Book contents
- Kant’s Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science
- Cambridge Critical Guides
- Kant’s Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Note on Abbreviations and Translations
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 Kant’s Conception of the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science
- Chapter 2 Kant’s Normative Conception of Natural Science
- Chapter 3 The Applicability of Mathematics as a Metaphysical Problem
- Chapter 4 Phoronomy
- Chapter 5 Space, Pure Intuition, and Laws in the Metaphysical Foundations
- Chapter 6 Finitism in the Metaphysical Foundations
- Chapter 7 The Construction of the Concept of Space-Filling
- Chapter 8 Beyond the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science
- Chapter 9 How Do We Transform Appearance into Experience?
- Chapter 10 Absolute Space as a Necessary Idea
- Chapter 11 Proper Natural Science and Its Role in the Critical System
- References
- Index
- Cambridge Critical Guides
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 October 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- Kant’s Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science
- Cambridge Critical Guides
- Kant’s Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Note on Abbreviations and Translations
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 Kant’s Conception of the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science
- Chapter 2 Kant’s Normative Conception of Natural Science
- Chapter 3 The Applicability of Mathematics as a Metaphysical Problem
- Chapter 4 Phoronomy
- Chapter 5 Space, Pure Intuition, and Laws in the Metaphysical Foundations
- Chapter 6 Finitism in the Metaphysical Foundations
- Chapter 7 The Construction of the Concept of Space-Filling
- Chapter 8 Beyond the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science
- Chapter 9 How Do We Transform Appearance into Experience?
- Chapter 10 Absolute Space as a Necessary Idea
- Chapter 11 Proper Natural Science and Its Role in the Critical System
- References
- Index
- Cambridge Critical Guides
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural ScienceA Critical Guide, pp. 266 - 282Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Adams, Robert Merrihew. 1994. Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adelung, Johann Christoph. 1811. Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der hochdeutschen Mundart, Zweiter Theil. Vienna: Bauer.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry. 1994. “Causality and Causal Laws in Kant: A Critique of Michael Friedman.” In Kant and Contemporary Epistemology, edited by Parrini, Paolo, 291–307. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry. 2004. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense. 2nd edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 1st edition 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartoloni-Meli, Domenico. 1993. “The Emergence of Reference Frames and the Transformation of Mechanics in the Enlightenment.” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 23 (2): 301–35.Google Scholar
Baum, M. 2015a. “Metaphysik.” In Kant-Lexikon, edited by Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano, 1530–40. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baum, M. 2015b. “Metaphysik, allgemeine/spezielle.” In Kant-Lexikon, edited by Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano, 1540–1. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baum, M. 2015c. “Metaphysik der Natur.” In Kant-Lexikon, edited by Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano, 1541–2. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Beck, Dominicus. 1779. Institutiones physicæ prælectionibus publicis destinatæ. Salzburg: Mayr.Google Scholar
Beck, Lewis White. 1978. “A Prussian Hume and a Scottish Kant.” In Essays on Hume and Kant, edited by Beck, Lewis White, 111–29. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Beiser, Frederick. 2006. “Kant and Naturphilosophie.” In The Kantian Legacy in Nineteenth Century Science, edited by Friedman, Michael and Nordmann, Alfred, 7–26. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernoulli, Daniel 1728. “Examen principiorum mechanicae et demonstrationes geometricae de compositione et resolutione virium.” Commentarii Academiae Seientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae 1: 126–41.Google Scholar
Blomme, Henny. 2015. “Kant’s Conception of Chemistry in the Danziger Physik.” In Reading Kant’s Lectures, edited by Clewis, Robert, 484–502. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Breitenbach, Angela. 2009a. Die Analogie von Vernunft und Natur Eine Umweltphilosophie nach Kant. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Breitenbach, Angela. 2009b. ‘Teleology in Biology: A Kantian Approach.” Kant Yearbook 1: 31–56.Google Scholar
Breitenbach, Angela. 2017. “Laws in Biology and the Unity of Nature.” In Kant and the Laws of Nature, edited by Massimi, Michela and Breitenbach, Angela, 237–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Breitenbach, Angela. 2018. “Laws and Ideal Unity.” In Laws of Nature, edited by Ott, Walter and Patton, Lydia, 108–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Breitenbach, Angela. Forthcoming. “The Regulative Role of Reason.” In Oxford Kant Handbook, edited by Gomes, Anil and Stephenson, Andrew. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Breitenbach, Angela, and Massimi, Michela, eds. 2017. “Laws of Nature: Contemporary and Historical Perspectives.” Special issue, The Monist 100 (3).Google Scholar
