Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-8vdwt Total loading time: 0.756 Render date: 2021-10-27T20:44:57.815Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

2 - Neo-Kantianism: the German idealism movement

from 1 - Positivism, Idealism, and Pragmatism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2008

Christopher Adair-Toteff
Affiliation:
Mississippi State University
Thomas Baldwin
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access

Summary

WHAT IS NEO-KANTIANISM?

For contemporary philosophers it is safe to say that much, if not most, of recent philosophy is either directly or indirectly indebted to Kant. Paul Guyer and Allen Wood write in their introduction to the new Cambridge translation of the Critique of Pure Reason: ‘all modern thinkers are children of Kant, whether they are happy or bitter about their paternity’ (Kant 1781, 1787 [1998: 23]). Although this sentiment has been prominent for some time, it has not always been the case. Indeed, some of Kant’s contemporaries prophesied that he would be soon forgotten, and his German speculative idealist successors appeared to go so far beyond Kant that he was no longer recognisable – hence Kant was almost forgotten. That philosophers of the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century not only remember him, but also maintain that philosophy since Kant is the attempt either to build upon him or refute him, is due in large measure to the German idealist movement of the last decades of the nineteenth century and the first several decades of the twentieth century. This is the movement known as Neo-Kantianism.

Despite the significant role that the Neo-Kantians played in emphasising Kant’s importance, there has been little work done on this movement. Writing in 1967 Lewis White Beck observed that ‘There is very little material in English on Neo-Kantianism’ (Beck 1967). This is still true today, although there have been several recent German scholars who have attempted to draw attention to certain figures, or to certain aspects of the movement as a whole.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

