Reply to v.d. Berg, Edwards and Westphal

 

BRYAN HALL | The Post-Critical Kant: Understanding the Critical Philosophy through the Opus Postumum | Routledge 2015


 

By Bryan Hall 

I would first like to thank Hein van den Berg and Jeffrey Edwards for their detailed comments on my work as well as for their own valuable contributions to the scholarship on Kant’s Opus postumum. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to both of them in (virtual) print. Thanks also to Kenneth Westphal for his thoughtful reflections on his own work as well as for his concerned diagnosis of what ails modern academia (I was happy to see that my work is more a symptom than a cause). I respond to them in turn.

Response to Hein van den Berg

Although we represent different strands of interpretation, in what follows, I hope to show that there is some common ground between our two approaches. Van den Berg’s approach continues a strand of interpretation first promulgated by Hansgeorg Hoppe (see my The Post-Critical Kant, henceforth PCK, pp. 13–15). Read more

Advertisements

Kenneth Westphal on Bryan Hall’s “The Post-Critical Kant”

 

BRYAN HALL | The Post-Critical Kant: Understanding the Critical Philosophy through the Opus Postumum | Routledge 2015


 

By Kenneth R. Westphal 

In both structure and substance, Kant’s posthumous manuscripts on transcendental philosophy of nature (henceforth Opus postumum) are deeply challenging, problematic and controversial. Bryan Hall bravely ventures to make sense of them in his recent book, The Post-Critical Kant: Understanding the Critical Philosophy through the ‘Opus Postumum’. In his own comments on Hall’s book for this forum, Jeffrey Edwards ably summarises the main thrust of Hall’s interpretation and re-examines how Eckart Förster’s chronological findings reinforce, rather than undermine, Burkhard Tuschling’s interpretation of Kant’s late manuscripts, an interpretation Edwards (2000; 2004) has significantly augmented. Edwards’s re-examination of Förster’s chronology matters to assessing Hall’s views because Hall relies on Förster’s chronology to counter Tuschling’s interpretation. In re-examining this chronology, Edwards also highlights important features of Kant’s thinking in these manuscripts, features which count against Hall’s views. Read more

Jeffrey Edwards on Bryan Hall’s “The Post-Critical Kant”

 

BRYAN HALL | The Post-Critical Kant: Understanding the Critical Philosophy through the Opus Postumum | Routledge 2015


 

By Jeffrey Edwards 

Bryan Hall’s approach to Kant’s late philosophy is consistent with my own in one important respect. He insists that the Opus postumum’s æther deduction provides the main platform for understanding the surprising directions that Kant’s thinking takes during the final decades of his philosophical career. While recognising that we share common ground with regard to this pivotal supposition, however, my comments will concentrate on a number of areas in which the lines of our interpretative arguments diverge. I shall limit my discussion of these areas of divergence to Hall’s understanding of the gap in Kant’s system of Critical philosophy, and thus to Hall’s account of the tensions and inconsistencies in Kant’s theory of substance.

1. Hall on the Gap in Kant’s Critical Philosophy

The following passages from The Post-Critical Kant allow us to put together a reasonably clear picture of Hall’s account of the gap in Kant’s system: Read more

Hein v.d. Berg on Bryan Hall’s “The Post-Critical Kant”

 

BRYAN HALL | The Post-Critical Kant: Understanding the Critical Philosophy through the Opus Postumum | Routledge 2015


 

By Hein van den Berg 

In a letter to Christian Garve, dated September 21st, 1798, Kant laments that his philosophy is not completed:

I see before me the unpaid bill of my uncompleted philosophy, even while I am aware that philosophy, both as regards its means and its ends, is capable of completion. It is a pain like that of Tantalus though not a hopeless pain. The project on which I am now working concerns the ‘Transition from the metaphysical foundations of natural science to physics’. It must be completed, or else a gap will remain in the critical philosophy. (Br, AA 12:257)

Kant never completed his transition project. The drafts he left are contained in volumes 21 and 22 of the Akademie edition of Kants gesammelte Schriften, the so-called Opus postumum (see van den Berg 2016:329).

In his The Post-Critical Kant: Understanding the Critical Philosophy through the Opus postumum, Read more