The Methodological Prescriptions of the “Appendix to the Transcendental Dialectic” of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and the Foundations of Improper Science

Autores

  • Martín Arias-Albisu Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)

Palavras-chave:

Kant, “Improper” Science, Laws, Foundation, Regulative

Resumo

In the Preface to his Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, Kant holds that empirical disciplines, such as –at least– chemistry, are improper natural sciences. What he has primarily in mind is the phlogistic chemistry mainly developed by Georg Stahl. Contrary to mathematical physics, phlogistic chemistry is not a proper natural science because it lacks a metaphysical pure part and mathematics cannot be adequately applied to its domain. The aim of this article is to show that the scientific character of improper sciences, such as –at least– phlogistic chemistry, depends on the application of two methodological prescriptions demanded by the regulative function of theoretical reason. These prescriptions are presented by Kant in the Appendix to the Transcendental Dialectic of his Critique of Pure Reason. The first prescription requires the use of certain ideas of reason in empirical scientific laws. The second one consists in a demand of systematicity for those laws.

Referências

ABELA, P. “The Demands of Systematicity: Rational Judgment and the Structure of Natureâ€. In: BIRD, G. (ed.), A Companion to Kant, pp. 408–22, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.

ALLISON, H. E. “Causality and Causal Laws in Kant: A Critique of Michael Friedmanâ€. In: PARRINI, P. (ed.), Kant and Contemporary Epistemology, pp. 291–307, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1994.

ALLISON, H. E. Kant’s Theory of Taste. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

ALLISON, H. E. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. Revised and Enlarged Edition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.

ARIAS ALBISU, M. “Acerca de la relación entre los dos tipos de esquemas de las ideas de la razón en la Crítica de la razón pura de Kantâ€, Areté, 24.1 (2012): 7–24.

BLOMME, H. “Kant’s Conception of Chemistry in the Danziger Physikâ€. In: CLEWIS, R. R. (ed.), Reading Kant’s Lectures, pp. 484–502, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015

BRITTAN, G. G. “The Kantian Foundations of Modern Scienceâ€, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1984.2 (1984): 706–14.

BRITTAN, G. G. “Systematicity and Objectivity in the Third Critiqueâ€, The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 30.S1 (1992): 167–86.

BUCHDHAL, G. “Causality, Causal Laws and Scientific in Theory in the Philosophy of Kantâ€, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 16.63 (1965): 187–208.

BUCHDHAL, G. “The Relation between ‘Understanding’ and ‘Reason’ in the Architectonic of Kant’s Philosophyâ€, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 67 (1967): 209–26.

BUCHDHAL, G. “The Kantian ‘Dynamic of Reason’, with Special Reference to the Place of Causality in Kant’s Systemâ€. In: BECK, L. W. (ed.), Kant Studies Today, pp. 341–74, La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1969.

BUCHDHAL, G. “The Conception of Lawlikeness in Kant’s Philosophy of Scienceâ€, Synthese, 23.1 (1971): 24–46.

BUCHDAHL, G. “Gravity and Intelligibility: Newton to Kantâ€. In: Buchdahl, G., Kant and the Dynamics of Reason, pp. 245–70, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.

BUTTS, R. E. “The Methodological Structure of Kant’s Metaphysics of Scienceâ€. In: BUTTS, R. E. (ed.), Kant’s Philosophy of Physical Science, pp. 163–99, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1986.

CAIMI, M. “Über eine wenig beachtete Deduktion der regulativen Ideenâ€, Kant Studien, 86.3 (1995): 308–20.

CAIMI, M. “La función regulativa del ideal de la razón puraâ€, Diánoia, 42.42 (1996): 61–79.

CARRIER, M. “Kant’s Theory of Matter and His Views on Chemistryâ€. In: WATKINS, E. (ed.), Kant and the Sciences, pp. 205–30, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

FRIEDMAN, M. Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1992a.

FRIEDMAN, M. “Causal Laws and the Foundations of Natural Scienceâ€. In: GUYER, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant, pp. 161–99, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992b.

FRIEDMAN, M. “Regulative and Constitutiveâ€, The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 30.S1 (1992c): 73–102.

FRIEDMAN, M. “Laws of Nature and Causal Necessityâ€, Kant Studien, 105.4 (2014): 531–53.

GEIGER, I. “Is the Assumption of a Systematic Whole of Empirical Concepts a Necessary Condition of Knowledge?â€, Kant Studien, 94.3 (2003): 273–98.

