Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-pvkqz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-25T09:23:06.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sensibilism, Psychologism, and Kant's Debt to Hume

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2011

Brian A. Chance
Brian A. Chance
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hume's account of causation is often regarded a challenge Kant must overcome if the Critical philosophy is to be successful. But from Kant's time to the present, Hume's denial of our ability to cognize supersensible objects, a denial that relies heavily on his account of causation, has also been regarded as a forerunner to Kant's critique of metaphysics. After identifying reasons for rejecting Wayne Waxman's recent account of Kant's debt to Hume, I present my own, more modest account of this debt, an account that seeks to unite the two very different pictures of Kant's relationship to Hume sketched above.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , 28 September 2011 , pp. 325 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © Kantian Review 2011

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allison, Henry E. (1983) Kant's Transcendental Idealism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ameriks, Karl (2000) Kant and the Fate of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Lanier R. (2002) ‘Kant on the Apriority of Causal Laws’. In M. Heidelberger and F. Stadler (eds), History of Philosophy of Science: New Trends and Perspectives: Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, vol. 9 (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 67–80.Google Scholar
Beck, L. W. (1978) Essays on Kant and Hume. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Beiser, Frederick (1987) The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkeley, George (1975) Philosophical Works, Including the Works on Vision. London: Everyman.Google Scholar
Bird, Graham (2006) The Revolutionary Kant. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Buckle, Stephen (2001) Hume's Enlightenment Tract. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chance, Brian A. (forthcoming) ‘Skepticism and the Development of the Transcendental Dialectic’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Chance, Brian A. (forthcoming) ‘Causal Powers, Hume's Early German Critics and Kant's Response to Hume’. Kant-Studien.Google Scholar
Eberstein, W. G. L. (1799) Versuch einer Geschichte der Logik und Metaphysik bei den Deutschen, vol. 2, Halle: Johann Gottfried Ruff.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kuno (1860) Immanuel Kant: Entwicklungs-geschichte und System der kritischen Philosophie. Mannheim: Friedrich Zasserman.Google Scholar
Forster, Michael (2008) Kant and Skepticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gawlick, G., Lothar, Kreimendahl (1987) Hume in der deutschen Aufklärung: Umrisse einer Rezeptionsgeschichte. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (2008) Knowledge, Reason, and Taste: Kant's Response to Hume. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hamann, J. G. (1955) Briefwechsel. Ed. W. Zeisemer and A. Henkel. Wiesbaden: Insel Verlag.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary (2001) ‘The Prolegomena and the Critiques of Pure Reason’. In R. P. Horstmann, V. Gerhardt, and R. Schumacher (eds.), Kant und die Berliner Aufklärung (Berlin: de Gruyter), 185–208.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary (2003) ‘What were Kant's Aims in the Deduction?’ Philosophical Topics, 31, 165–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas (1981) Part I of De Corpore. Ed. A. P. Martinich. New York: Abaris Books.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas (1994) Leviathan, with Selected Variants from the Latin Edition of 1668. Ed. E. Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Hume, David (1975) Enquiries Concerning Human and Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals. Ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge and P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1900–) Gesammelte Schriften. Ed. Prussian Academy of the Sciences. Berlin: Georg Reimer, later Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996) Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy. Ed. M. Gregor. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1997) Immanuel Kant: Lectures on Metaphysics. Ed. and trans. K. Ameriks and S. Naragon. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1998) Critique of Pure Reason. Ed. and trans. P. Guyer and A. Wood. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2002) Immanuel Kant: Theoretical Philosophy after 1781. Ed. H. Allison and P. Heath. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp Smith, Norman (1918) A Commentary to Kant's ‘Critique of Pure Reason’. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kreimendahl, Lothar (1990) Kant—Der Durchbruch von 1769. Cologne: Jürgen Dinter.Google Scholar
Kuehn, Manfred (1983) ‘Kant's Conception of Hume's Problem’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 21, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuehn, Manfred (1987) ‘Kant's Transcendental Deduction: A Limited Defense of Hume’. In B. Ouden and M. Moen (eds), New Essays on Kant (New York: Peter Lang), 47–72.Google Scholar
Kuehn, Manfred (1995) ‘Kant's Critique of Hume's Theory of Faith’. In M. A. Steward and J. P. Wright (eds), Hume and Hume's Connexions (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press), 239–255.Google Scholar
Kuehn, Manfred (2001) Kant: A Biography. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Mettrie, J. O. (1996) Machine Man and Other Writings. Ed. Ann Thomson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John (1979) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice (1998) Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millican, Peter (2002) ‘The Context, Aims, and Structure of Hume's First Enquiry’. In P. Millican (ed.), Reading Hume on Human Understanding (New York: Oxford University Press), 21–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhold, K. L. (1791) Ueber das Fundament des philosophischen Wissens. Jena: Johann Michael Mauke.Google Scholar
Schulze, G. E. (1792) Aenesidemus oder über die Fundamente der von dem Herrn Professor Reinhold in Jena gelieferten Elementarphilosophie. Helmstädt.Google Scholar
Stäudlin, F. C. (1794) Geschichte und Geist des Skeptizismus, vol. 2. Leipzig: Siegfried Lebrecht Crusius.Google Scholar
Vaihinger, Hans (1881) Commentar zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft, vol. 1. Stuttgart: Spemann.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric (2005) Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waxman, Wayne (1999) ‘Kant's Psychologism Part I’. Kantian Review, 3, 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waxman, Wayne (2000) ‘Kant's Psychologism Part II’. Kantian Review, 4, 74–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waxman, Wayne (2005) Kant and the Empiricists: Understanding Understanding. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waxman, Wayne (2008) ‘Kant's Humean Solution to Hume's Problem’. In D. Garber and B. Longuenesse (eds), Kant and the Early Moderns (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 179–192.Google Scholar