Logik, p. 323.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    “Die Vorstellung wird im Bewusstsein vom Vorgestellten und Vorstellenden unterschieden und auf beide bezogen.”Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Magazin zur Erfahrungsseelenkunde, 9 Band, 3 Stück, pp. 8 f.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibid., p. 9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Karl Leonhard Reinholds Leben und Literarisches Wirken, herausgegeben von Ernst Reinhold, Jena 1825, pp. 369 ff. George Wilhelm Bartholdy collaborated with Maimon in publishing a German translation of “Bacon’s Von Verulam Neues Organon”; the translation is by Bartholdy and the notes are by Maimon.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The correspondence between Reinhold and Maimon appeared as a section of Str., pp. 179-244 under the title, “Philosophischer Briefwechsel.”Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    For example, Edmund Husserl, Max Scheler and Nicolai Hartmann.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    See Reinholds Leben und Literarisches Wirken, pp. 369 ff.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mag. z. Erfahrungsseelenkunde, 9 Band, 3 Stück, pp. 8 f.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Logik, p. 242.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Ibid., pp. 242 f.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    See Mag. z. Erfahrungsseelenkunde, 10 Band, 3 Stück, pp. 123 f.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Logik, pp. 316 f.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alfred Klemmt, Karl Leonhard Reinholds Elementar philosophie, Verlag von Felix Meiner (Hamburg, 1958), “Vorwort,” p. xi.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    However, some ontologists (chief among them Max Scheler and Nicolai Hartmann) employed the phenomenological method to deduce the existence of transcendent entities, essences, and values.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    See Klemmt, op. cit., pp. xii f.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See J. G. Fichte, “Recension des Aenesidemus…,” in Sämtliche Werke, Vol. I (Berlin, 1845).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    See Fichtes Leben und Briefwechsel (2d ed., 1826), pp. 511 f.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Logik, pp. 293-438.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ibid., pp. 337 f.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ibid., p. 338.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Ibid., 340.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schulze, op. cit., p. 117, note.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    See the chapter in Aenesidemus, p. 130: “Has the Skepticism of Hume Really Been Refuted by the Critique of Pure Reason?”Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ibid., p. 133.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ibid., p. 347.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ibid., p. 137.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Logik, p. 347.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ibid., p. 348.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schulze, op. cit., pp. 263 f.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ibid., pp. 142 ff.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Logik, p. 350.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ibid., pp. 349 f.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ibid., p. 350.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ibid., p. 354.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ibid., p. 355.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schulze, op. cit., p. 152.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Logik, p. 353.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schulze, op. cit., p. 154.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ibid., p. 160. As to the meaning of the term noumena, Schulze is inclined to understand it as a thing-in-itself, which seems to be implied in Kant. See Schulze, op. cit., pp. 161 n.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ibid., pp. 170 f.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
  48. 48.
    Logik, p. 355.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    See Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s Sämtliche Werke, Berlin, 1845, I, 313 f.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ibid., p. 314.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ibid., p. 490.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ibid., p. 315.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
  54. 54.
    Ibid., p. 490.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ibid., p. 447.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ibid., p. 490.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ibid., p. 447.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    See Johann Gottlieb Fichtes Leben und literarischer Briefwechsel, herausgegeben von seinem Sohne Immanuel Hermann Fichte, 1862, p. 511.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Fichte, Sämtliche Werke, I, p. 227.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ibid., pp. 482 ff.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ibid., p. 472: “Verdrehung des Verstandes.”Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ibid.: “Unvernünftiger Begriff.”Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ibid., p. 19: “Unfug.”Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ibid., p. 472.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ibid., p. 482.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ibid., p. 483. The same argument is used by Maimon. See above, p. 54, n. 2.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ibid., p. 377.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ibid., p. 378.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ibid., pp. 19 f.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    See Fichte, Leben und literarischer Briefwechsel, II, 443 ff.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    I.e., Versuch einer neuen Logik.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Dated October 16, 1794. See Fichte, Leben und literarischer Briefwechsel, p. 444.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    See Maimon, Str., p. 187.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    This letter is not included in the collection of Fichte’s letters published by hin son; it was published by Raoul Richter in the Kantstudien, V, 116, under the heading, “Ein ungedruckter Fichte Brief.”Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    “Weil ich ohne dem auch der Literaturzeitung so wichtige Rezensionen, als Maimons Logik, schuldig bin.” It seems, however, that Fichte did not write the promised review on Maimon’s Logik, as the editor, R. Richter, noted. See Kantstudien, V, 118, note 1.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    See ibid., note 2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague. Netherlands 1964

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel Atlas
    • 1
  1. 1.Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of ReligionNew York CityUSA

Personalised recommendations