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

Adair-Toteff, C. S. (1994). ‘The Neo-Kantian Raum Controversy’, The British Journal of the History of Philosophy 2, no. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adair-Toteff, C. S. (1996). ‘Hans Vaihinger’s Kant-Studien’, Kant-Studien 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnoldt, E. (1870). Kants Transzendental Idealität des Raumes und der Zeit (Kant’s Transcendental Ideality of Space and Time), Königsberg: Albert Rosbach.Google Scholar
Beck, L. W. (1967). ‘Neo-Kantianism’, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edwards, P., vol. V.Google Scholar
Cohen, H. (1870). ‘Zur Controverse zwischen Trendelenburg und Kuno Fischer’ (On the Controversy between Trendelenburg and Kuno Fischer’), Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft 7.Google Scholar
Cohen, H. (1871). Kants Theorie der Erfahrung (Kant’s Theory of Experience), Berlin: Dümmler, 2nd edn 1885, 3rd edn 1918.Google Scholar
Cohen, H. (1877). Kants Begründung der Ethik (Kant’s Foundations of Ethics), Berlin: Dümmler.Google Scholar
Cohen, H. (1889). Kants Begründung der Aesthetik (Kant’s Foundations of Aesthetics), Berlin: Dümmler.Google Scholar
Cohen, H. (1902). Logik der reinen Erkenntnis (Logic of Pure Knowledge), Berlin: Bruno Cassirer.Google Scholar
Cohen, H. (1904). Ethik des reinen Willens (Ethics of Pure Will), Berlin: Bruno Cassirer.Google Scholar
Cohen, H. (1912). Ästhetik des reinen Gefühls (Aesthetic of Pure Feeling), Berlin: Bruno Cassirer.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (1860a). Kants Leben und die Grundlagen seiner Lehre (Kant’s Life and the Foundations of his Teaching), Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (1860b). Geschichte der neuern Philosophie (History of Modern Philosophy), Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (1865). System der Logik und Metaphysik oder Wissenschaftslehre (System of Logic and Metaphysics or the Doctrine of Science), 2nd edn, Heidelberg: Verlagsbuchhandlung von Friedrich Bassermann.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (1870). Anti-Trendelenburg, Jena: Hermann Dabis.Google Scholar
Grappengiesser, C. (1870). Kants Lehre von Raum und Zeit (Kant’s Doctrine of Space and Time), Jena: Friedrich Mauke.Google Scholar
Holzhey, H. (1986). Cohen und Natorp, Basle and Stuttgart: Schwabe and Co. Ag. Verlag.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1781, 1787). Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. 1998 Guyer, P. and Wood, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Köhnke, K. C. (1986). Entstehung und Aufstieg des Neu-Kantianismus, trans. 1991 Hollingdale, R. J. as The Rise of Neo-Kantianism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lange, F. A. (1865). Die Arbeiterfrage (The Question of the Worker), Winterthur: Bleuer-Hausheer, 3rd edn 1875.Google Scholar
Lange, F. A. (1866 [1887]). Geschichte des Materialismus. Iserlohn und Leipzig: Verlag von J. Baedeker. Trans. 1925 Thomas, E. C., History of Materialism, Boston, MA: Osgood.Google Scholar
Lask, E. (1924). Fichtes Idealismus und die Geschichte (Fichte’s Idealism and History). In Gesammelte Schriften, vol. I, ed. Herrigel, Eugen, Tübingen: Verlag von J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).Google Scholar
Liebmann, O. (1865). Kant und die Epigonen (Kant and the Epigones), Stuttgart: Carl Schoben. Repr. 1965, Erlangen: Fischer.Google Scholar
Natorp, P. (1902). Platons Ideenlehre (Plato’s Doctrine of Ideas). Leipzig: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Natorp, P. (1912). ‘Kant und die Marburger Schule’ (‘Kant and the Marburg School’), Kant-Studien 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakes, G. (1988). Weber and Rickert, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ollig, H.-L. (1979). Der neu-Kantianismus (Neo-Kantianism), Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Orth, E. W. and Holzhey, H. (1994). Neu-Kantianismus (Neo-Kantianism), Würzburg: Könighausen and Neumann.Google Scholar
Rickert, H. (1902). Die Grenzen der Wissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung, 1st edn 1902. Abridged, and translated 1986 by Oakes, Guy from the 5th edn (1929), The Limits of Concept Formation in Natural Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (1904). Kant, Leipzig: S. Hirzel.Google Scholar
Trendelenburg, F. A. (1840). Logische Untersuchungen (Logical Investigations), Berlin: Gustav Bethge.Google Scholar
Trendelenburg, F. A. (1867). ‘Über eine Lücke in Kants Beweis der ausschliessenden Subjectivität des Raumes und der Zeit Ein kritisehes und anti-kritisches Blatt’ (‘On a Gap in Kant’s Proof of the Exclusive Subjectivity of Space and Time. A Critical and Anti-critical Page’), Historische Beitrag zur Philosophie 3.Google Scholar
Trendelenburg, F. A. (1869). Kuno Fischer und sein Kant (Kuno Fischer and his Kant), Leipzig: S. Hirzel.Google Scholar
Troeltsch, E. (1922). Der Historismus und seine Probleme: Das logische Problem der Geschichtsphilosophie (Historicism and its Problems: The Logical Problem of the Philosophy of History), Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.Google Scholar
Vaihinger, H. (1882–92). Kommentar zur Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason), 2 vols. Stuttgart, . Repr. 1970 Aalen: Scientia Verlag.Google Scholar
Vaihinger, H. (1902a). Die Deduktion der Kategorien (The Deduction of the Categories), Halle a.S.: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Vaihinger, H. (1902b). Nietzsche als Philosophe (Nietzsche as Philosopher), Halle a.S.: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Vaihinger, H. (1911). Die Philosophie des Als Ob. System der theoretischen, praktischen und religiosen Fiktionen der Menschheit auf Grund'eines idealistischen Positivismus. Mit einem Anhang über Kant und Nietzsche, 3rd edn, Leipzig: F. Meiner, 1918. Trans. 1924 Ogden, C., Philosophy of ‘As If’: A System of the Theoretical, Practical and Religious Fictions of Mankind, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Volkelt, J. (1879). Immanuel Kant’s Erkenntnistheorie (Immanuel Kant’s Theory of Cognition), Leipzig: Verlag von Leopold Voss.Google Scholar
Willey, T. (1987). Back to Kant, Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Windelband, W. (1884). Präludien (Preludes), 2 vols. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.Google Scholar
Zeller, E. (1862). ‘Über Bedeutung und Aufgabe der Erkenntnistheorie’ (‘On the Significance and Task of the Theory of Knowledge’), Heidelberg (Antrittsrede). Reprinted in Vorträge und Abhandlungen, Leipzig: Fues, 1865–84.Google Scholar
3
Cited by

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×