Kant and Aristotle

Marco Sgarbi

Description

Kant and Aristotle reassesses the prevailing understanding of Kant as an anti-Aristotelian philosopher. Taking epistemology, logic, and methodology to be the key disciplines through which Kant's transcendental philosophy stood as an independent form of philosophy, Marco Sgarbi shows that Kant drew important elements of his logic and metaphysical doctrines from Aristotelian ideas that were absent in other philosophical traditions, such as the distinction of matter and form of knowledge, the division of transcendental logic into analytic and dialectic, the theory of categories and schema, and the methodological issues of the architectonic. Drawing from unpublished documents including lectures, catalogues, academic programs, and the Aristotelian-Scholastic handbooks that were officially adopted at Königsberg University where Kant taught, Sgarbi further demonstrates the historical and philosophical importance of Aristotle and Aristotelianism to these disciplines from the late sixteenth century to the first half of the eighteenth century.
Acknowledgments
Sources and Abbreviations

Introduction
The Other Kant
Kant in Context
Prospectus

1. Facultative Logic
The Operations of the Mind
Gnostology and Noology
Habit and Physiology
Between Locke and Leibniz

2. Transcendental Logic
Matter and Form
Syllogistic and Combinatorics Before Kant
Syllogistic and Combinatorics in Kant
Categories and Judgments
Analytic and Dialectic

3. Methodology
Method in the Aristotelian Tradition
Modern Conceptions of Method
Kant’s Precritical Conception of Method
The Method of Critique of Pure Reason

Conclusion
Aristotle in Kant
The Aristotelian Kant

Notes
Bibliography
Index

Sujets

• Philosophie
• Épistémologie
• Philosophie moderne
• Philosophie moderne
• Epistémologie
• Epistémologie
• Epistémologie

Informations

• Publié par: State University of New York Press
• Date de parution: 01 avril 2016
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781438459998
• Langue: English

Extrait

KANT AND ARISTOTLE
KANT AND ARISTOTLE
Epistemology, Logic, and Method

MARCO SGARBI
M.C. Escher’s “Bond of Union” © 2015 The M.C. Escher Company-The Netherlands. All rights reserved. www.mcescher.com
Published by State University of New York Press, Albany
© 2016 State University of New York
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.
For information, contact State University of New York Press, Albany, NY
www.sunypress.edu
Production, Diane Ganeles
Marketing, Kate R. Seburyamo
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Sgarbi, Marco, 1982-
Kant and Aristotle : epistemology, logic, and method / Marco Sgarbi.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4384-5997-4 (hardcover : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-4384-5999-8 (e-book) 1. Kant, Immanuel, 1724–1804. 2. Aristotle—Influence. 3. Logic. 4. Methodology. I. Title.
B2798.S43 2016
193—dc23
2015013509
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
SOURCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The Other Kant
Kant in Context
Prospectus
1. FACULTATIVE LOGIC
The Operations of the Mind
Gnostology and Noology
Habit and Physiology
Between Locke and Leibniz
2. TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC
Matter and Form
Syllogistic and Combinatorics before Kant
Syllogistic and Combinatorics in Kant
Categories and Judgments
Analytic and Dialectic
3. METHODOLOGY
Method in the Aristotelian Tradition
Modern Conceptions of Method
Kant’s Precritical Conception of Method
The Method of Critique of Pure Reason
CONCLUSION
Aristotle in Kant
The Aristotelian Kant
NOTES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I gratefully acknowledge the help and support of numerous people and institutions while I was working on this book. This research has been made possible thanks to a Frances A. Yates Short-Term fellowship at the Warburg Institute (2011), a Fritz Thyssen Stiftung postdoctoral fellowship at the Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel (2012), and an Accademia dei Lincei-British Academy postdoctoral fellowship (2012).
Earlier versions of the contents of this book were presented in a very different form in some of my previous Italian books and articles (cf. Sgarbi 2010a; Sgarbi 2010b; Sgarbi 2010c; Sgarbi 2010d; Sgarbi 2012). Interaction with many scholars and conference presentations prompted me to write a compelling new book in English on the topic to reach a broader audience. In this book, I have used some of the scholarly work of my previous research, especially the investigation of the Königsberg intellectual framework, the analysis of unpublished manuscripts and unknown documents, and the study of the eighteenth-century Aristotelian textbooks.
While any list of reasonable length would be undoubtedly incomplete, I nonetheless wish to acknowledge the great help of Seung-Kee Lee and Riccardo Pozzo. I am particularly grateful to the four peer-reviewers and to Robert Norris for the linguistic revision of my book. Despite the invaluable assistance of many people, any and all errors or shortcomings in this book are mine, and mine alone.
SOURCES AND ABBREVIATIONS

A ll references to Kant’s works are cited in the body of the text according to the volume and page number, given in Arabic numerals separated by a colon in the critical edition of Kants gesammelte Schriften , edited by the Royal Prussian (later German, then Berlin-Brandenburg) Academy of Sciences (Berlin: Georg Reimer, later Walter de Gruyter Co., 1900–). The one exception to this rule is the Critique of Pure Reason , where passages are referenced by numbers from “A,” the first edition of 1781, and/or “B,” the second edition of 1787. The pagination of the Academy Edition is reproduced in almost all modern English translations of Kant’s writings.
All Greek and Roman authors are cited in their most familiar single-name form, both in the text and in the bibliography, for example, Cicero (not Marcus Tullius Cicero) and Quintilian (not Marcus Fabius Quintilianus). All the titles of the works are given in the original language, with the exemption of Aristotle and Kant’s writings. My general rule has been to preserve original spelling and punctuation, even when erroneous, except where there are critical editions. Sometimes, when fitting quotations around the text, I have silently changed a lowercase initial letter to an upper, or vice versa, as the sentence requires.
Unless otherwise noted, the translations of Kant’s writings are from the Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992–) and those of Aristotle’s from the Complete Works (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984). A Leibniz: Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe (Darmstadt-Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1923–). AT Charles Adam and Paul Tannery (ed.), Oeuvres complètes de René Descartes (Paris: Cerf, 1897–1900). CL Louis Couturat (ed.), Opuscules et fragments inédits de Leibniz (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1903). GP Carl I. Gerhardt (ed.), Die philosophischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (Berlin: Weidmann, 1875–1890). OP Johann Eduard Erdmann (ed.), Leibnitii Opera philosophica quae extant Latina, Gallica, Germanica Omnia (Eichler: Berlin, 1840).
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
This book was finished and submitted for publication in April 2015, hence valuable books on related topics that appeared after that date are not discussed.
INTRODUCTION

THE OTHER KANT
T here are many ways of reading Kant and his work. One way is to actualize his thought and to find relevant ideas in answer to contemporary questions. 1 Another way is to examine his thought analytically to show his consistency or inconsistency. 2 A third way is to study the impact of Kantian philosophy on the making of Western culture and on the philosophy of the two following centuries. 3 It is also possible to investigate Kant’s philosophy through a historical inquiry into the intellectual context that determined his thought. 4 The latter approach has not been widely adopted in Anglo-Saxon Kantian scholarship, which is the reason why my book privileges this latter way of reading Kant and his philosophy. But such a reading of Kant can also be carried out by means of two different hermeneutical and methodological approaches: on the one hand, there is the immanent interpretation of the text ( textimmanente Interpretation ), that is, the close reading of a work, while on the other hand, there is the historical interpretation of sources ( quellengeschichtliche Interpretation ). 5
The former approach bases the interpretation of the works on the study of inner references to a single text, or more in general to the entire corpus of Kantian writings. This approach is characterized by the fact that it has a higher degree of certainty, because references and analysis are dealt with in such a way that there can be no doubt about the text, the thought, and the intention of the author. However, this approach is often unable to reconstruct the context from which a work emerges, the reasons for the formation of particular ideas rather than others, and the tensions that underlie the philosophical development of an author.
Conversely, a historical approach to the sources seems to provide the tools necessary for compensating for the lack of an immanent interpretation of the text, and despite its reconstructions being no more than probable, they nevertheless seem to me to offer new hints and open up new possibilities for further research. Contrary to the close reading approach, the historical approach is epistemologically weaker, in that it has a lower degree of certainty resulting from the obvious fact that we do not live in Kant’s times and cannot be sure with absolute certainty about what he read or who he met. That said, if justified systematically, it has the advantage of being corrective and opening up an interesting dialogue on the formation of a philosophical text, which is—in my view—true to the spirit of philosophy and its historiography. Relying solely on an immanent interpretation entails making the misleading assumption that all the thought of an author can be contained in a text. Anyone fortunate enough to have the experience of writing and thinking is well aware that the written lines and words are not always a faithful reflection of what we have in mind, and that a great deal more lies behind and between the lines. For this reason, I have chosen to follow the methodology of the history of sources. For instance, a close reading of the Critique of Pure Reason has never solved questions about its formation, and on certain knotty issues it has in fact given rise to thousands and thousands of readings. Reconstructions based on the history of sources are perhaps only probable, but when carried out systematically they can prove far more revealing while allowing us thoroughly to understand the ideas of an author, thereby transforming our initial persuasion into conviction. Instead of a self-referential and mute text, the historical approach offers the scholar a work that converses not only with our questions, but also with problems and philosophical issues pertaining to the tradition from which it emerges.
Concerning Kant and his relation to Aristotle and the Aristotelian tradition, which is the topic of the present book, we can recognize at least six different kinds of sources: (1) Kant’s open statements; (2) references in letters and manuscripts; (3) references in other authors; (4) the university context (i.e., syllabi, lecture catalogs, academic programs, textbooks); (5) lecture notes; and (6) Königsberg intellectual framework. Kant me