Lara Scaglia

doi:10.5281/zenodo.4899265

From the Schematism to the Typic. How Can We Be moral?

Lara Scaglia University of Warsaw

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4899265

Keywords: Typic, analogy, schema, common sense

Abstract

Kant’s chapter “On the Typic of the Pure Practical Power of Judgement” is one of the most obscure passages of the Critique of Practical Reason and it has often been regarded as a mere appendix. However, it deals with a fundamental question, namely, how can the pure practical law be applied to particular cases. In this paper, I would like to make an original contribution towards a better understanding of this chapter by comparing it to the Schematism chapter on the basis of their analogical relation and suggesting how the reference to a sensus communis could help in solving the (unsolved) aim of the Typic chapter.

View citations

References

Allison, E. H. (2011), Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ameriks, K. (2003), Interpreting Kant’s Critiques, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Audi, R. (2001), “A Kantian Intuitionism”, Mind, 110 (439), pp. 601-635.

Aune, B. (1979), Kant's Theory of Morals, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Bacon, F. (2002), Novum Organum, ed. L. Jardine and M. Silverthorne, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Beck, L. W. (1960), A Commentary on Kant's ‘Critique of Practical Reason’, University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

Benton, R. J. (1980), “Kant’s Categories of Practical Reason as Such”, Kant-Studien, No 71, pp. 181-201.

Bobzien, S. (1988), “Die Kategorien der Freiheit bei Kant”, en H. Oberer & G. Seel (eds), Kant: Analysen – Probleme – Kritik, Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg, pp.193-220. Brink, D. (1989), Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Budick, S. (2010), Kant and Milton, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA-London. Cassirer, E. (1931), “Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik. Bemerkungen zu Martin Heideggers Kant-Interpretation.”, Kant-Studien, No 36, pp. 1–26.

Cassirer, E. (1921), Kants Leben und Lehre, B. Cassirer, Berlin.

Cassirer, E. (1922-57), Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie und Wissenschaft der neueren Zeit, 4 vol., B. Cassirer, Berlin.

Deligiorgi, K. (2011) “What a Kantian Can Know a priori? A Defense of Moral Cognitivism”, en Baiasu, S., Pihlström, S. & Williams H. (eds.), Politics and Metaphysics in Kant, University of Wales Press, Cardiff, pp.153-17.

Dietrichson, P (1969), “Kant's Criteria of Universalizability”, en R. P. Wolff (ed.), Kant: Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Bobbs-Merill, Indianapolis.

Gordon, P. E. (2010), Continental Divide: Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos, Harvard University Press, Harvard.

Goudeli, K., Kontos, P. and Patellis, I. (2007), Kant: Making Reason Intuitive. Palgrave Macmillan.

Guyer, P. (2000), Kant on Freedom, Law, and Happiness, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hare, R.M (1997), Sorting Out Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hegel, G.W.F. (1968-), Gesammelte Werke, 31 vol., Nordrhein-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Hamburg.

Heidegger, M. (1973), Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt a. M.

Heintichs, J. (1968), Das Problem der Zeit in der praktischen Philosophie Kants, H. Bouvier, Bonn.

Herman, B. (1985), “The Practice of Moral Judgment”, The Journal of Philosophy, No 82, 8, pp. 414-436.

Herman, B. (1996), "Pluralism and the Community of Moral Judgment," en D. Heyd (ed.), Toleration: An Elusive Virtue, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp.60-80.

Hill, T. E., Jr. (1989), “Kantian Constructivism in Ethics”, Ethics, No 99, pp. 752-770. Otfried Höffe (1983), Immanuel Kant, Beck, München.

Horii, Midori (2015) “Von der "praktischen Urteilskraft" und dem "Typus" in Kants Kritik der praktischen Vernunft“ Departmental Bulletin Paper, KURENAI, Kyoto University, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.14989/191066 (access: 20/01/2021).

Kant, I. (1900-), Gesammelte Schriften, Akademie-Ausgabe, Berlin.

Kant, I. (1992), Theoretical Philosophy, 1755–1770, D. Walfrod (transl. ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kant I. (1996a), Practical Philosophy, M.J. Gregor (transl. ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kant I. (1996b), Religion and Rational Theology, A.W. Wood, G. di Giovanni (transl. ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kant, I. (1998), Critique of Pure Reason, P. Guyer, A. Wood (transl.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kant, I. (2000), Critique of the Power of Judgement, P. Guyer (transl.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kant, I. (2002), Theoretical Philosophy after 1781, H. Allison & P. Heath (eds.), G. Hatfield, M. Freidman & P. Heath (transl.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kant, I. (2004), Lectures on Logic, transl. by J. M. Young, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kant, I. (2007), Anthropology, History, and Education, G. Zöller, R. Louden (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kaulbach, F. (1982) Immanuel Kant, De Gruyter, Berlin, New York.

Kaulbach, F. (1982), Einführung in die Philosophie des Handelns, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.

Kinser, M (2019), “Kant’s Analogy between the Moral Law and the Law of Nature”, Con- Textos Kantianos, No 9, Junio, pp. 137-153.

Kleingeld, P. & Willaschek, M. (2019), “Kantian Autonomy without Self-Legislation of the Moral Law“, Philosopher's Imprint, 19 (6), pp.1-18.

Korsgaard, C. M. (1996), The Sources of Normativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Landucci, S. (1994), Sull'etica di Kant, Guerini e Associati, Milano:

Lloyd, G. E. R, (1966), Polarity and Analogy: Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Locke, J. (1976), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, A. D. Woozley (ed.), Fontana, London.

Louden, R. (2000), Kant's Impure Ethics, Oxford University Press, New York.

Makino, E. (1997),“Der Schematismus der reinen praktischen Vernunft. Die Bedeutung der Urteilskraft in der praktischen Philosophie Kants“, en Makino und Fukutani (eds), Neue Forschungen zur kritischen Metaphysik Kants, Kyoto.

O’Neill, O. (1989), Constructions of Reason. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tully, J. (2002), “The Kantian Idea of Europe", en Pagden, A. The Idea of Europe, Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Washington, pp. 331-358.

Paton, H. J. (1947), The Categorical Imperative, Hutchinson, London.

Pieper, A. (2002), “Zweites Hauptstück (57-71)“, en Höffe, O.(ed.), Immanuel Kant/ Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 115-133.

Puls, H. (2013), Funktionen der Freiheit, De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston.

Rawls, J. (1980), “Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory”, Journal of Philosophy, No 77, pp. 515-72.

Reath, A. (1994), “Legislating the Moral Law”, Noûs, No 28, pp. 435-464.

Ross, A. (1933), Kritik der sogenannten praktischen Erkenntnis, F. Meier, Hamburg.

Ross, W. D., (1927),“The Basis of Objective Judgements in Ethics”, International Journal of Ethics, 37, pp.113–127.

Sidgwick, H. (1931), Outlines of the History of Ethics, Macmillan and Company, Ltd. Silber, J. R. (1966), “Der Schematismus der praktischen Vernunft‟, Kant-Studien, No 56, 3-4, pp.256-288.

Schönecker, D. (2013), “Kant’s Moral Intuitionism: The Fact of Reason and MoralPredispositions”, Kant-Studies Online, No 1, pp. 1-38

Schwemmer, O. (1971), Philosophie der Praxis, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.

Stern, R. (2012), Understanding Moral Obligation: Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Tsuburaya, Y. (2012),“Die reflektierende Urteilskraft und das Prinzip der Zweckmäßigkeit“, en Für die Schüler Kants, das vierte Kap. „Die Philosophie der Kunst und Teleologie ―Das Problem der Schönheit und Zweckmäßigkeit―“, K. Arifuku und E. Makino (ed.), Kyoto.

Vuillemin, J. 1989,“Kant’s ‘Dynamics’: Comments on Tuschling and Forster’“, en E. Förster (ed.), Kant’s Transcendental Deductions. The Three Critiques and the Opus postumum, Stanford University Press, Standford, pp. 239–247.

Westra, A. (2016), The Typic in Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: Moral Judgment and Symbolic Representation, De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.

Willaschek, M. (1992), Praktische Vernunft. Handlungstheorie und Moralbegründung bei Kant, J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart/Weimar.

Willaschek, M.(1995),“Was sind praktische Gesetzte?”, en Proceedings of the Eighth International Kant Congress, No 2, pp. 533-54.

Willaschek, M. (2018), Kant on the Sources of Metaphysics: The Dialectic of Pure Reason, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Willaschek, M.; Stolzenberg, J.; Mohr, G. & Bacin, S. (eds.) (2015), Kant-Lexikon. De Gruyter, Berlin.

Wood, A. W. (1999), Kant's Ethical Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge New York.

Zimmermann, S. (2011), Kants 'Kategorien der Freiheit', Kantstudien-Ergänzungshefte 167, De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston.

Article download

PDF
HTML

Crossmark

Metrics

Published

2021-06-09

How to Cite

Scaglia L. (2021). From the Schematism to the Typic. How Can We Be moral?. Con-Textos Kantianos. International Journal of Philosophy, 13, 323-343. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4899265