Kantian Humility

Dissertation, Princeton University (1995)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The distinction at the heart of Kant's philosophy is a metaphysical distinction: things in themselves are substances, bearers of intrinsic properties; phenomena are relational properties of substances. Kant says that things as we know them are composed "entirely of relations", by which he means forces. Kant's claim that we have no knowledge of things in themselves is not idealism, but humility: we have no knowledge of the intrinsic properties of substances. Kant has an empiricist starting-point. Human beings are receptive creatures. We must be affected by the things of which we come to have knowledge. Kant believes that humility follows from this fact of receptivity. Humility does follow from receptivity, once a further premise is supplied. Kant believes that relational properties, causal powers in particular, are not reducible to intrinsic properties, and that intrinsic properties are therefore causally inert. Receptivity implies that we can have knowledge only of what can affect us. Irreducibility implies, in Kant's view, that intrinsic properties cannot affect us. Humility follows from these. This interpretation finds support in a range of critical and pre-critical writings, but there is a special focus on an early anti-Leibnizian argument for irreducibility that has considerable philosophical merit. One advantage of this interpretation is that the following famous contradiction is dissolved: things in themselves exist, and are the causes of phenomena, and we have no knowledge of them as they are in themselves. Moreover Kant's scientific realism, surprising on an idealist interpretation, makes sense. It does not conflict with Kant's claim that he makes all the qualities secondary--he means that he makes them powers, or in Locke's terms, tertiary qualities. Kant's "primary"/secondary quality distinction is superior to widely accepted alternatives, and his application of the irreducibility argument to the primary qualities challenges some current orthodoxies. Kant's commitment to the unobservables of science is permitted by his understanding of receptivity: we can have knowledge of anything that can affect us. Kant's scientific realism, and his humility, thus have a common source.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,410

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Reply to Lorne Falkenstein.Rae Langton - 2001 - Kantian Review 5:64-72.
In Defence of Kantian Humility.Tom McClelland - 2012 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 1 (1):62-70.
Intrinsic natures: A critique of Langton on Kant.Lucy Allais - 2006 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (1):143–169.
Review: Van Cleve, James, Problems from Kant[REVIEW]Rae Langton - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (1):211–218.
'Nothing but representations' - A Suárezian Way out of the Mind?Wolfgang Ertl - 2013 - In Stefano Bacin, Alfredo Ferrarin, Claudio La Rocca & Margit Ruffing (eds.), Kant und die Philosophie in weltbürgerlicher Absicht. Akten des XI. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses. Boston: de Gruyter. pp. Vol. V, 429-440.
Allais on Transcendental Idealism.Andrew F. Roche - 2011 - Kantian Review 16 (3):351-374.
Lockean superaddition and Lockean humility.Patrick J. Connolly - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 51:53-61.
Kant on the theory of cognitive God said what?Harald Schondorf & Hsueh-chu - 2004 - Philosophy and Culture 31 (2):77-90.
Kant, Modality, and the Most Real Being.Andrew Chignell - 2009 - Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 91 (2):157-192.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-04

Downloads
1 (#1,905,656)

6 months
1 (#1,478,912)

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Rae Langton
Cambridge University

Citations of this work

Why Naive Realism?Heather Logue - 2012 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 112 (2pt2):211-237.
Properties.Francesco Orilia & Michele Paolini Paoletti - 2020 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Quantum entanglement and a metaphysics of relations.Michael Esfeld - 2004 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35 (4):601-617.

View all 70 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references