Brewer, Kimberly, and Watkins, Eric. 2012. “A Difficulty Still Awaits: Kant, Spinoza, and the Threat of Theological Determinism.” Kant-Studien 103 (2): 163–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brittan, Gordon. 1978. Kant’s Theory of Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brittan, Gordon. 1986. “Kant’s Two Grand Hypotheses.” In Kant’s Philosophy of Physical Science: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft 1786–1986, edited by Butts, Robert, 61–94. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brittan, Gordon. 1994. “Kant and the Quantum Theory.” In Kant and Contemporary Epistemology, edited by Parrini, Paolo, 131–55. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Buchdahl, Gerd. 1969a. “The Kantian ‘Dynamic of Reason,’ with Special Reference to the Place of Causality in Kant’s System.” In Kant Studies Today, edited by Beck, Lewis White, 341–74. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Buchdahl, Gerd. 1969b. Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science. The Classical Origins: Descartes to Kant. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Buchdahl, Gerd. 1971. “The Conception of Lawlikeness in Kant’s Philosophy of Science.” Synthese 23 (1): 24–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchdahl, Gerd. 1986. “Kant’s ‘Special Metaphysics’ and the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science.” In Kant’s Philosophy of Physical Science: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft 1786–1986, edited by Butts, Robert, 127–64. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Butts, Robert. 1986a. “Introduction: Kant’s Quest for a Method in Metaphysics.” In Kant’s Philosophy of Physical Science: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft 1786–1986, edited by Butts, Robert, 1–22. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, Robert. ed. 1986b. Kant’s Philosophy of Physical Science: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft 1786–1986. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Carrier, Martin. 1990. “Kants Theorie der Materie und ihre Wirkung auf die zeitgenössische Chemie.” Kant-Studien 81 (2): 170–210.Google Scholar
Carrier, Martin. 1992. “Kant’s Relational Theory of Absolute Space.” Kant-Studien 83 (4): 399–416.Google Scholar
Carrier, Martin. 2001. “Kant’s Theory of Matter and His Views on Chemistry.” In Kant and the Sciences, edited by Watkins, Eric, 205–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. 1921. Zur Einsteinschen Relativitätstheorie. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer. English translation: Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (Chicago: Open Court, 1923).Google Scholar
Chignell, Andrew. 2014. “Modal Motivations for Noumenal Ignorance: Knowledge, Cognition, and Coherence.” Kant-Studien 105 (4): 573–97.Google Scholar
Clagett, Marshall. 1984. Archimedes in the Middle Ages, vol. 5. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Cohen, Alix. 2009. Kant and the Human Sciences: Biology, Anthropology and History. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
d’Alembert, Jean le Rond. 1768. “Réflexions sur les suites divergentes ou convergentes.” In Opuscules mathématiques, vol. 5, 171–82. Paris: Briasson.Google Scholar
d’Alembert, Jean le Rond. 1765. “Limite.” In Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné, vol. 9, edited by Diderot, Denis and d’Alembert, Jean le Rond, 542. Lausanne: Sociétés Typographiques.Google Scholar
De Bianchi, Silvia. 2013. “The Evolution of the Sphere. Kant’s Theory of Matter and the Expanding Universe.” In The Harmony of the Sphere: Kant and Herschel on the Universe and the Astronomical Phenomena, edited by De Bianchi, Silvia, 17–45. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
De Bianchi, Silvia. 2019. “Making Science through ‘Mental Inspection’: On William Herschel’s Manuscript ‘Kant (Notes on Philosophy).’” Studi Kantiani 31: 135–49.Google Scholar
De Bianchi, Silvia, and Kraus, Katharina, eds. 2018. “Kant and the Sciences: Bridging the Gap between the Natural and Human Sciences.” Special issue, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Risi, Vincenzo. 2007. Geometry and Monadology: Leibniz’s Analysis Situs and Philosophy of Space. Basel: Birkhäuser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, René. 1996. Oeuvres de Descartes. Edited by Adam, Charles and Tannery, Paul. Paris: J. Vrin.Google Scholar
Detlefsen, Michael. 1986. Hilbert’s Program: An Essay on Mathematical Instrumentalism. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
du Châtelet, Émilie. 2014. “On the Divisibility and Subtlety of Matter.” In Philosophy, Science, and History, edited by Patton, Lydia, 333–43. New York: Routledge. Originally published in 1750.Google Scholar
Dunlop, Katherine. 2009. “The Unity of Time’s Measure: Kant’s Reply to Locke.” Philosophers’ Imprint 9 (4): 1–31.Google Scholar
Dunlop, Katherine. Forthcoming. “The Significance of Émilie Du Châtelet’s Proof of the Parallelogram Law for Forces.” In L’epoque émilienne, edited by Hagengruber, Ruth and Reichenbacher, Andrea. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Dyck, Corey. 2014a. “The Function of Derivation and the Derivation of Functions: A Review of Schulting’s Kant’s Deduction and Apperception.” Studi Kantiani 27: 69–75.Google Scholar
Edwards, Jeffrey. 2000. Substance, Force, and the Possibility of Knowledge: On Kant’s Philosophy of Material Nature. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emundts, Dina. 2004. Kants Übergangskonzeption im Opus postumum: Zur Rolle des Nachlaßwerkes für die Grundlegung der empirischen Physik. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Engelhard, Kristina. 2005. Das Einfache und die Materie: Untersuchungen zu Kants Antinomie der Teilung. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Engelhard, Kristina. 2018. “The Problem of Grounding Natural Modality in Kant’s Account of Empirical Laws of Nature.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 71: 24–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erxleben, Johann Christian Polycarp. 1772. Anfangsgründe der Naturlehre. Göttingen: Dieterich.Google Scholar
Erxleben, Johann Christian Polycarp. 1784. Anfangsgründe der Naturlehre. 3rd edition. Edited by Lichtenberg, Georg Christoph. Göttingen: Dieterich.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonard. 1736. Mechanica sive motus scientia analytice exposita. 2 vols. Petropoli: Academiae Scientiarum.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonard. 1750. “Reflexions sur l’espace et le tems.” Mémoires de l’académie des sciences de Berlin 4: 324–33.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonard. 1752. “Découverte d’un nouveau principe de la mécanique.” Mémoires de l’académie des sciences de Berlin 6: 185–217.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonard. 1765a. “Du mouvement de rotation des corps solides autour d’un axe variable.” Mémoires de l’académie des sciences de Berlin 14: 154–93.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonard. 1765b. “Recherches sur la connoisance mechanique des corps.” Mémoires de l’académie des sciences de Berlin 14: 131–53.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonard. 1765c. Theoria motus corporum solidorum seu rigidorum. Rostock and Greifswald: A. F. Röse.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonard. 1776. “Nova methodus motum corporum rigidorum determinandi.” Novi Commentarii academiae scientarium Petropolitanae 20: 208–38.Google Scholar
Falkenberg, Brigitte. 1987. Die Form der Materie: Zur Metaphysik bei Kant und Hegel. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Falkenberg, Brigitte. 1995. “Kants zweite Antinomie und die Physik.” Kant-Studien 86 (1): 4–25.Google Scholar
Förster, Eckart. 2000. Kant’s Final Synthesis: An Essay on the Opus Postumum. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1992a. “Causal Laws and the Foundations of Natural Science.” In The Cambridge Companion to Kant, edited by Guyer, Paul, 161–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1992b. Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1992c. “Regulative and Constitutive.” Southern Journal of Philosophy 30 Supplement: 73–102.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2000a. “Geometry, Construction, and Intuition in Kant and His Successors.” In Between Logic and Intuition, edited by Sher, Gila and Tieszen, Richard, 186–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2000b. “Logical Form and the Order of Nature: Comments on Beatrice Longuenesse’s Kant and the Capacity to Judge.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 82: 202–15.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2001b. “Matter and Motion in the Metaphysical Foundations and the First Critique: The Empirical Concept of Matter and the Categories.” In Kant and the Sciences, edited by Watkins, Eric, 53–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2002. “Kant, Kuhn and the Rationality of Science.” Philosophy of Science 69: 171–90.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2012. “The Prolegomena and Natural Science.” In Kant: Prolegomena. Ein kooperativer Kommentar, edited by Lyre, Holger and Schliemann, Oliver, 231–66. Frankfurt am Main: KlostermannGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2013. Kant’s Construction of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2018. “The Kantian Bridge between Nature and Freedom.” In Natur und Freiheit: Akten des XII. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, edited by Waibel, Violetta, Ruffing, Margit, and Wagner, David, 113–32. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2020. “Space in Kantian Idealism.” In Space: A History, edited by Janiak, Andrew, 280–305. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frierson, Patrick. 2014. Kant’s Empirical Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. 2008. “What Leibniz Really Said.” In Kant and the Early Moderns, edited by Garber, Daniel and Longuenesse, Béatrice, 64–78. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gaukroger, Stephen. 1982. “The Metaphysics of Impenetrability: Euler’s Conception of Force.” The British Journal for the History of Science 15 (2): 132–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaukroger, Stephen. 2016.”Kant and the Nature of Matter: Mechanics, Chemistry, and the Life Sciences.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 58: 108–14.Google Scholar
Gaukroger, Stephen, and Nassar, Dalia, eds. 2016. “Kant and the Empirical Sciences.” Special issue, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 58.Google Scholar
Gava, Gabriele. 2014. “Kant’s Definition of Science in the Architectonic of Pure Reason.” Kant-Studien 105: 372–93.Google Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah. 2001. “Kant on Understanding Organisms as Natural Purposes.” In Kant and the Sciences, edited by Watkins, Eric, 231–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah. 2004. “Two Kinds of Mechanical Inexplicability on Kant and Aristotle.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 42 (1): 33–65.Google Scholar
Glezer, Tal. 2018. Kant on Reality, Cause, and Force. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gloy, Karen. 1976. Die Kantische Theorie der Naturwissenschaft: Eine Strukturanalyse ihrer Möglichkeit, ihres Umfangs und ihrer Grenzen. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gouaux, Charles. 1972. “Kant’s View on the Nature of Empirical Psychology.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 8 (2): 237–42.Google Scholar
Goy, Ina. 2017. Kants Theorie der Biologie: Ein Kommentar. Eine Lesart. Eine Historische Einordnung. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grier, Michelle. 1997. “Kant on the Illusion of a Systematic Unity of Knowledge.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 14 (1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Grier, Michelle. 2001. Kant’s Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 1990. “Kant’s Conception of Empirical Law.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 64: 221–42.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 2000. “Editor’s Introduction.” In Critique of the Power of Judgment, edited by Guyer, Paul and Matthews, Eric, xiii–lii. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harman, Peter M. 1983. “Force and Inertia: Euler and Kant’s Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science.” In Nature Mathematized, edited by Shea, William R., 229–49. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary. 1990. The Natural and the Normative: Theories of Spatial Perception from Kant to Helmholtz. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary. 1992. “Empirical, Rational and Transcendental Psychology: Psychology as Science and as Philosophy.” In The Cambridge Companion to Kant, edited by Guyer, Paul, 200–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary. 1995. “Remaking the Science of the Mind: Psychology as Natural Science.” In Inventing Human Science: Eighteenth-Century Domains, edited by Fox, Christopher, Porter, Roy, and Wokler, Robert, 184–231. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, Berthold. 1758. Elementa Philosophiæ ad Rationis et Experimentiæ, vol. 4. Augsburg: Wolff.Google Scholar
Hebbeler, James. 2015. “Kant on Necessity, Insight, and A Priori Knowledge.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 97 (1): 34–65.Google Scholar
Heidemann, Dietmar, ed. 2017. “Kant’s Philosophy of Science.” Special issue, Kant Yearbook 9.Google Scholar
Heilbron, John Lewis. 1982. Elements of Early Modern Physics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Heis, Jeremy. 2014. “Review of Kant’s Construction of Nature.” The Philosophical Review 123 (3): 342–54.Google Scholar
Heis, Jeremy. 2020. “Kant on Parallel Lines: Definitions, Postulates, and Axioms.” In Kant’s Philosophy of Mathematics, vol. 1: The Critical Philosophy and Its Roots, edited by Posy, Carl and Rechter, Ofra, 157–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hentsch, Johann. 1751. Introductio plana in philosophiam, vol. 1. Leipzig: Haeredes Lanckisianorum.Google Scholar
Hoefer, Carl. 2016. “Causal Determinism.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Zalta, Edward. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/.Google Scholar
Hogan, Desmond. 2009. “Three Kinds of Rationalism and the Non-Spatiality of Things in Themselves.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 47 (3): 355–82.Google Scholar
Hogan, Desmond. 2021. “Handedness, Idealism, and Freedom.” The Philosophical Review 130 (3): 385–449.Google Scholar
Holden, Thomas. 2004. The Architecture of Matter: Galileo to Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoppe, Hansgeorg. 1969. Kants Theorie der Physik: eine Untersuchung über das Opus postumum von Kant. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
Howard, Stephen. 2017. “Why Did Leibniz Fail to Complete His Dynamics?” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 25 (1): 22–40.Google Scholar
Howard, Stephen. 2021. “Kant on the Fundamental Forces of Matter: Why Attraction and Repulsion?” Kantian Review 26 (3):413–33.Google Scholar
Hyder, David. 2014. “Review of Michael Friedman, Kant’s Construction of Nature: A Reading of the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science.” Isis 105 (2): 433–35.Google Scholar
Hyder, David. 2019. “Kant on Time I: The Kinematics of the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science.” Kant-Studien 110 (3): 477–97.Google Scholar
Kahn, Samuel. 2017. “Defending Kant’s Conception of Matter from the Charge of Circularity.” Kant-Studien 108 (2): 195–217.Google Scholar
Kannisto, Toni. 2017. “Kant on the Necessity of Causal Relations.” Kant-Studien 108: 495–516.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1900–. Kant’s Gesammelte Schriften. 29 vols. Edited by the Deutschen (earlier Preußischen) Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1970. Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Translated by Ellington, James. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1985. Philosophy of Material Nature. Translated by Ellington, James. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1992a. Lectures on Logic. Translated and edited by Michael Young, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1992b. Theoretical Philosophy 1755–1770. Translated and edited by Walford, David with Meerbote, Ralf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1993. Opus postumum. Edited by Förster, Eckart. Translated by Förster, Eckart and Rosen, Michael. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1996a. Practical Philosophy. Translated and edited by Gregor, Mary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1996b. Religion and Rational Theology. Translated and edited by Wood, Allen and di Giovanni, George. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1997a. Lectures on Metaphysics. Translated and edited by Ameriks, Karl and Naragon, Steve. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1997b. Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft. Edited by Pollok, Konstantin. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by Guyer, Paul and Wood, Allen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1999. Correspondence. Translated and edited by Zweig, Arnulf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 2000. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Edited by Guyer, Paul. Translated by Guyer, Paul and Matthews, Eric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 2002. Theoretical Philosophy after 1781. Edited by Allison, Henry and Heath, Peter. Translated by Hatfield, Gary, Friedman, Michael, Allison, Henry, and Heath, Peter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 2004. Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Translated and edited by Friedman, Michael. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 2005. Notes and Fragments. Edited by Guyer, Paul. Translated by Bowman, Curtis, Guyer, Paul, and Rauscher, Frederick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 2007. Anthropology, History and Education. Edited by Zöller, Günter and Louden, Robert. Translated by Gregor, Mary, Guyer, Paul, Louden, Robert, Wilson, Holly, Wood, Allen, Zöller, Günter, and Zweig, Arnulf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 2012. Natural Science. Edited by Watkins, Eric. Translated by Beck, Lewis White, Edwards, Jeffrey B, Reinhardt, Olaf, Schönfeld, Martin, and Watkins, Eric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keill, John. 1745. An Introduction to Natural Philosophy; or, Philosophical Lectures Read in the University of Oxford anno Dom. 1700. 4th edition. London: M. Senex, W. Innys, T. Longman and T. Shewell.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Patricia. 1990. Kant’s Transcendental Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Phillip. 1981. “How Kant Almost Wrote ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism.’” Philosophical Topics 12 (2): 217–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Phillip. 1984. “Kant’s Philosophy of Science.” In Self and Nature in Kant’s Philosophy, edited by Wood, Allen, 185–215. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Phillip. 1986. “Projecting the Order of Nature.” In Kant’s Philosophy of Physical Science: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft 1786–1986, edited by Butts, Robert, 201–35. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Phillip. 1994. “The Unity of Science and the Unity of Nature.” In Kant and Contemporary Epistemology, edited by Parrini, Paolo, 253–72. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kraus, Katharina. 2016. “Quantifying Inner Experience? Kant’s Mathematical Principles in the Context of Empirical Psychology.” European Journal of Philosophy 24 (2): 331–57.Google Scholar
