Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie

Ed. by de Boer, Karin / Carriero, John / Horn, Christoph / Meyer, Susan Sauvé / Serck-Hanssen, Camilla

Editorial Board: Adamson, Peter / Allen, James V. / Bartuschat, Wolfgang / Curley, Edwin M / Emilsson, Eyjólfur Kjalar / Floyd, Juliet / Förster, Eckart / Frede, Dorothea / Friedman, Michael / Garrett, Don / Grasshoff, Gerd / Guyer, Paul / Irwin, Terence / Kahn, Charles H. / Knuuttila, Simo / Koistinen, Olli / Kosch, Michelle / Kraut, Richard / Longuenesse, Béatrice / McCabe, Mary / Pasnau, Robert / Perler, Dominik / Radcliffe, Elizabeth S. / Reginster, Bernard / Simmons, Alison / Timmermann, Jens / Trifogli, Cecilia / Weidemann, Hermann / Zöller, Günter


CiteScore 2018: 0.53

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.395
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.195

Online
ISSN
1613-0650
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 101, Issue 2

Issues

Three Myths About Kant’s Second Antinomy

Robert Watt
Published Online: 2019-07-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2019-2006

Abstract

This article challenges three widespread assumptions about Kant’s argument for the antithesis of the Second Antinomy. The first assumption is that this argument consists of an argument for the claim that “[no] composite thing in the world consists of simple parts”, and a logically independent argument for the claim that “nothing simple exists anywhere in the world”. The second assumption is that when Kant argues that “[no] composite thing in the world consists of simple parts”, he is making a claim about the mereological structure of spatially extended things in particular, as opposed to a claim about the mereological structure of things in general. And the third assumption is that Kant’s argument for this part of the antithesis is based on a claim about the relationship between the size of the extension of a composite thing and the sizes of the extensions of the things of which this composite thing consists.

  • Broad, C. 1954. “Kant’s Mathematical Antinomies”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55, 1–22.Google Scholar

  • Buroker, J. 2006. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: An Introduction. Cambridge.Google Scholar

  • Ehrlich, P. 2014. “An Essay in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum’s Ninetieth Birthday: A Reexamination of Zeno’s Paradox of Extension”. Philosophy of Science 81, 654–675.Google Scholar

  • Engelhard, K. 2005. Das Einfache und die Materie: Untersuchungen zu Kants Antinomie der Teilung. Berlin.Google Scholar

  • Falkenburg, B. 2000. Kants Kosmologie: Die wissenschaftliche Revolution der Naturphilosophie im 18. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar

  • Friedman, M. 2013. Kant’s Construction of Nature: A Reading of the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Cambridge.Google Scholar

  • Grier, M. 2001. Kant’s Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion. Cambridge.Google Scholar

  • Grünbaum, A. 1952. “A Consistent Conception of the Extended Linear Continuum as an Aggregate of Unextended Elements”. Philosophy of Science 19, 288–306.Google Scholar

  • Guyer, P. 1987. Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge.Google Scholar

  • Lewis, D. 1991. Parts of Classes. Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Malzkorn, W. 1999. Kants Kosmologie-Kritik: Eine formale Analyse der Antinomienlehre. Berlin.Google Scholar

  • Radner, M. 1998. “Unlocking the Second Antinomy: Kant and Wolff”. Journal of the History of Philosophy 36, 413–441.Google Scholar

  • Schaffer, J. 2009. “Spacetime the One Substance”. Philosophical Studies 145, 131–148.Google Scholar

  • Schmiege, O. 2006. “What is Kant’s Second Antinomy About”. Kant-Studien 97, 272–300.Google Scholar

  • Strawson, P. 1966. The Bounds of Sense: An Essay on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. London.Google Scholar

  • Uzquiano, G. 2011. “Mereological Harmony”. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics 6, 199–224.Google Scholar

  • Van Cleve, J. 1999. Problems from Kant. Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Van Inwagen, P. 1990. Material Beings. Ithaca/London.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2019-07-01

Published in Print: 2019-06-28


Citation Information: Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, Volume 101, Issue 2, Pages 258–279, ISSN (Online) 1613-0650, ISSN (Print) 0003-9101, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2019-2006.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in