We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 February 2009
Until comparatively recently the complete text of the Opus Postutmum has not been available to students of the Kantian philosophy.Prior to the publication of Adickes’ commentary on this material in 1920, students of Kant were almost wholly dependent upon Reicke's incomplete and markedly inadequate edition of 1882–84.2 Adickes’ commentary, with its abundance of quoted passages, provided an access to a great deal of material hitherto unavailable. But it was not until the publication of the Academy Edition in 1936 that the complete text became available for independent study. Because of the recent publication of the full text, most accounts of Kant's position in the Opus Postumum have depended upon Reicke's inadequate edition or, as has been more frequently the case, upon Adickes’ commentary.3 In view of the considerable influence it has had upon Kant interpretation, Adickes’ analysis of the Opus Postumum warrants a careful and critical examination.
2 Cf. Kant, Gesammelte Schriften, v. 21, p. V.
3 Cf. Smith, N. K., A Commentary to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, pp. 640 ff.Google Scholar; Greene, T. M., Kant's Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, p. LXIV ff.Google Scholar; Webb, C. C. J., Kant's Philosophy of Religion, p. 192Google Scholar; Dakin, A. H., The Heritage of Kant, p. 414Google Scholar; Beck, Lewis White, Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, p. 48.Google Scholar
page 229 note 1 Adickes, “Kant's Opus Postumum, dargestellt und beurteilt” Kantstudien, v. 50, pp. 720 ff., 801, 804.
page 229 note 2 Critique of Practical Reason, w. v. 5, pp. 94, 133; Von einem neuerdings erhoben evornehmen Ton in der Philosophie, w. v. 6, pp. 487, 491; Der Streit der Fakultäten, w. v. 7, pp. 366, 387; Critique of Pure Reason, A 819—B 847; Opus Postumum, v. 21, p. 26.
page 229 note 3 Adickes, op. dt., pp. 154, 720 ff.
page 229 note 4 Ibid., pp. 594 ff.
page 229 note 5 Adickes, op. dt., pp. 709, 785, 811 ff; Kant und die als ob Philosophie, p. 63; cf. Vaihinger, Die Philosophie des als ob, pp. 724 ff., 731, 772 ff.
page 230 note 1 Adickes, Kant's Op. Post., pp. 17 ft.; cf. Cassirer, Kant's Leben und Lehre, P- 435.
page 230 note 2 One can imagine the difficulties that would be involved in trying to ascertain Kant's views if it were necessary to substitute his Reflexionen for the Critique of Pure Reason.
page 230 note 3 Cf. Smith, op. cit., pp. 608 ff.
page 230 note 4 Adickes, Kant's Op. Post., pp. 720 ff.
page 230 note 5 Adickes, Kant's Op. Post., pp. 22 ff.; 153 ff.
page 230 note 6 Kant's Op. Post., p. 772; cf. pp. 621, 807, 832 ft.; Kant und die als ob Philosophie, p. 273.
page 231 note 1 Adickes, Kant's Op. Post. pp. 792 ff.
page 231 note 2 E.g. that Kant adopted an onotological argument in the Opus Post, or that he identified God with the moral law, thus adopting a Fichtean position. “The mere idea of God is at once a proof of His existence.” “God must not be thought of as a substance outside of me but as the highest moral principle in me” (Opus Post., v. 21, pp. 145 ff., v. 22, pp. 56 ff., 108). Lewis White Beck mistakenly concludes that Kant identified God with the moral law in the Opus Post {pp. cit., p. 48). Adickes disposes of this interpretation, as well as of the view that Kant regarded God as a fiction, quite conclusively (Kant's Op. Post., pp. 772 ff.). It is unfortunate that Adickes falls into a similar error himself.
page 232 note 1 “Die bewegende Krafte in Kant's philosophischer Entwicklung”; Kantstudien, v. i, p. 402; cf. Kant's Op. Post., p. 818.
page 232 note 2 Cf. Der Streit der Fahultäten, w. v. 7, pp. 351, 355, 383 ff.; cf. also w. v. 8, P- 230.
page 232 note 3 Über die Fortschritte der Metaphysik seit Leibniz und Wolff, w. v. 8, p. 289; cf. Opus Postumum, v. 21, pp. 152 ff.
page 233 note 1 Was heisst: sich im Denken orientieren? w. v. 4, pp. 539, 360 note.
page 233 note 2 Kant's Vorlesungen über die phil. Religionslehre, ed. by Politz, pp. 160 ff.cf. Was heisst: sich im Denken orientieren, w. v. 4, p. 357; Das Ende alter Dinge, w. v. 6, p. 421; Zum ewigen Frieden, w. v. 6, pp. 446 ff.; Critique of Judgment, w.v. 5, p. 537; Paulsen, Kant's Verhältnis zur Metaphysik, p. 417.
page 233 note 3 “It is necessary on pure moral grounds (hence purely subjective), without reference to theoretical proofs, still less to self-interest, and free from any foreign influence, to assume a morally legislative Being who transcends the world.” Critique of Judgment, w. v. 5, p. 527; cf. p. 532; Critique of Pure Reason, A 829-B 857; Von einem n. er. vor Ton in der Phil., w. v. 6, p. 490; Zum_ wigen Frieden, w. v. 6, p. 507; Critique of Practical Reason, w. v. 5, p. 158.
page 233 note 4 über die Fortschritte, w. v. 8, p. 290; Critique of Pure Reason, A 820— B 848 ft.; Critique of Judgment, w. v. 6, pp. 485, 549 ff., 545; Die Religion Innerhalb, w. v. 6, p. 290; Zum ewigen Frieden, w. v. 6, p. 507.
page 233 note 5 Critique of Pure Reason, A 772-B 800, A 663-B 691, A 674-B 702; Op. Post., v. 21, pp. 20, 63, 94, 151; v. 22, pp. 56, 117.
page 233 note 6 Cf. Vaihinger, op. cit., pp. 722 ff.
page 234 note 1 Kant recognized that the possibility of realizing the Summum Bonum requires certain metaphysical conditions. God makes the “ought” a “can.” In this sense the postulation of God is in no way dependent upon the appeal to personal happiness or to immortality. A persistent stoical and individualistic tendency in Kant's thought prevented him from putting more stress on this practical requirement. This twofold concept of the Summum Bonum and the moral argument reappears in the Opus Postumum Even if Kant had repudiated the argument from happiness, he would not have been repudiating the moral argument in its more satisfactory formulation. Cf. Religion Innerhalb w. v. 6, p. 286; Critique of Judgment w. v. 5, p. 527; über die Misslingen aller philos. versuche in der Theodicee, w. v. 6, p. 103 ff.; über die Fortschritte, w. v. 8, p. 292; über den Gebrauch teleologischer Prinzipien in der Philosophie, w. v. 4, p. 514; Marcwogan, Vier Studien zu Kants Kritik der Urteilskraft, p. 294 ff.
page 234 note 2 Critique of Practical Reason, w. v. 4, p. 141; Was heisst: sich im Denken orientieren? w. v. 4, pp. 357 ff.; “Thus morality is not the theory, how we can attain happiness, but how we can become worthy of happiness.” Die Metaphysik der Sitten, w. v. 7, pp. 185 ff.; Von e. n. er. vor. Ton in der Phil., w. v. 6, p. 484 note; Reflex. 64 54, Ber.
page 235 note 1 Critique of Practical Reason, w. v. 5, pp. 119, 136.
page 235 note 2 Op. Post., v. 22, p. 106.
page 235 note 3 Werke, v. 7, p. 186.
page 235 note 4 Werke, v. 7, p. 298.
page 235 note 5 Öffnteliche Erklärungen, w. v. 8, p. 156.
page 236 note 1 Op. Post., v. 22, p. 126; cf. v. 22, pp. 34, 120; v. 21, p. 23; Über die Fortschritte, w. v. 8, p. 218.
page 236 note 2 “One cannot demonstrate the existence of God, but one cannot avoid proceeding according to such a principle and regarding all duties as divine commands.” Op. Post., v. 21, p. 15.
page 236 note 3 Critique of Practical Reason, w. v. 5, p. 136.
page 237 note 1 Op. Post., V. 21, p. 30; Cf. v. 22, p. 120.
page 237 note 2 Adickes, Kant's Op. Post., pp. 802, 818.
page 237 note 3 Ibid., pp. 776, 785, 826.
page 237 note 4 Cf. Adickes, “Die bewegenden Kräfte in Kant's phil. Entwicklung,” Kantstudien v. 1, p. 40; Prolegomena, Par. 49; Critique of Pure Reason, B xli, note, A 37, B 70; Heimsoeth, “Metaphysische Motive in der Ausbildung des Kritischen Idealismus,” Kantstudien, v. 29.
page 238 note 1 Op. Post., v. 22, p. 64; cf. v. 21, p. 74: “It is fanatical to claim or even to hope for an experience or perception of the Being of God or of an effect which could proceed only from Him”; cf. v. 22, p. 57.
page 238 note 2 W. v. 7, p. 375; cf. p. 357.
page 238 note 3 W. v. 7, d. 386; cf. Von e. n. er. vor. Ton in der Phil., w. v. 6, 2. 492.
page 238 note 4 Op. Post., v. 21, pp. 151, 52; cf. v. 21, pp. 24, 143; v. 22, p. 117.
page 239 note 1 “It is only a practical-sufficient argument of faith in God which is insufficient for the theoretical reason—the knowledge of all human duties as (tanquam) divine commands.” v. 22, p. 127; cf. v. 22, pp. 53, 60, 104 ff., 117, 122; v. 21, pp. 23, 143.
page 239 note 2 Op. Post., v. 21, pp. 15, 20, 22, 28, 30, 37, 74, 92; v. 22, pp. 51, 53, 56, 57, 104, 105, 109, 112 ff., 117 ft., 120, 127.
page 239 note 3 Op. Post., V. 22, pp. 55, 106, 109, 114, 124; V. 21, pp. 14, 17, 21, 56, 60, 113, 118, 143 ff., 149, 153, 157.
page 239 note 4 Cf. Religion Innerhalb, v. 6, p. 292.
page 239 note 5 Critique of Practical Reason, w. v. 5, p. 140; cf. Die Metaphysik der Sitten w. v. 7, p. 302 ff.; Religion Innerhalb, v. 6, pp. 143 ff.
page 239 note 6 Die Metaphysik der Sitten, w. v. 7. p. 7, 303; cf. Reflex., 6317, Ber.
page 240 note 1 Der Streit der Fakultäten, w. v. 7, pp. 347, 379; Religion Innerhalb, w. j v. 6, d. 290; Vor. über phil. Religionslehre, p. 220.
page 240 note 2 Uber die Fortschritte, w. v. 8, p. 296; Über das Misslingen, w. v. 6, p. 124; Vor. über phil. Rel., pp. 16 ff., 145; Critique of Pure Reason, A 815— B 843, A 819-B 847; Critique of Practical Reason, w. v. 5, pp. 133, 136, 142, note; Reflex., 6254, 6317, 8110, Ber.
page 240 note 3 “Consequently the moral individual thinks of all duties after the formula, (of religion) as divine commands.” Op. Post., v. 22, p. 120; cf. pp. 56, 108, 17, 122; v. 21, pp. 15, 28; Religion Innerhalb, v. 6, p. 249.
page 240 note 4 Adickes, Kant und die als ob Philosophie, p. 271.
page 241 note 1 Critique of Pure Reason, w. v. 5, p. 131; Was heisst: sich im D. orientieren? w. v. 4, d. 360 ff.; Das Ende aller Dinge, w. v. 6, p. 420; Von e. n. er. vor. Ton in der Phil., w. v. 6, pp. 487, 492; Religion Innerhalb, w. v. 6, pp. 193, 285. As late as 1800 Kant referred to mysticism as self-contradictory and based upon an “esoteric doctrine which is the direct opposite of all philosophy.” W. v. 8, p. 230; cf. Der Streit der Fakultäten, w. v. 7, p. 387.
page 241 note 2 Cf. Kant's Öffentliche Erklärungen, August 7, 1799. Here Kant declared that the critical philosophy, in both its theoretical and practical parts was in need of no modification, but rests on a “fully secured foundation.” W. v. 8, p. 516.