Kraus, Katharina. 2018. “The Soul as the ‘Guiding Idea’ of Psychology: Kant on Scientific Psychology, Systematicity, and the Idea of the Soul.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 71: 77–88.Google Scholar
Kreines, James. 2005. “The Inexplicability of Kant’s Naturzweck: Kant on Teleology, Explanation and Biology.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 87 (3): 270–311.Google Scholar
Kreines, James. 2009. “Kant on the Laws of Nature: Laws, Necessitation, and the Limitation of Our Knowledge.” European Journal of Philosophy 17 (4): 527–58.Google Scholar
Kreines, James. 2017. “Kant on the Laws of Nature: Restrictive Inflationism and Its Philosophical Advantages.” The Monist 100 (3): 326–41.Google Scholar
Krüger, Lorenz. 2005. “Causality and Freedom.” In Why Does History Matter to Philosophy and the Sciences? Selected Essays, edited by Sturm, Thomas, Carl, Wolfgang, and Daston, Lorraine, 155–67. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kuehn, Manfred. 2001. Kant: A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagrange, Joseph Louis. 1797. Théorie des fonctions analytiques. Paris: L’Imprimerie de la République.Google Scholar
Lambert, Johann Heinrich. 1771. Anlage zur Architectonic, oder Theorie des Einfachen und des Ersten in der philosophischen und mathematischen Erkenntnis. 2 vols. Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch.Google Scholar
Laywine, Alison. 1993. Kant’s Early Metaphysics and the Origins of the Critical Philosophy. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing.Google Scholar
Laywine, Alison. 2003. “Kant on Sensibility and Understanding in the 1770’s.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 33: 443–82.Google Scholar
Laywine, Alison. 2020. Kant’s Transcendental Deduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lefèvre, Wolfgang, ed. 2001. Between Leibniz, Newton, and Kant: Philosophy and Science in the Eighteenth Century. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 1875–90. Die Philosophischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. 7 vols. Edited by Gerhardt, C. I. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 1989a. Philosophical Essays. Edited by Ariew, Roger and Garber, Daniel. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 1989b. Philosophical Papers and Letters. Edited by Loemker, Leroy. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. “Scorekeeping in a Language Game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–59.Google Scholar
Lichtenberg, Georg Christoph. 2007. Vorlesungen zur Naturlehre: Notizen und Materialen zur Experimentalphysik. Teil I. Edited by the Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice. 1998. Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice. 2001. “Synthesis, Logical Forms, and the Objects of Our Ordinary Experience. Reply to Michael Friedman.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 83: 199–212.Google Scholar
Lu-Adler, Huaping. 2018. Kant and the Science of Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lyre, Holger. 2006. “Kants Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft: Gestern und Heute.” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 54: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makkreel, Rudolf. 2001. “Kant on the Scientific Status of Psychology, Anthropology, and History.” In Kant and the Sciences, edited by Watkins, Eric, 185–201. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maronne, Sébastien, and Panza, Marco. 2014. “Euler, Reader of Newton: Mechanics and Algebraic Analysis.” Introduction to Advances Historical Studies 3 (1): 12–21.Google Scholar
Maronne, Sébastien, and Panza, Marco. 2019. “Newton and Euler.” In The Reception of Isaac Newton in the European Enlightenment, edited by Pulte, Helmut and Mandelbrote, Scott, 861–78. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela. 2011. “Kant’s Dynamical Theory of Matter in 1755, and Its Debt to Speculative Newtonian Experimentalism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (4): 525–43.Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela. ed. 2013. “Philosophy of Natural Science from Newton to Kant.” Special section, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (3).Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela. ed. 2014a. “Kant and the Lawfulness of Nature.” Special issue, Kant-Studien 105 (4).Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela. 2014b. “Prescribing Laws to Nature. Part I. Newton, the Pre-Critical Kant, and Three Problems about the Lawfulness of Nature.” Kant-Studien 105 (4): 491–508.Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela. 2017a. “Grounds, Modality, and Nomic Necessity in the Critical Kant.” In Kant and the Laws of Nature, edited by Massimi, Michela and Breitenbach, Angela, 150–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela. 2017b. “Kant on the Ideality of Space and the Argument from Spinozism.” In Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: A Critical Guide, edited by O’Shea, James R., 64–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela. 2017c. “The Legacy of Newton for the Pre-Critical Kant.” In The Oxford Handbook of Newton, edited by Schliesser, Eric and Smeenk, Chris. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela. 2017d. “What Is This Thing Called ‘Scientific Knowledge’? Kant on Imaginary Standpoints and the Regulative Role of Reason.” Kant Yearbook 9: 63–83.Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela. 2018a. “Laws of Nature and Nomic Necessity. Was Kant Really a Projectivist?” In Natur und Freiheit: Akten des XII. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, edited by Waibel, Violetta, Ruffing, Margit, and Wagner, David, 397–414. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela. 2018b. “A Perspectivalist Better Best System Account of Lawhood.” In Laws of Nature, edited by Ott, Walter and Patton, Lydia, 139–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela. 2021. “Points of View. Kant on Perspectival Knowledge.” Synthese 198: 3279–96.Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela, and Breitenbach, Angela, eds. 2017. Kant and the Laws of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela, and De Bianchi, Silvia. 2013. “Cartesian Echoes in Kant’s Philosophy of Nature.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (3): 481–92.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Peter. 1990. Kant’s Critique of Teleology in Biological Explanation: Antinomy and Teleology. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon.Google Scholar
