The Real Target of Kant’s “Refutation”

Kant was never satisfied with the version of his “Refutation” published in 1787 (KrV, B 275-279). His dissatisfaction is already evident in the footnote added to the preface of the second edition of the Critique in 1787. As a matter of fact, Kant continued to rework his argument for at least six yea...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Pereira S.R
Format: Article
Language:deu
Published: Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University 2019-07-01
Series:Кантовский сборник
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journals.kantiana.ru/upload/uf/58e/Kant_2019_3_preview.pdf
id doaj-c607eec975eb4a279871dc34e0570038
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c607eec975eb4a279871dc34e05700382020-11-25T02:44:53ZdeuImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityКантовский сборник0207-69182310-37012019-07-0138373110.5922/0207-6918-2019-3-1The Real Target of Kant’s “Refutation” Pereira S.R0Federal University of Rio de JaneiroKant was never satisfied with the version of his “Refutation” published in 1787 (KrV, B 275-279). His dissatisfaction is already evident in the footnote added to the preface of the second edition of the Critique in 1787. As a matter of fact, Kant continued to rework his argument for at least six years after 1787. The main exegetical problem is to figure out who is the target of the “Refutation”: a non-sceptic idealist or a global sceptic of Cartesian provenance or both. In this last case, a related problem is to know whether either of them is the Cartesian sceptic of the first Meditation, the idealist sceptic of the second Meditation and first part of the third Meditation, or some other non-sceptic idealist. I present and defend a new reconstruction of Kant’s “Refutation” as a successful argument against Mendelssohnian idealism of Cartesian provenance. This defence is based on a simple logical sketch of the proof provided by Dicker, but essentially modified in the light of Dyck’s insight about Kant’s opponent. How shall I support my reading? First, by appealing to overwhelming textual evidence according to which the proof is of the existence of mind-independent things, showing that Kant’s main opponent is Mendelssohn’s idealism of Cartesian provenance. Finally, I support my reading by showing that Kant’s “Refutation” is doomed to fail against all forms of global scepticism, but is quite successful against Mendelssohn’s idealism.https://journals.kantiana.ru/upload/uf/58e/Kant_2019_3_preview.pdfkantidealismsceptic idealismnon-sceptic idealismglobal scepticismrefutation of scepticismrefutation of idealism
collection DOAJ
language deu
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Pereira S.R
spellingShingle Pereira S.R
The Real Target of Kant’s “Refutation”
Кантовский сборник
kant
idealism
sceptic idealism
non-sceptic idealism
global scepticism
refutation of scepticism
refutation of idealism
author_facet Pereira S.R
author_sort Pereira S.R
title The Real Target of Kant’s “Refutation”
title_short The Real Target of Kant’s “Refutation”
title_full The Real Target of Kant’s “Refutation”
title_fullStr The Real Target of Kant’s “Refutation”
title_full_unstemmed The Real Target of Kant’s “Refutation”
title_sort real target of kant’s “refutation”
publisher Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University
series Кантовский сборник
issn 0207-6918
2310-3701
publishDate 2019-07-01
description Kant was never satisfied with the version of his “Refutation” published in 1787 (KrV, B 275-279). His dissatisfaction is already evident in the footnote added to the preface of the second edition of the Critique in 1787. As a matter of fact, Kant continued to rework his argument for at least six years after 1787. The main exegetical problem is to figure out who is the target of the “Refutation”: a non-sceptic idealist or a global sceptic of Cartesian provenance or both. In this last case, a related problem is to know whether either of them is the Cartesian sceptic of the first Meditation, the idealist sceptic of the second Meditation and first part of the third Meditation, or some other non-sceptic idealist. I present and defend a new reconstruction of Kant’s “Refutation” as a successful argument against Mendelssohnian idealism of Cartesian provenance. This defence is based on a simple logical sketch of the proof provided by Dicker, but essentially modified in the light of Dyck’s insight about Kant’s opponent. How shall I support my reading? First, by appealing to overwhelming textual evidence according to which the proof is of the existence of mind-independent things, showing that Kant’s main opponent is Mendelssohn’s idealism of Cartesian provenance. Finally, I support my reading by showing that Kant’s “Refutation” is doomed to fail against all forms of global scepticism, but is quite successful against Mendelssohn’s idealism.
topic kant
idealism
sceptic idealism
non-sceptic idealism
global scepticism
refutation of scepticism
refutation of idealism
url https://journals.kantiana.ru/upload/uf/58e/Kant_2019_3_preview.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT pereirasr therealtargetofkantsrefutation
AT pereirasr realtargetofkantsrefutation
_version_ 1724765419333484544