Susan Shell on Stephen Palmquist’s “Comprehensive Commentary on Kant’s «Religion»”

 

STEPHEN PALMQUIST | Comprehensive Commentary on Kant’s Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason | Wiley-Blackwell 2015 


 

By Susan Meld Shell

Stephen Palmquist’s commentary on Kant’s Religion performs an inestimable service for which students of both Kant and the history of philosophy and theology have reason to be deeply grateful. Palmquist’s own novel and searching interpretative approach to Kant’s religion is visible on every page; yet this commentary neither presupposes agreement with that approach nor is its usefulness intended to be limited to those who share it. Given such a wide ranging study, in which thought-provoking gems appear on almost every page, I must regrettably give short shrift to the many ways in which I have profited from reading Palmquist’s commentary, along with many points of strong agreement, including the importance of strict fidelity to the text, and due attention to the circumstances surrounding its publication. And I am entirely sympathetic with his attempt to situate Religion within a wider systematic context.

Read more

Christina Drogalis on Stephen Palmquist’s “Comprehensive Commentary on Kant’s «Religion»”

 

STEPHEN PALMQUIST | Comprehensive Commentary on Kant’s Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason | Wiley-Blackwell 2015 


 

By Christina Drogalis

Before I begin my comments, I would like to acknowledge the great work that Stephen Palmquist has accomplished with this book. I was impressed not only by the care which he took in the translation of Kant’s writings but also by the significant contributions that he made to our understanding of how the Religion fits with Kant’s other works and projects. He argues, I think rightly, that we should understand the Religion as part of the judicial wing of Kant’s writings, rather than the practical wing. In understanding that the Religion focuses on the question of “What may I hope?” rather than “What ought I to do?”, we as readers begin to take a new perspective on Kant’s intentions for this work.

Read more

Reply to Anil Gomes and Tim Jankowiak

 

DAVID LANDY | Kant’s Inferentialism: The Case Against Hume | Routledge 2015 


 

By David Landy

Before attempting to answer the insightful and challenging questions that Gomes and Jankowiak have raised, I would like to begin by thanking them both for engaging so deeply and productively with my work. Owing as it does so much to Kant and Sellars, and limited as it is by my own expository and explanatory abilities, Kant’s Inferentialism is an admittedly difficult book. Thus, I appreciate all the more Gomes’s and Jankowiak’s successful efforts to plum its depths and emerge with questions and concerns that get at the very core of its project. In what follows, I attempt to answer and address those.

Read more