McNulty, Michael Bennett. 2014. “Kant on Chemistry and the Application of Mathematics in Natural Science.” Kantian Review 19 (3): 393–418.Google Scholar
McNulty, Michael Bennett. 2015. “Rehabilitating the Regulative Use of Reason: Kant on Empirical and Chemical Laws.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 54: 1–10.Google Scholar
McNulty, Michael Bennett. 2016. “Chemistry in Kant’s Opus Postumum.” HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 6 (1): 64–95.Google Scholar
McNulty, Michael Bennett. 2017. “What Is Chemistry, for Kant?” Kant Yearbook 9: 85–112.Google Scholar
McNulty, Michael Bennett. 2018. “Chemical Dissolution and Kant’s Critical Theory of Nature.” Kant-Studien 109 (4): 537–56.Google Scholar
McNulty, Michael Bennett. 2019. “Continuity of Change in Kant’s Dynamics.” Synthese 196 (4): 1595–622.Google Scholar
McNulty, Michael Bennett, and Stan, Marius. 2017. “From General to Special Metaphysics of Nature.” In The Palgrave Kant Handbook, edited by Altman, Matthew C., 493–511. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
McRobert, Jennifer. 1995. “Concept Construction in Kant’s Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science.” PhD dissertation, University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
Mensch, Jennifer. 2013. Kant’s Organicism: Epigenesis and the Development of the Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messina, James. 2014. “Kant on the Unity of Space and the Synthetic Unity of Apperception.” Kant-Studien 105 (1): 5–40.Google Scholar
Messina, James. 2015. “Conceptual Analysis and the Essence of Space.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 97 (4): 416–57.Google Scholar
Messina, James. 2017. “Kant’s Necessitation Account of Laws and the Nature of Natures.” In Kant and the Laws of Nature, edited by Massimi, Michela and Breitenbach, Angela, 131–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Messina, James. 2018a. “Looking for Laws in All the Wrong Spaces: Kant on Laws, the Understanding, and Space.” European Journal of Philosophy 26 (1): 589–613.Google Scholar
Messina, James. 2018b. “Where the Laws of Physics (and Geometry) Lie: A Reading of Prolegomena §38.” In Natur und Freiheit: Akten des XII. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, edited by Waibel, Violetta, Ruffing, Margit, and Wagner, David, 1091–98. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Miller, David Marshall. 2017. “The Parallelogram Rule from Pseudo-Aristotle to Newton.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 71 (2): 157–91.Google Scholar
Mischel, Thomas. 1967. “Kant and the Possibility of a Science of Psychology.” The Monist 51 (4): 599–622.Google Scholar
Mittelstaedt, Peter. 1994. “The Constitution of Objects in Kant’s Philosophy and in Modern Physics.” In Kant and Contemporary Epistemology, edited by Parrini, Paolo, 115–29. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Morrison, Margaret. 2008. “Reduction, Unity and the Nature of Science: Kant’s Legacy?” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 63: 37–62.Google Scholar
Nayak, Abhaya, and Sotnak, Eric. 1995. “Kant on the Impossibility of the ‘Soft Sciences.’” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55 (1): 133–51.Google Scholar
Newton, Isaac. 1999. The Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Translated by Bernard Cohen, I and Whitman, Anne. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Newton, Isaac. 2004. Philosophical Writings. Edited by Janiak, Andrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Okruhlik, Kathleen. 1983. “Kant on the Foundations of Science.” In Nature Mathematized, edited by Shea, William R., 251–68. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Onnasch, Ernst-Otto. 2009. Kants Philosophie der Natur: Ihre Entwicklung im Opus postumum und ihre Wirkung. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oresme, Nicole. 1968. De configurationibus qualitatum et motuum. In Nicole Oresme and the Medieval Geometry of Qualities and Motions, edited by Clagett, Marshall. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Oresme, Nicole. 2013. Questiones super Physicam. Edited by Caroti, Stefano, Celeyrette, Jean, Kirschner, Stefan, and Mazet, Edmond. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Palter, Robert. 1971. “Absolute Space and Absolute Motion in Kant’s Critical Philosophy.” Synthese 23: 47–62.Google Scholar
Palter, Robert. 1972. “Kant’s Formulation of the Laws of Motion.” Synthese 24: 96–116.Google Scholar
Parsons, Charles. 1984. “Remarks on Pure Natural Science.” In Self and Nature in Kant’s Philosophy, edited by Wood, Allen, 216–27. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, Charles. 2008. Mathematical Thought and Its Objects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Patton, Lydia. 2011. “The Paradox of Infinite Given Magnitude.” Kant-Studien 102 (3): 273–89.Google Scholar
Patton, Lydia. 2017. “Kantian Essentialism in the Metaphysical Foundations.” The Monist 100 (3): 342–56.Google Scholar
Plaass, Peter. 1965. Kants Theorie der Naturwissenschaft: Eine Untersuchung zur Vorrede von Kants “Metaphysischen Anfangsgründen der Naturwissenschaft.” Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Pollok, Konstantin. 2001. Kants “Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft”: Ein Kritischer Kommentar. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Pollok, Konstantin. 2002. “‘Fabricating a World in Accordance with Mere Fantasy …?’ The Origins of Kant’s Critical Theory of Matter.” The Review of Metaphysics 56 (1): 61–97.Google Scholar