GOLDBERG, N. “Do Principles of Reason Have ‘Objective but Indeterminate Validity’?â€, Kant Studien, 95.4 (2004): 405–25.

KANT, I. Kant’s gesammelte Schriften. Deutsche (formerly Königlich Preußische) Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter and predecessors, 1900–.

KANT, I. Lectures on Logic. Trans. J. M. Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

KANT, I. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

KANT, I. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Trans. P. Guyer and E. Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

KANT, I. Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Trans. M. Friedman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

KITCHER, P. “Projecting the Order of Natureâ€. In: BUTTS, R. E. (ed.), Kant’s Philosophy of Physical Science, pp. 201–35, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1986.

KITCHER, P. “The Unity of Science and the Unity of Natureâ€. In: PARRINI, P. (ed.), Kant and Contemporary Epistemology, pp. 253–72, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1994.

KRAUSSER, P. “Über den hypothetischen Vernunftgebrauch in der Kritik der reinen Vernunftâ€, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 69.2 (1987): 164–96.

KRAUSSER, P. “Kant on the Hypothetical Employment of Reason in Scienceâ€. In: FUNKE, G. and SEEBOHM, T. M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Kant Congress, II, pp. 123–34, Washington, D.C.: Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology and University Press of America, 1989.

McNULTY, M. B. “Kant on Chemistry and the Application of Mathematics in Natural Scienceâ€, Kantian Review, 19.3 (2014): 393–418.

McNULTY, M. B. “Rehabilitating the Regulative Use of Reason: Kant on Empirical and Chemical Lawsâ€, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 54 (2015): 1–10.

McNULTY, M. B. “Chemistry in Kant’s Opus Postumumâ€, HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 6.1 (2016): 64–95.

MORRISON, M. “Methodological Rules in Kant’s Philosophy of Scienceâ€, Kant Studien, 80.2 (1989): 155–72.

NAYAK, A. C; SOTNAK, E. “Kant on the Impossibility of the ‘Soft Sciences’â€, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55.1 (1995): 133–51.

OKRUHLIK, K. “Kant on Realism and Methodologyâ€. In: BUTTS, R. E. (ed.), Kant’s Philosophy of Physical Science, pp. 307–29, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1986.

PARTINGTON, J. R. A History of Chemistry (2nd vol.). Macmillan: London, 1961.

RAJIVA, S. “Is Hypothetical Reason a Precursor to Reflective Judgment?â€, Kant Studien, 97.1 (2006): 114–26.

RAUSCHER, F. “The Appendix to the Dialectic and the Canon of Pure Reason. The Positive Role of Reasonâ€. In: GUYER, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, pp. 290–309, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

RUSH, F. L. “Reason and Regulation in Kantâ€, The Review of Metaphysics, 53.4 (2000): 837–62.

SANTOS GARCÃA, M. A. “Kant y la lógica de la investigación científicaâ€, Teorema, 23.1-3 (2004): 199–213.

SLOAN, P. R. “Kant on the History of Nature: The Ambiguous Heritage of the Critical Philosophy for Natural Historyâ€, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 37.4 (2006): 627–48.

STAHL, G. E. Zufällige Gedancken und nützliche Bedencken über den Streit von dem so genannten Sulphure. Halle: Wäysenhaus, 1718.

STEPANENKO, P. “Sistematicidad y unidad de la experiencia en Kantâ€, Diánoia, 42.42 (1996): 91–105.

VAN DEN BERG, H. “Kant’s Conception of Proper Scienceâ€, Synthese, 183.1 (2011): 7–26.

VANZO, A. “Kant on Experimentâ€. In: MACLAURIN, J. (ed.), Rationis Defensor. Essays in Honour of Colin Chenye, pp. 75–96, Dordrecht: Springer, 2012.

WARTENBERG, T. E. “Order through Reason. Kant’s Transcendental Justification of Scienceâ€, Kant Studien, 70.4 (1979): 409–24.

WARTENBERG, T. E. “Reason and the Practice of Scienceâ€. In: GUYER, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant, pp. 228–48, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

ZOCHER, R. “Zu Kants transzendentaler Deduktion der Ideen der reinen Vernunftâ€, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 12.1 (1958): 43–58.

ZOCHER, R. “Der Doppelsinn der kantischen Ideenlehre. Eine Problemstellungâ€, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 20.2 (1966): 222–6.

Downloads

Publicado

2017-10-30

Edição

Seção

Artigos