Book contents
- Kant’s Theory of NormativityExploring the Space of Reason
- Kant’s Theory of Normativity
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface and Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I From the Clarity of Ideas to the Validity of Judgments
- Part II Kant’s Transcendental Hylomorphism
- Part III The Legislation of Pure Reason
- Epilogue: Kant’s Moderate Forms of Transcendental and Political Idealism
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 March 2017
Book contents
- Kant’s Theory of NormativityExploring the Space of Reason
- Kant’s Theory of Normativity
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface and Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I From the Clarity of Ideas to the Validity of Judgments
- Part II Kant’s Transcendental Hylomorphism
- Part III The Legislation of Pure Reason
- Epilogue: Kant’s Moderate Forms of Transcendental and Political Idealism
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Kant's Theory of NormativityExploring the Space of Reason, pp. 312 - 321Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Adams, R.M., “God, Possibility, and Kant,” Faith and Philosophy 17 (2000), pp. 425–40.Google Scholar
Adams, R.M., Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist (Oxford University Press, 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, R.M., “The Priority of the Perfect in the Philosophical Theology of the Continental Rationalists,” Proceedings of the British Academy 149 (2007), pp. 91–116.Google Scholar
Adickes, E., “Ueber die Abfassungszeit der Kritik der reinen Vernunft,” Kant-Studien (Kiel und Leipzig: Lipsius und Tischer, 1895), pp. 167–85.Google Scholar
Allison, H.E., Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, H.E., Kant’s Theory of Taste: A Reading of the ‘Critique of Judgment’ (Cambridge University Press, 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, H.E., Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense, Revised and enlarged edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, H.E., “The Originality of Kant’s Distinction between Analytic and Synthetic Judgments,” in Kennington, R. (ed.), The Philosophy of Immanuel Kant (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1985), pp. 15–38.Google Scholar
Allison, H.E., “Revisiting Judgments of Perception,” in Egger, M. (ed.), Philosophie nach Kant: Neue Wege zum Verständnis von Kants Transzendental- und Moralphilosophie (Berlin: DeGruyter, 2014), pp. 71–86.Google Scholar
Ameriks, K., Kant and the Fate of Autonomy: Problems in the Appropriation of the Critical Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
Anderson, R.L., “The Introduction to the Critique: Framing the Question,” in Guyer, P. (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 75–92.Google Scholar
Anderson, R.L., “Neo-Kantianism and the Roots of Anti-Psychologism,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 13 (2005), pp. 287–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R.L., The Poverty of Conceptual Truth: Kant’s Analytic/Synthetic Distinction and the Limits of Metaphysics (Oxford University Press, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R.L., “Synthesis, Cognitive Normativity, and the Meaning of Kant’s Question, ‘How Are Synthetic Cognitions a Priori Possible?’,” European Journal of Philosophy 9 (2001), pp. 275–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aquinas, T., St Thomas Aquinas Treatise On Man, trans. Anderson, J.F. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1962).Google Scholar
Aquinas, T., Summa Theologica, Fathers of the English Dominican Province (trans.) (New York, NY: Benziger, 1947); (New York, NY: Cosimo, 2007).Google Scholar
Ariew, R., and Grene, M., “The Cartesian Destiny of Form and Matter,” in Early Science and Medicine 2/3 (The Fate of Hylomorphism: ‘Matter’ and ‘Form’ in Early Modern Science) (1997), pp. 300–25.Google Scholar
Aristotle, , De Anima, Books II and III, trans. with an introduction and notes Hamlyn, D.W. (Oxford University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Arnauld, A., and Nicole, P., Logic, or the Art of Thinking, Containing, besides Common Rules, Several New Observations Appropriate for Forming Judgments [1683], trans. Buroker, J. Vance (Cambridge University Press, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgarten, A.G., Aesthetica (Francofurti ad Oderam: I.C. Kleyb, 1750/1758), in Mirbach, D. (trans. and ed.), Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten: Ästhetik, (Hamburg: Meiner, 2007), vol. I.Google Scholar