Pollok, Konstantin. 2006. “Kant’s Critical Concepts of Motion.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 44 (4): 559–75.Google Scholar
Quarfood, Marcel. 2004. Transcendental Idealism and the Organicism: Essays on Kant. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Quarfood, Marcel. 2006. “Kant on Biological Teleology: Towards a Two-Level Interpretation.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (4): 735–47.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1920. Relativitätstheorie und Erkenntnis Apriori. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Richards, Robert. 2000. “Kant and Blumenbach on the Bildungstrieb: A Historical Misunderstanding.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 31: 111–32.Google Scholar
Röd, Wolfgang. 1991. “Kants Reine Naturwissenschaft als kritische Metaphysik.” Dialectica 45: 118–31.Google Scholar
Rush, Fred. 2000. “Reason and Regulation in Kant.” Review of Metaphysics 53 (4): 837–62.Google Scholar
Rusnock, Paul. 2004. “Was Kant’s Philosophy of Mathematics Right for His Time?” Kant-Studien 95 (4): 426–42.Google Scholar
’s Gravesande, Willem Jacob. 1742. Physices elementa mathematica, experimentis confirmata. 2 vols. Leiden: Langerak and Verbeek.Google Scholar
Sarmiento, Gustavo. 2005. “On Kant’s Definition of the Monad in the Monadologia physica of 1756.” Kant-Studien 96 (1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Schönfeld, Martin. 2000. The Philosophy of the Young Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, Arthur. 1999. On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Translated by Payne, E. F. J. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, Arthur. 2014. World as Will and Representation, vol. 1. Translated by Norman, Judith, Welcham, Alistair, and Janaway, Christopher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schulting, Dennis. 2012. Kant’s Apperception and Deduction: Explaining the Categories. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Shabel, Lisa. 2006. “Kant’s Philosophy of Mathematics.” In The Cambridge Companion to Kant and Modern Philosophy, edited by Guyer, Paul, 94–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sieg, Wilfried. 2016. “On Tait on Kant and Finitism.” The Journal of Philosophy 113 (5–6): 274–85.Google Scholar
Smit, Houston. 2009. “Kant on Apriority and the Spontaneity of Cognition.” In Metaphysics and the Good: Themes from the Philosophy of Robert Merrihew Adams, edited by Newlands, Samuel and Jorgensen, Larry, 188–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Sheldon. 2013. “Does Kant Have a Pre-Newtonian Picture of Force in the Balance Argument? An Account of How the Balance Argument Works.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (3): 470–80.Google Scholar
Spagnesi, Lorenzo. 2021. “Kant and the Systematicity of Nature: The Regulative Use of Reason in the Critique of Pure Reason.” PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Stan, Marius. 2012. “Newton and Wolff: The Leibnizian Reaction to the Principia, 1716–1763.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (3): 459–81.Google Scholar
Stan, Marius. 2013. “Kant’s Third Law of Mechanics: The Long Shadow of Leibniz.” Studies in History of Philosophy of Science 44 (3): 493–504.Google Scholar
Stan, Marius. 2014a. “Once More unto the Breach: Kant and Newton.” Metascience 23 (2): 233–42.Google Scholar
Stan, Marius. 2014b. “Unity for Kant’s Natural Philosophy.” Philosophy of Science 81 (3): 423–43.Google Scholar
Stan, Marius. 2015. “Kant and the Object of Determinate Experience.” Philosophers’ Imprint 15 (33): 1–19.Google Scholar
Stan, Marius. 2016. “Absolute Space and the Riddle of Rotation: Kant’s Response to Newton.” Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy 7: 257–308.Google Scholar
Stan, Marius. 2017. “Metaphysical Foundations of Neoclassical Mechanics.” In Kant and the Laws of Nature, edited by Massimi, Michela and Breitenbach, Angela, 214–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stang, Nicholas. 2019. “A Guide to Ground in Kant’s Lectures on Metaphysics.” In Kant’s Lectures on Metaphysics: A Critical Guide, edited by Fugate, Courtney, 74–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, Stanley Smith. 1946. “On the Theory of Scales of Measurement.” Science 103: 677–80.Google Scholar
Storrie, Stefan. 2015. “On Kant’s Knowledge of Leibniz’ Metaphysics: Α Reply to Garber.” Philosophia 43: 1147–55.Google Scholar
Stratman, Joe. 2018. “Kant, Grounding, and Things-in-Themselves.” Philosophers’ Imprint 18 (7): 1–21.Google Scholar
Sturm, Thomas. 2001. “How Not to Investigate the Human Mind: Kant on the Impossibility of Empirical Psychology.” In Kant and the Sciences, edited by Watkins, Eric, 163–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sturm, Thomas. 2006. “Is There a Problem with Mathematical Psychology in the Eighteenth Century? A Fresh Look at Kant’s Old Argument.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 42: 353–77.Google Scholar
Sturm, Thomas. 2012. “Kant über die dreifache Beziehung zwischen den Wissenschaften und der Philosophie.” Internationales Jahrbuch des Deutschen Idealismus 8: 60–82.Google Scholar
Sturm, Thomas. 2015. “Wissenschaft.” In Kant-Lexikon, edited by Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano, 2670–75. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sturm, Thomas. 2018. “Lambert and Kant on Truth.” In Kant and Ηis German Contemporaries, edited by Dyck, Corey and Wunderlich, Falk, 113–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sturm, Thomas, and De Bianchi, Silvia. 2015. “Naturwissenschaft.” In Kant-Lexikon, edited by Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano, 1643–50. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sturm, Thomas, and Wunderlich, Falk. 2010. “Kant and the Scientific Study of Consciousness.” History of the Human Sciences 23 (3): 48–71.Google Scholar
Sutherland, Daniel. 2006. “Kant on Arithmetic, Algebra, and the Theory of Proportions.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 44 (4): 533–58.Google Scholar
Sutherland, Daniel. 2014. “Kant on the Construction and Composition of Motion in the Phoronomy.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 44 (5–6): 686–718.Google Scholar
Sylla, Edith Dudley. 1973. “Medieval Concepts of the Latitude of Forms: The Oxford Calculators.” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 40: 223–83.Google Scholar
Tait, William. 2016. “Kant and Finitism.” The Journal of Philosophy 113 (5–6): 261–73.Google Scholar
Thöle, Bernhard. 1991. Kant und das Problem der Gesetzmäßigkeit der Natur. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thöle, Bernhard. 2004. “Immanuel Kant – Wie sind synthetische Urteile a priori möglich?” In Klassiker der Philosophie heute, edited by Beckermann, Ansgar and Perler, Dominik, 376–98. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
Thorndike, Oliver. 2018. Kant’s Transition Project and Late Philosophy: Connecting the Opus postumum and Metaphysics of Morals. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Tolley, Clinton. 2016. “‘The Difference between Original, Metaphysical, and Geometrical Representations of Space.” In Kantian Nonconceptualism, edited by Schulting, Dennis, 257–85. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Tuschling, Burkhard. 1971. Metaphysische und Transzendental Dynamik in Kants Opus postumum. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tuschling, Burkhard. 1991. “Die Idee des transzendentalen Idealismus im späten Opus postumum.” In Übergang: Untersuchungen zum Spätwerk Immanuel Kants, edited by Forum für Philosophie Bad Homburg, 105–45. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
van den Berg, Hein. 2011. “Kant’s Conception of Proper Science.” Synthese 183 (1): 7–26.Google Scholar
van den Berg, Hein. 2014. Kant on Proper Science: Biology in the Critical Philosophy and the Opus postumum. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Wallis, John. 1695. Mechanica, sive de motu. In Opera mathematica, vol. 1. Oxford: Theatro Sheldoniano.Google Scholar
Walsh, William Henry. 1940. “Kant’s Conception of Scientific Knowledge.” Mind 49: 445–50.Google Scholar
Warren, Daniel. 2001. Reality and Impenetrability in Kant’s Philosophy of Nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Warren, Daniel. 2010. “Kant on Attractive and Repulsive Force: The Balancing Argument.” In Discourse on a New Method: Reinvigorating the Marriage of History and Philosophy of Science, edited by Domski, Mary and Dickson, Michael, 193–241. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Warren, Daniel. 2017. “Kant on Mathematical Force Laws.” In Kant and the Laws of Nature, edited by Massimi, Michela and Breitenbach, Angela, 171–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Washburn, Michael. 1975. “The Second Edition of the Critique: Toward an Understanding of Its Nature and Genesis.” Kant-Studien 66: 277–90.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 1997. “The Laws of Motion from Newton to Kant.” Perspectives on Science 5: 311–48.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 1998a. “The Argumentative Structure of Kant’s Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 36 (4): 567–93.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 1998b.“Kant’s Justification of the Laws of Mechanics.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 29: 539–60.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 2001a. “Introduction.” In Kant and the Sciences, edited by Watkins, Eric, 3–8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 2005. Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 2006. “On the Necessity and Nature of Simples: Leibniz, Wolff, Baumgarten, and the Pre-Critical Kant.” Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy 3: 261–314.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric, and Stan, Marius. 2014. “Kant’s Philosophy of Science.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Zalta, Edward. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth. 1995a. “Does Kant’s Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science Fill a Gap in the Critique of Pure Reason?” Synthese 103 (1): 43–86.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth. 1995b. “Kant’s Dynamic Constructions.” Journal of Philosophical Research 20: 381–429.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 2018. Kant on the Claims of Metaphysics: The Dialectic of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Markus, and Watkins, Eric. 2017. “Kant on Cognition and Knowledge.” Synthese 197: 3195–213.Google Scholar
Wilson, Curtis. 1985. “The Great Inequality of Jupiter and Saturn, from Kepler to Laplace.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 33 (1–3): 15–290.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 2009. Philosophical Investigations. 4th edition. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Originally published 1953.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian. 1983. Vernünfftigen Gedancken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen, auch allen Dingen überhaupt. Abt. 1, Bd. 2 of Wolff’s Gesammelte Werke. Hildesheim: G. Olms Verlag. Originally published 1724.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen. 1991. “Unsocial Sociability: The Anthropological Basis of Kantian Ethics.” Philosophical Topics 19 (1): 325–51.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen. 1996. “General Introduction.” In Practical Philosophy, edited by Gregor, Mary, xiii–xxxiii. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zach, Richard. 2019. “Hilbert’s Program.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Zalta, Edward. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/hilbert-program/.Google Scholar
Zammito, John. 2003. “‘This Inscrutable Principle of an Original Organization’: Epigenesis and ‘Looseness of Fit’ in Kant’s Philosophy of Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 34 (1): 73–109.Google Scholar
Zammito, John. 2017. “‘Proper Science’ and Empirical Laws: Kant’s Sense of Science in the Critical Philosophy.” In The Palgrave Kant Handbook, edited by Altman, Matthew C., 471–92. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar