Kant Yearbook

ISSN: 1868-4602

First published: November 15, 2012

Editor-in-chief: Dietmar Heidemann

Editorial Board: Henry E. Allison, Karl Ameriks, Gordon G. Brittan, Klaus Düsing, Daniel O. Dahlstrom, Corey W. Dyck, Kristina Engelhard, Brigitte Falkenburg, Hannah Ginsborg, Michelle Gilmore-Grier, Thomas Grundmann, Paul Guyer, Robert Hanna, Lothar Kreimendahl, Angelica Nuzzo, Robert Stern, Dieter Sturma, Robert Theis, Kenneth R. Westphal, Marcus Willaschek

About this journal

The Kant Yearbook is an international journal that publishes articles, historical or systematic, on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. It is the yearbook′s goal to intensify innovative research on Kant on the international scale. Articles are double-blind peer reviewed by an internationally renowned editorial board. Each issue is dedicated to a specific topic announced through a call for papers.

Topics:
Vol. 8/2016 — “Kant and German Idealism”
Vol. 7/2015 — “Kant and Empiricism”
Vol. 6/2014 — “Kant and Rationalism”
Vol. 5/2013 — “Kant and Contemporary Theory of Knowledge”
Vol. 4/2012 — “Kant and Contemporary Moral Philosophy”
Vol. 3/2011 — “Anthropology”
Vol. 2/2010 — “Metaphysics”
Vol. 1/2009 — “Teleology”

Abstracting and Indexing

Kant Yearbook is covered by the following services:

Baidu Scholar
CNKI Scholar (China National Knowledge Infrastructure)
CNPIEC - cnpLINKer
Dimensions
EBSCO (relevant databases)
EBSCO Discovery Service
Genamics JournalSeek
Google Scholar
IBR (International Bibliography of Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences)
IBZ (International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences)
International Philosophical Bibliography - Répertoire bibliographique de la philosophie
J-Gate
JournalGuide
JournalTOCs
KESLI-NDSL (Korean National Discovery for Science Leaders)
Microsoft Academic
MyScienceWork
Naver Academic
Naviga (Softweco)
Philosopher's Index
PhilPapers
Primo Central (ExLibris)
ProQuest (relevant databases)
Publons
QOAM (Quality Open Access Market)
ReadCube
SCImago (SJR)
SCOPUS
Semantic Scholar
Sherpa/RoMEO
Summon (ProQuest)
TDNet
Ulrich's Periodicals Directory/ulrichsweb
WanFang Data
Web of Science - Emerging Sources Citation Index
WorldCat (OCLC)
Yewno Discover

Supplementary Materials

Publication Ethics Statement

Topics

Volume 12 Issue 1

September 2020

Titelseiten

September 9, 2020 Page range: I-IV

Cite
Free access PDF PDF

Articles

On Method: The Fact of Science and the Distinction between Natural Science and the Humanities

Brigitte Falkenburg September 9, 2020 Page range: 1-31

More Cite

Abstract

This article examines Cohen’s “transcendental method”, Windelband’s “critical method”, the neo-Kantian distinctions between natural science and the humanities (i. e., human or cultural sciences), and Weber’s account of ideal-typical explanations. The Marburg and the Southwest Schools of neo-Kantianism have in common that their respective philosophies of science focused on method, but they substantially differ in their approaches. Cohen advanced the “transcendental method”, which was taken up and transformed by Natorp and Cassirer; later, it became influential in neo-Kantian approaches to 20 th century physics. Windelband distinguished between facts and values, linking the former to the “genetic” method of history and the latter to the “critical” method of philosophy; and between the “nomothetic” and “idiographic” methods of the empirical sciences, a distinction further elaborated by Rickert. The distinction does not give rise to a sharp discrimination but is rather what Weber would later call an ideal type. All these approaches contribute in different ways to understanding the structure of scientific knowledge, focusing on different aspects of the general path of the empirical sciences between rationalism and empiricism.

Durkheim’s French Neo-Kantian Social Thought: Epistemology, Sociology of Knowledge, and Morality in The Elementary Forms of Religious Life

Dustin Garlitz September 9, 2020 Page range: 33-56

More Cite

Abstract

This article presents Durkheim as a Neo-Kantian social thinker and a source of the theory of emotional contagion. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life is examined as Durkheim’s paradigm case of Neo-Kantianism. He is first considered among the intellectual context of French Neo-Kantianism and its figures Charles Renouvier, Émile Boutroux, and Octave Hamelin, all whom were influential in his formative years. Durkheim’s Neo-Kantianism in The Elementary Forms of Religious Life is then juxtaposed to the Neo-Kantian legal philosophy of Emil Lask and Hans Kelsen. Agued is that Durkheim’s notions of distortion and emotional contagion are his leading contributions to Neo-Kantianism.

Eduard von Hartmann, die Postulatenlehre und die Genese des Neukantianismus im Kontext spiritistischer Debatten um 1900

Hauke Heidenreich September 9, 2020 Page range: 57-79

More Cite

Abstract

Most scholars dealing with neo-Kantianism emphasize the existence of an explicit origin that characterizes neo-Kantianism as a clearly defined ‘movement’ with certain objects. In spite of the fact that differences between various neo-Kantian authors are mentioned in the current discourse (e. g. ‘Südwestdeutsche’ and ‘Marburger Schule’) scholars claim a singular unity of all neo-Kantian debates represented in the problem of ‘Geltung’. This is used to construct a certain relevance of neo-Kantianism in today’s philosophy. My contribution will pursue a historical approach following Klaus Christian Köhnke’s and Ulrich Sieg’s demands. Instead of sketching systematic topics I pay further attention to the context in which an essence of neo-Kantianism was claimed or rejected. In doing so I will examine the discussions on the doctrine of postulates in Kant’s philosophy mainly led by Hans Vaihinger’s ‘Philosophy of As If’ and the impact of Eduard von Hartmann on the genesis of neo-Kantianism. I conclude that the definition of a consistent neo-Kantian ‘movement’ was an effect of rejecting spiritualist interpretations of the doctrine of postulates and in the following a rejection of the whole doctrine as ‘mysticism’ in canonical Kant interpretations.

The Problem of Schematism in Kant and its Transformation in Southwest Neo-Kantianism

Christian Krijnen September 9, 2020 Page range: 81-114

More Cite

Abstract

The meaning and validity of Kant’s Kant’s doctrine of schematism remains contested until today. In neo-Kantianism and post-War transcendental philosophy, Kant’s schematism of the pure concepts of understanding is transformed drastically. Kant’s thesis of heterogeneity is overcome by taking it back into the internal relationships of the structure of cognition. The spontaneity of thought, performing schematizations, is retained, but Kant’s project of conceiving of the foundations of knowledge in the fashion of a theory of apperception of the I as well as the externality of the given and the determination of the given that goes along with it is sublated by an objective order of validity-noematic constitution and regulation. Kant’s doctrine of schematism, then, shows to be methodology.

Cassirer and Kant on the Unity of Space and the Role of Imagination

Roberto Horácio de Sá Pereira September 9, 2020 Page range: 115-135

More Cite

Abstract

The focus of this paper is Cassirer’s Neo-Kantian reading of Kant’s conception of unity of space. Cassirer’s neo-Kantian reading is largely in conformity with the mainstream of intellectualist Kant-scholars, which is unsurprising, given his own intellectualist view of space and perception and his rejection of the existence of a ‘merely sensory consciousness’ as a ‘formless mass of impression’. I argue against Cassirer’s reading by relying on a Kantian distinction first recognized by Heinrich Rickert, a neo-Kantian from the Southwest school, between Kenntnis (roughly knowledge by acquaintance) and Erkenntnis (roughly propositional knowledge). Correspondingly, I claim that concepts and categories are conditions for Erkenntnis of objects as such, namely for thinking of and apprehending the pre-existing unity as an object, rather than for the ‘constitution’ of this very unity.

Cohen’s Logik der reinen Erkenntnis and Cassirer’s Substanzbegriff und Funktionsbegriff

Hernán Pringe September 9, 2020 Page range: 137-168

More Cite

Abstract

This paper compares Cohen’s Logic of Pure Knowledge and Cassirer’s Substance and Function in order to evaluate how in these works Cohen and Cassirer go beyond the limits established by Kantian philosophy. In his Logic , Cohen seeks to ground in pure thought all the elements which Kant distinguishes in empirical intuition: its matter (sensation) as well as its form (time and space). In this way, Cohen tries to provide an account of knowledge without appealing to any receptivity. In accordance with Cohen’s project of reformulating the Kantian theory of sensibility, Cassirer undertakes in Substance and Function the task of developing an alternative doctrine of pure and empirical manifolds. But whereas Cohen analyzes the laws of pure thought, Cassirer aims to highlight the functional character of concepts in the development of modern mathematics and physics. I will discuss these two different approaches to the problems raised by Kantian philosophy and I will argue that Cassirer went further than Cohen in the project of critical idealism.

List of Contributors

September 9, 2020 Page range: 169-169

Cite

Topics of the Kant Yearbook 2021, 2022 and 2023

September 9, 2020 Page range: 171-171

Cite

Volume 2 (2010)

Volume 1 (2009)

Issue 2009

Cite Score	0.3
SCImago Journal Rank	0.105
Source Normalized Impact per Paper	0.100

Editorial

Editor

Dietmar H. Heidemann (University of Luxembourg)

Editorial Board

Henry E. Allison (University of California at Davis)
Karl Ameriks (Notre Dame)
Gordon Brittan (Montana State University)
Klaus Düsing (University of Cologne)
Daniel O. Dahlstrom (Boston University)
Corey Dyck (University of Western Ontario)
Kristina Engelhard (University of Cologne)
Brigitte Falkenburg (University of Dortmund)
Hannah Ginsborg (University of California at Berkeley)
Michelle Grier (University of San Diego)
Thomas Grundmann (University of Cologne)
Paul Guyer (Brown University)
Robert Hanna (University of Colorado at Boulder)
Lothar Kreimendahl (University of Mannheim)
Georg Mohr (University of Bremen)
Angelica Nuzzo (CUNY)
Robert Stern (Sheffield University)
Dieter Sturma (University of Bonn)
Robert Theis (University of Luxembourg)
Ken Westphal (University of East Anglia)
Markus Willaschek (University of Frankfurt)

Editorial Office

Katja Stoppenbrink (University of Luxembourg)

Submissions should be emailed to:

dietmar.heidemann@hofstra.edu

(Deutsch)

Kant Yearbook

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Details