Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:14:11.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Two Standpoints on the Will1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2011

Daniel Guevara
Daniel Guevara
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Kant argues that we must regard the will from two mutually exclusive standpoints. One is the natural standpoint, according to which the will is determined entirely by natural causes in conformity with natural law. The other is the standpoint of freedom, according to which the will transcends the laws of nature and is free to determine itself in conformity with its own law. Kant's idea is that a complete account of the will necessarily involves both standpoints, shifting between the two. Thus it is sometimes called the two-standpoints account of the will.

Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 1 , March 1997 , pp. 82 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Kantian Review 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, Henry E. 1983. Kant's Transcendental Idealism. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E. 1990. Kant's Theory of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul 1987. Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Thomas E. Jr. 1992. Dignity and Practical Reason in Kant's Moral Theory. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Hud 1994. Kant's Compatibilism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. 1989a. ‘Morality as freedom’. In Yovel, Yirmiahu (ed.), Kant's Practical Philosophy Reconsidered: Papers Presented at the Seventh Jerusalem Philosophical Encounter (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers), pp.23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. 1989b. ‘Personal identity and the unity of agency: a Kantian response to Parfit’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 18, 109–32.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. 1996. The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, H. E. 1969. ‘Strawson on transcendental idealism’. Philosophical Quarterly, 19, 204–20.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas 1986. The View from Nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas 1997. The Last Word. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neiman, Susan 1994. The Unity of Reason: Rereading Kant. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, Onora 1989. Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant's Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pereboom, Derk 1995. ‘Determinism al-dente (hard-determinism)’. Nous, 29, 21–45.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin 1993. Warrant: The Current Debate. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfred 1974. ‘… this I or he or it (the thing) which thinks …’ Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association 44 (1972). Reprinted in Essays in Philosophy and its History. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Silber, John R. 1960. ‘Introduction: the ethical significance of Kant's religion’. In Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, tr. Greene, Theodore M. and Hudson, Hoyt H. (New York: Harper Torchbooks), pp.lxxix–cxxxiv.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1966. The Bounds of Sense: An Essay on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Roger J. 1989. Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen W. 1970. Kant's Moral Religion. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar