Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T20:40:34.460Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ideality of Space and Time: Trendelenburg versus Kant, Fischer and Bird

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2013

Edward Kanterian
Edward Kanterian*
Affiliation:
University of Kent Email: E.Kanterian@kent.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Trendelenburg argued that Kant's arguments in support of transcendental idealism ignored the possibility that space and time are both ideal and real. Recently, Graham Bird has claimed that Trendelenburg (unlike his contemporary Kuno Fischer) misrepresented Kant, confusing two senses of ‘subjective/objective’. I defend Trendelenburg's ‘neglected alternative’: the ideas of space and time, as a priori and necessary, are ideal, but this does not exclude their validity in the noumenal realm. This undermines transcendental idealism. Bird's attempt to show that the Analytic considers, but rejects, the alternative fails: an epistemological reading makes Kant accept the alternative, while an ontological reading makes him incoherent. As I demonstrate, Trendelenburg acknowledged the ambiguity of ‘subjective/objective’, focusing on the transcendental, not the empirical sense. Unlike Fischer, Bird denies Kant's commitment to things-in-themselves in favour of a descriptivist, non-ontological reading of transcendental idealism as an inventory of ‘immanent experience’. But neither Bird's descriptivism, nor Fischer's commitment to things-in-themselves, answers Trendelenburg's sceptical worry about transcendental idealism.

Keywords

Graham BirdKuno FischerImmanuel Kantspacetimetranscendental idealismF. A. Trendelenburg
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , July 2013 , pp. 263 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Kantian Review 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, H. (1976) ‘The Non-Spatiality of Things in Themselves for Kant’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 14, 313–321.Google Scholar
Allison, H. (1983) Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, H. (1996) Idealism and Freedom: Essays on Kant's Theoretical and Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, H. (2004) Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense, rev. edn. New Haven, CY: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, H. (2010) ‘Kant's Transcendental Idealism’. In Graham Bird (ed.), A Companion to Kant (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), pp. 111–124.Google Scholar
Ameriks, K. (1992a) ‘Kantian Idealism Today’. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 9, 329–340.Google Scholar
Ameriks, K. (1992b) ‘The Critique of Metaphysics: Kant and Traditional Ontology’. In Paul Guyer (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 249–279.Google Scholar
Berkeley, G. (1950) A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.Google Scholar
Bird, G. (2006) ‘The Neglected Alternative: Trendelenburg, Fischer, and Kant’. In Graham Bird (ed.), A Companion to Kant (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), pp. 486–499.Google Scholar
Bird, G. (2006a) The Revolutionary Kant. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Buroker, J. L. (1981) Space and Congruence: The Origin of Kant's Idealism. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Caird, E. (1889) The Critical Philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Glasgow: James Maclehose & Sons.Google Scholar
Falkenstein, L. (1995) Kant's Intuitionism: A Commentary on the Transcendental Aesthetic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Falkenstein, L. (2010) ‘Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic’. In Graham Bird (ed.), A Companion to Kant (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), pp. 140–153.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (1865) System der Logik und Metaphysik, vol. 3, 2nd edn. Heidelberg: Bassermann.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (1869) Geschichte der neuern Philosophie: Kant's Vernunftkritik und deren Entstehung, vol. 3. Heidelberg: Bassermann.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (1870) Anti-Trendelenburg: Eine Gegenschrift. Jena: Hermann Dabis.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (1909) Geschichte der neuern Philosophie: Immanuel Kant und seine Lehre, vol. 4/1, 5th edn. Heidelberg: Carl Winter's Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1956) ‘The Thought: A Logical Inquiry’. Mind, 65, 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, G. (1964) Basic Laws of Arithmetic: Exposition of the System. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, S. (1999) Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Guyer, P. (1987) Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, H. (1876) Populäre Wissenschaftliche Vorträge, vol. 3. Brunswick: Vieweg & Sohn.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, H. (1879) Die Thatsachen der Wahrnehmung. Berlin: Verlag von August Hirschwald.Google Scholar
Herissone-Kelly, P. (2007) ‘The Transcendental Ideality of Space and the Neglected Alternative’. Kant-Studien, 98, 269–282.Google Scholar
Hogan, D. (2009) ‘Three Kinds of Rationalism and the Non-Spatiality of Things in Themselves’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 47, 355–382.Google Scholar
Hogan, D. (2009a) ‘How to Know Unknowable Things in Themselves’. Noûs, 43, 49–63.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1972) Briefwechsel [Correspondence], ed. Otto Schöndörffer. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Kemp Smith, N. (1930) A Commentary to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (2001) ‘The Trendelenburg Objection: A Century of Misunderstanding Kant's Rejection of Metaphysics’. In Volker Gerhardt, Rolf-Peter Horstmann and Ralph Schumacher (eds), Kant und die Berliner Aufklaerung: Akten des IX. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), vol. 2, pp. 599–608.Google Scholar
Köhnke, K. C. (1986) Entstehung und Aufstieg des Neukantianismus: Die deutsche Universitätsphilosophie zwischen Idealismus und Positivismus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Kreimendahl, L. (1990) Kant: Der Durchbruch von 1769. Cologne: Dinter.Google Scholar
Langton, R. (1998) Kantian Humility: Our Ignorance of Things in Themselves. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Melnick, A. (2001) ‘Kant vs. Lambert and Trendelenburg on the Ideality of Time’. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 18, 79–90.Google Scholar
Natterer, P. (2003) Systematischer Kommentar zur Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Reicke, R. (ed.) (1889) Lose Blätter aus Kants Nachlass. Königsberg: Ferd. Beyer's Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Trendelenburg, A. (1867) ‘Über eine Lücke in Kants Beweis von der ausschließenden Subjectivität des Raumes und der Zeit: Ein kritisches und antikritisches Blatt’. in Adolf Trendelenburg (ed.), Historische Beiträge zur Philosophie, vol. 3. Berlin: G. Bethge.Google Scholar
Trendelenburg, A. (1869) Fischer und sein Kant: Eine Entgegnung. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.Google Scholar
Trendelenburg, A. (1870) Logische Untersuchungen (3rd expanded edn. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.Google Scholar
Vaihinger, H. (1922a) Kommentar zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft, vol. 1, 2nd edn. Stuttgart: Union deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Vaihinger, H. (1922b) Kommentar zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft, vol. 2, 2nd edn. Stuttgart: Union deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Van, Cleve (1999) Problems from Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, R. (1978) Kant. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. (2004) Kant's Transcendental Proof of Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (2009) Philosophical Investigations, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe, rev. P. Hacker and J. Schulte. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar