In the Groundwork, we find three distinct conceptions of freedom: (i) A negative conception of freedom, understood as a capacity for spontaneous action independent of alien causes; (ii) a positive conception of freedom, understood as the capacity of giving law to oneself; and (iii) a second positive conception, understood as the capacity to give laws that bind others as well as oneself. The dominant interpretation of Kant ignores this third conception of freedom and interprets the second conception as a capacity (...) for self-determination or self-governance, which is seen as the most basic and important Kantian conception of autonomy. In this paper, we will focus mainly on explaining the distinction between the second and third conceptions of autonomy and will defend the claim that the third conception is morally the most basic. We will also explain briefly why Kant thinks that having the capacity for citizenship is necessary for having the capacity for self-governance. (shrink)

In this work I seek to explain the relationship between the substantially different characterizations of the public sphere made by Kant. In his writings on the Enlightenment, the productive component of this space is emphasized and the conditions that allow social and political progress to be fostered are identified. On the other hand, in the texts on the idea of a universal history, its antagonistic dynamics are rather emphasized. At first glance, the teleological history according to a plan of nature (...) seems to relegate the public sphere and the public use of reason to a secondary role. However, given the epistemic status of the philosophy of history, I will seek to highlight that, on the contrary, this regulative idea only has philosophical significance due to the effects of its public dissemination. Thus, what motivated the elaboration of a philosophy of history was rather the political potential of public thought, and, thus, the teleology of history is secondary to the conception of the public sphere. (shrink)

Review of: Sorin Baiasu and Mark Timmons (eds.), The Kantian Mind. London and New York: Routledge, 2024, 596 pp. 978-1138827486.

The criticism of Immanuel Kant’s logic commenced with the advent of the so-called ‘new logic’ in the 20th century. One particular passage from the second preface to the Critique of Pure Reason has been a source of contention, where Kant asserted that logic has not taken a step forward or backward since Aristotle (B VIII). In Kant scholarship, one current strategy to avoid this criticism is to relocate Kant within the domain of philosophy of logic or by segregating his general (...) logic from modern formal systems. In this paper, it will be contended that this strategy is too weak, given that the B-preface has currently been analyzed in a markedly divergent manner by the so-called ‘methodological interpretation’. In his methodology and history of science of the B-preface, Kant means something different by progress and regression than what his 20th-century critics assume he meant. By examining what Kant and his critics considered to be progress and regress in science and logic, good reasons can be put forward for the argument that Kant was correct in his assertion that logic has not gone a step forward or backward. (shrink)

This paper offers a critical evaluation of the arguments that Kleingeld and Bernasconi used to support their claims regarding the idea that Immanuel Kant held racist beliefs. Firstly, we will criticize the views on which they agree, aiming to emphasize our understanding of Kant’s thoughts on race. Secondly, we will assess the significance of Kant’s draft for Towards Perpetual Peace when considering the debate over Kant’s racism, and show that Bernasconi’s interpretation — according to which Kant presented racist views in (...) the third Critique and in his writings on history — is problematic. Although we will not systematically present our understanding of Kant’s thoughts on race, our critique of Kleingeld’s and Bernasconi’s claims will reflect our basic views: Kant was not a racist, and he never advocated for slavery and colonization. Kleingeld is right to insist that we must interpret Kant’s thoughts on race diachronically, as it is clear that his views evolved over the course of his life, but did not fundamentally change. (shrink)