Baumgarten, A.G., Metaphysica, Halae Magdeburgicae: Hemmerde, 1739 (reprint in Kant, AA, vol. 15); Fugate, C.D. and Hymers, J. (trans.) Metaphysics: A Critical Translation with Kant’s Elucidations, Selected Notes, and Related Materials (London: Bloomsbury, 2013).Google Scholar
Beiser, F.C., Diotima’s Children: German Aesthetic Rationalism from Leibniz to Lessing (Oxford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
Beiser, F.C., “Kant’s intellectual development: 1746–1781,” in Guyer, P. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Kant (Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 26–61.Google Scholar
Bergmann, E., Die Begründung der deutschen Ästhetik durch Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten und Georg Friedrich Meier (Leipzig: Röder & Schunke, 1911).Google Scholar
Bird, G., Kant’s Theory of Knowledge: An Outline of One Central Argument in the ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962).Google Scholar
Brandom, R., Tales of the Mighty Dead: Historical Essays in the Metaphysics of Intentionality (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Brandt, R., Kritischer Kommentar zu Kants Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht (1798) (Hamburg: Meiner, 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, R., “Schön, Erhaben, nicht Häßlich: Überlegungen zur Entstehung und Systematik der Kantischen Theorie des ästhetischen Urteils,” in Klemme, H., Pauen, M., and Raters, M-L. (eds.), Im Schatten des Schönen: Die Ästhetik des Häßlichen in historischen Ansätzen und aktuellen Debatten (Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 2006, 65–92).Google Scholar
Brandt, R., “Die Schönheit der Kristalle und das Spiel der Erkenntniskräfte: Zum Gegenstand und zur Logik des ästhetischen Urteils bei Kant,” in Brandt, R. and Stark, W. (eds.), Autographen, Dokumente und Berichte: Zu Edition, Amtsgeschäften und Werk Immanuel Kants (Hamburg: Meiner, 1994), pp. 19–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, R., “Transzendentale Ästhetik, §§1–3,” in Mohr, G. and Willaschek, M. (eds.), Immanuel Kant: Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Berlin: Akademie, 1998), pp. 81–105.Google Scholar
Brandt, R., “Die vielfältige Verwendung der 1, 2, 3/4 – Konstellation in Kants Philosophie,” Die Macht des Vierten: Über eine Ordnung der europäischen Kultur, ed. Brandt, R. (Hamburg: Meiner, 2013), pp. 169–222.Google Scholar
Bratman, M.E., Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987).Google Scholar
Broome, J., “Does Rationality Give Us Reasons?” Philosophical Issues 15 (2005), pp. 321–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J., Rationality Through Reasoning (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G., “Compossibility, Harmony, and Perfection in Leibniz,” in Philosophical Review 96 (1987), pp. 173–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunero, J., “The Scope of Rational Requirements,” Philosophical Quarterly 60 (2010), pp. 28–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buroker, J.V., Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’: An Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, B.S. and Hruschka, J., Kant’s Doctrine of Right: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callanan, J., “Kant on Nativism, Scepticism and Necessity,” Kantian Review 18 (2013), pp. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callanan, J., “Normativity and the Acquisition of the Categories,” Hegel Society of Great Britain. Bulletin 32 (Special Issue 1–2, 1, 2011), pp. 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassirer, E., Gesammelte Werke: Hamburger Ausgabe, ed. Recki, Birgit (Hamburg: Meiner, 1998–2008) [ECW].Google Scholar
Chignell, A., “Kant on the Normativity of Taste: The Role of Aesthetic Ideas,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (2007), pp. 415–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, K., Nicht-reine synthetische Urteile a priori: Ein Problem der Transzendentalphilosophie Immanuel Kants (Heidelberg: Winter, 1985).Google Scholar
Crawford, D.W., Kant’s Aesthetic Theory (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1974).Google Scholar
Crusius, C.A., Entwurf der nothwendigen Vernunftwahrheiten wiefern sie den zufälligen entgegengesetzt werden (Leipzig: Gleditsch, 1745).Google Scholar
Crusius, C.A., Weg zur Gewißheit und Zuverlässigkeit der menschlichen Erkenntnis (Leipzig: Gleditsch, 1747).Google Scholar
De Pierris, G., “The Constitutive A Priori,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Volume 18 (1992), pp. 179–214.Google Scholar
Descartes, R., Oeuvres de Descartes, Adam, C. and Tannery, P. (ed.), revised edition, 12 vols (Paris: J. Vrin), pp. 1964–74 [AT].Google Scholar
Descartes, R., The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., Murdoch, D., Kenny, A. (trans.), (Cambridge University Press, 1984) vol. I, (1985) vol. II, (1991) vol. III, [CSMK].Google Scholar
Engstrom, S., “The Complete Object of Practical Knowledge,” in Aufderheide, J. and Bader, R., (eds.), The Highest Good in Aristotle and Kant (Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 129–57.Google Scholar
Fisher, M. and Watkins, E., “Kant on the Material Ground of Possibility: From The Only Possible Argument to the Critique of Pure Reason,” The Review of Metaphysics 52 (1998), pp. 369–95.Google Scholar
Floyd, J., “Kant on Reflective Judgment and Systematicity,” in Parret, H. (ed.), Kants Ästhetik/Kant’s Aesthetics/L’esthétique de Kant (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1998), pp. 192–218.Google Scholar
Förster, E., Kant’s Final Synthesis: An Essay on the Opus Postumum (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
Fricke, C., Kants Theorie des reinen Geschmacksurteils (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M., “Causal Laws and the Foundations of Natural Science,” in Guyer, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant (Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 161–99.Google Scholar
Friedman, M., “Exorcising the Philosophical Tradition: Comments on John McDowell’s Mind and World,” The Philosophical Review 105 (1996), pp. 427–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M., “Geometry, Construction and Intuition in Kant and His Successors,” in Sher, G. and Tieszen, R. (eds.), Between Logic and Intuition: Essays in Honor of Charles Parsons (Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 186–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M., Kant’s Construction of Nature: A Reading of the ‘Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science’ (Cambridge University Press, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M., “Laws of Nature and Causal Necessity,” Kant-Studien 105 (2014), pp. 531–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M., “The Prolegomena and Natural Science,” in Lyre, H. and Schliemann, O. (eds.), Kants Prolegomena: Ein kooperativer Kommentar (Frankfurt/M.: Klostermann, 2012), pp. 299–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M., “Regulative and Constitutive,” Southern Journal of Philosophy (1991), pp. 73–102.Google Scholar
Garber, D., Descartes Embodied: Reading Cartesian Philosophy through Cartesian Science (Cambridge University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Garber, D., “Leibniz on Form and Matter,” in Early Science and Medicine 2/3 (The Fate of Hylomorphism: ‘Matter’ and ‘Form’ in Early Modern Science) (1997), pp. 326–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsborg, H., The Normativity of Nature: Essays on Kant’s Critique of Judgement (Oxford University Press, 2015).Google Scholar
Giovanelli, M., Reality and Negation – Kant’s Principle of Anticipations of Perception: An Investigation of its Impact on the Post-Kantian Debate (Dordrecht: Springer, 2011).Google Scholar
Giordanetti, P., “Sachanmerkungen,” in Kritik der Urteilskraft (Hamburg: Meiner, 2001), pp. 431–70.Google Scholar
Gloy, K., Die Kantische Theorie der Naturwissenschaft: Eine Strukturanalyse ihrer Möglichkeit, ihres Umfangs und ihrer Grenzen (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graubner, H., Form und Wesen: ein Beitrag zur Deutung des Formbegriffs in Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Bonn: Bouvier, 1972).Google Scholar
Grene, M., and Ariew, R., “The Cartesian Destiny of Form and Matter,” in Early Science and Medicine 2/3 (The Fate of Hylomorphism: ‘Matter’ and ‘Form’ in Early Modern Science) (1997), pp. 300–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grier, M., Kant’s Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion (Cambridge University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Guyer, P., “The Deduction of the Categories: The Metaphysical and Transcendental Deductions,” in Guyer, P. (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 118–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P., Kant and the Claims of Taste (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979).Google Scholar
Guyer, P., Kant and the Experience of Freedom: Essays on Aesthetics and Morality (Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Guyer, P., “Kantian Perfectionism,” in Jost, L. and Wuerth, J. (eds.), Perfecting Virtue: New Essays on Kantian Ethics and Virtue Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 194–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P., “Naturalistic and Transcendental Moments in Kant’s Moral Philosophy,” Inquiry 50 (2007), pp. 444–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P., Values of Beauty: Historical Essays in Aesthetics (Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
Hampton, J., The Authority of Reason, ed. Healey, R., (Cambridge University Press, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G.W.F., The Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. Miller, A.V. (Oxford University Press, 1977).Google Scholar
Hill, T.E., Dignity and Practical Reason in Kant’s Moral Theory (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
Hobbes, T., Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil (London: Crooke, 1651).Google Scholar
Hoeppner, T., “Kants Begriff der Funktion und die Vollständigkeit der Urteils- und Kategorientafel,” Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 65 (2011), pp. 193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hruschka, J. and Byrd, B.S., Kant’s Doctrine of Right: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Kästner, A.G., Anfangsgründe der Arithmetik, Geometrie, ebenen und sphärischen Trigonometrie und Perspectiv (Göttingen: Vandenhoek, 1758).Google Scholar
Kain, P., “Self-Legislation in Kant’s Moral Philosophy,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 86 (2004), pp. 257–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleingeld, P., “Moral Consciousness and the ‘Fact of Reason,’” in Reath, A. and Timmermann, J. (eds.), Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 55–72.Google Scholar
Klemme, H.F., “Einleitung,” in Immanuel Kant: Kritik der praktischen Vernunft (Hamburg: Meiner, 2003), pp. ix–lxiii.Google Scholar
Klemme, H.F., “Einleitung,” in Immanuel Kant: Kritik der Urteilskraft (Hamburg: Meiner, 2001), pp. xiii–xcvii.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C.M., “The Normativity of Instrumental Reason,” in Cullity, G. and Gaut, B. (eds.), Ethics and Practical Reason (Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 215–54.Google Scholar
Kraus, K.T., “Quantifying Inner Experience? Kant’s Mathematical Principles in the Context of Empirical Psychology,” European Journal of Philosophy, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Lavin, D., “Practical Reason and the Possibility of Error,” Ethics 114 (2004), pp. 424–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G.W., New Essays on Human Understanding (Nouveaux Essais sur l’entendement humain, 1704/1765), trans. Remnant, P. and Bennett, J. (Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Leibniz, G.W., Philosophical Essays, ed. and trans. Ariew, R. and Garber, D. (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1989).Google Scholar
Lewis, F.A., “Form and Matter,” in Anagnostopoulos, G. (ed.), A Companion to Aristotle (Oxford: Blackwell, 2009), pp. 162–85.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, B., Kant and the Capacity to Judge: Sensibility and Discursivity in the Transcendental Analytic of the Critique of Pure Reason (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longuenesse, B., “Kant’s Theory of Judgment, and Judgments of Taste,” Inquiry 46 (2003), pp. 143–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu-Adler, H., “Kant and the Normativity of Logic,” European Journal of Philosophy, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Lu-Adler, H., “Epigenesis of Pure Reason and the Source of Pure Cognitions: How Kant Is No Nativist about Logical Cognition,” in Muchnik, P. and Thorndike, O. (eds.), Rethinking Kant, vol. 5 (Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholarly Publishing), forthcoming.Google Scholar
Ludwig, B., “Einleitung,” in Immanuel Kant: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre (Hamburg: Meiner, 1986), xiii–liv.Google Scholar
Lumer, C., “Geltung, Gültigkeit,” in Enzyklopädie Philosophie, ed. Sandkühler, H.J. (Hamburg: Meiner, 1999), vol. I, pp. 450–55.Google Scholar
Lüthy, C., and Newman, W.R., “‘Matter’ and ‘Form’: By Way of a Preface,” in Lüthy, C. and Newman, W.R. (eds.), The Fate of Hylomorphism: ‘Matter’ and ‘Form’ in Early Modern Science, (Early Science and Medicine Special Issue, fascicle 2.3) (Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 215–26.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J.G., “What Does it Mean to Say that Logic is Formal?” (PhD Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 2000).Google Scholar
Meier, G.F., Anfangsgründe aller schönen Künste und Wissenschaften (Halle: Hemmerde, 1748), vol. I.Google Scholar
Meier, G.F., Versuch eines neuen Lehrgebäudes von den Seelen der Thiere (Halle: Hemmerde, 1749).Google Scholar
Melamed, Y.Y., “‘Omnis determinatio est negatio’: Determination, Negation, and Self-Negation in Spinoza, Kant, and Hegel,” in Förster, E. and Melamed, Y.Y. (eds.), Spinoza and German Idealism (Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 175–95.Google Scholar
Mendelssohn, M., Rhapsodie (1761/1771), in Bamberger, F. et. al. (eds.), Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1929) vol. I [Philosophical Writings, transl. and ed. Dahlstrom, D.O. (Cambridge University Press, 1997)].Google Scholar
Natorp, P., Platos Ideenlehre: Eine Einführung in den Idealismus (Leipzig: Dürr, 1903).Google Scholar
Newman, W.R., and Lüthy, C., “‘Matter’ and ‘Form’: By Way of a Preface,” in Lüthy, C. and Newman, W.R. (eds.) The Fate of Hylomorphism: ‘Matter’ and ‘Form’ in Early Modern Science, (Early Science and Medicine, Special Issue, fascicle 2.3) (Leiden: Brill, 1997, pp. 215–26).Google Scholar
Nicole, P., and Arnauld, A., Logic, or the Art of Thinking, Containing, besides Common Rules, Several New Observations Appropriate for Forming Judgments [1683], trans. Buroker, J.V. (Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
O’Neill, O., Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant’s Practical Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
Pippin, R.B., Kant’s Theory of Form: An Essay on the Critique of Pure Reason (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982).Google Scholar
Pollok, A., Facetten des Menschen: Zur Anthropologie Moses Mendelssohns (Hamburg: Meiner, 2009).Google Scholar
Pollok, K., “‘An Almost Single Inference’ – Kant’s Deduction of the Categories Reconsidered,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 90 (2008), pp. 323–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollok, K., “Einleitung,” in Immanuel Kant: Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können (Hamburg: Meiner, 2001), pp. ix–lxii.Google Scholar
Pollok, K., “Kant’s Critical Concepts of Motion,” in Journal of the History of Philosophy 44 (2006), pp. 559–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollok, K., Kants “Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft”: Ein Kritischer Kommentar (Hamburg: Meiner, 2001).Google Scholar
Pollok, K., “Kant und Habermas über das principium executionis moralischer Handlungen,” in Klemme, H.F., Kühn, M., Schönecker, D. (eds.), Moralische Motivation (Hamburg: Felix Meiner-Verlag, 2006), pp. 193–227.Google Scholar
Pollok, K., “Naturalism and Kant’s Resolution of the Third Antinomy.” Proceedings of the XI International Kant Congress: Kant and Philosophy in a Cosmopolitan Sense, ed. Bacin, S., Ferrarin, A., La Rocca, C., Ruffing, M. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), vol. III, pp. 731–42.Google Scholar
Pollok, K., “The ‘Transcendental Method’: On the Reception of the Critique of Pure Reason in Neo-Kantianism,” in Guyer, P. (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 346–79.Google Scholar
Pollok, K., “Von der Transzendentalphilosophie zum Vergnügen. Die Karriere der Wahrnehmungsurteile in der Kritischen Philosophie Kants,” Die Vollendung der Transzendentalphilosophie in Kants ‘Kritik der Urteilskraft,’ ed. Hiltscher, R., Klingner, S., Süß, D. (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2006), pp. 235–57.Google Scholar
Pollok, K., “Wie sind Erfahrungsurteile möglich?” in Lyre, H. and Schliemann, O. (eds.), Kants Prolegomena: Ein kooperativer Kommentar (Frankfurt/M.: Klostermann, 2012), pp. 103–25.Google Scholar
Pollok, K., “‘Wenn Vernunft volle Gewalt über das Begehrungsvermögen hätte’ – Über die gemeinsame Wurzel der Kantischen Imperative,” Kant-Studien 98 (2007), pp. 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, A.N., Objects of Thought, ed Geach, P.T. and Kenny, A.J.P. (Oxford University Press, 1971).Google Scholar
Rauscher, F., “Freedom and Reason in Groundwork III,” in Timmermann, J. (ed.), Kant’s ‘Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals’: A Critical Guide (Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 203–23.Google Scholar
Reath, A., Agency and Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Theory (Oxford University Press, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisner, A., “Unifying the Requirements of Rationality,” Philosophical Explorations 12 (2009), pp. 243–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, A., “‘The Fact of Science’ and Critique of Knowledge: Exact Science as Problem and Resource in Marburg Neo-Kantianism,” in Friedman, M. and Nordmann, A. (eds.), The Kantian Legacy in Nineteenth-Century Science (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2006), pp. 211–26.Google Scholar
Richardson, K., “The Metaphysics of Agency: Avicenna and his Legacy” (PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto, 2008).Google Scholar
Rippon, S., “In Defense of the Wide-Scope Instrumental Principle,” Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy 5 (2011), pp. 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, C., Der Rechtsgedanke Kants nach den frühen Quellen (Frankfurt/M.: Klostermann, 1971).Google Scholar
Rohs, P., “Kants Prinzip der durchgängigen Bestimmung alles Seinden,” Kant-Studien 69 (1978), pp. 170–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, J-J., Second Discourse, in Dunn, S. (ed. and trans.), ‘The Social Contract’ and ‘The First and Second Discourses’ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Rutherford, D., Leibniz and the Rational Order of Nature (Cambridge University Press, 1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sassen, B., (ed.), Kant’s Early Critics: The Empiricist Critique of the Theoretical Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
Schneewind, J.B., “Kant Against the ‘Spurious Principles of Morality,’” in Timmermann, J. (ed.), Kant’s ‘Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals’: A Critical Guide (Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 140–58.Google Scholar
Schroeder, M., “The Hypothetical Imperative?” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83 (2005), pp. 357–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, M., “Means-End Coherence, Stringency, and Subjective Reasons,” Philosophical Studies 143 (2009), pp. 223–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, M., “The Scope of Instrumental Reason,” Philosophical Perspectives (Ethics) 18 (2004), pp. 337–64.Google Scholar
Sedgwick, S., Hegel’s Critique of Kant: From Dichotomy to Identity (Oxford University Press, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sensen, O., “Human Dignity in Historical Perspective: The Contemporary and Traditional Paradigms,” European Journal of Political Theory 10 (2011), pp. 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sensen, O., “Kant’s Constructivism,” in Bagnoli, C. (ed.) Constructivism in Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 63–81.Google Scholar
Sensen, O., “The Moral Importance of Autonomy,” in Sensen, O. (ed.), Kant on Moral Autonomy (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 262–81.Google Scholar
Shabel, L., “Kant on the ‘Symbolic Construction’ of Mathematical Concepts,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29 (1998), pp. 589–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shabel, L., “Kant’s Philosophy of Mathematics,” in Guyer, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant and Modern Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 94–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shabel, L., “Kant’s Transcendental Aesthetic,” in Guyer, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwood, N., “Vindicating the Normativity of Rationality,” Ethics 119 (2008), pp. 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinoza, B., Opera Omnia. Epistolae, ed. Gebhardt, Carl (Heidelberg: Winter, 1925) vol. IV.Google Scholar
Sutherland, D., “Kant’s Philosophy of Mathematics and the Greek Mathematical Tradition,” The Philosophical Review 113 (2004), pp. 157–201.Google Scholar
Sweet, K., “Reflection: Its Structure and Meaning in Kant’s Judgements of Taste,” Kantian Review 14 (2009), pp. 53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermann, J., Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolley, C., “Kant on the Nature of Logical Laws,” Philosophical Topics 34 (2006), pp. 371–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velkley, R., “Transcending Nature, Unifying Reason: On Kant’s Debt to Rousseau,” in Sensen, O. (ed.), Kant on Moral Autonomy (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 89–106.Google Scholar
Warren, D., Reality and Impenetrability in Kant’s Philosophy of Nature, Studies in Philosophy (New York: Routledge, 2001).Google Scholar
Watkins, E., and Fisher, M., “The Antinomy of Practical Reason: Reason, the Unconditioned and the Highest Good,” in Reath, A. and Timmermann, J. (eds.), Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 145–67.Google Scholar
Watkins, E., and Fisher, M., Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality (Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
Watkins, E., and Fisher, M., “Kant on the Material Ground of Possibility: From The Only Possible Argument to the Critique of Pure Reason,” The Review of Metaphysics 52 (1998), pp. 369–95.Google Scholar
Way, J., “Defending the Wide Scope Approach to Instrumental Reason,” Philosophical Studies 147 (2010), pp. 213–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieland, W., Urteil und Gefühl: Kants Theorie der Urteilskraft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2001).Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L., Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung, in Ostwald, W. (ed.), Annalen der Naturphilosophie, 14 (1921), pp. 185–262.Google Scholar
Wolff, C., Philosophia Moralis, sive Ethica (1750/53), in Ecole, J. (ed.), Gesammelte Werke, (Hildesheim: Olms, 1977) vol. II/XVI.Google Scholar
Wolff, C., Philosophia practica universalis methodo scientifica pertractata. Pars posterior (1738), in Ecole, J. (ed.), Gesammelte Werke (Hildesheim: Olms, 1979), vol II/XI.Google Scholar
Wolff, C., Philosophia prima, sive Ontologia, methodo scientifica pertractata, qua omnis cognitionis humanae principia continentur (Frankfurt und Leipzig: Renger, 2 1736).Google Scholar
Wolff, C., Philosophia Rationalis sive Logica Methodo Scientifica Pertractata (Leipzig: Renger, 2 1732).Google Scholar
Wolff, C., Vernünfftige Gedancken von den Kräfften des menschlichen Verstandes und ihrem richtigen Gebrauche in Erkäntnis der Wahrheit (Halle: Renger, 1713).Google Scholar
Wolff, C., Vernünfftige Gedancken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen (Halle: Hemmerde, 1720).Google Scholar
Wolff, M., “Die Analyse der Erfahrung in Kants Prolegomena,” in Lyre, H. and Schliemann, O. (ed.), Kants Prolegomena: Ein kooperativer Kommentar (Frankfurt/M: Klostermann, 2012), pp. 127–68.Google Scholar
Wolff, M., “Erwiderung auf die Einwände von Ansgar Beckermann und Ulrich Nortmann,” Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 52 (1998), pp. 435–59.Google Scholar
Wolff, M., “Kants Urteilstafel: Nicht nur eine Replik,” in Doyé, S., Heinz, M., Rameil, U. (eds.), Metaphysik und Kritik: Festschrift für Manfred Baum zum 65. Geburtstag (Berlin: DeGruyter, 2004), pp. 109–36.Google Scholar
Wolff, M., Die Vollständigkeit der kantischen Urteilstafel. Mit einem Essay über Freges ‘Begriffsschrift’ (Frankfurt/M: Klostermann, 1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, A.W., The Free Development of Each: Studies on Freedom, Right and Ethics in Classical German Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zöller, G., Theoretische Gegenstandsbeziehung bei Kant: Zur systematischen Bedeutung der Termini ‘objektive Realität’ und ‘objektive Gültigkeit’ in der ‘Kritik der reinen Vernunft’ (Berlin: DeGruyter, 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckert, R., Kant on Beauty and Biology: An Interpretation of the Critique of Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2007).Google Scholar