Book contents
- Kant on Freedom and Spontaneity
- Kant on Freedom and Spontaneity
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Spontaneity: Pure Concepts of the Understanding, Imagination, and Judgment
- Part II The Inner Value of the World: Freedom as the Keystone of Kant’s Moral Philosophy
- Part III Freedom as Autonomous Willing: Kant’s Sensible Agent
- Part IV Freedom on a Bounded Sphere: Kant’s Political Philosophy
- Postscript
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 September 2018
Edited by
Book contents
- Kant on Freedom and Spontaneity
- Kant on Freedom and Spontaneity
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Spontaneity: Pure Concepts of the Understanding, Imagination, and Judgment
- Part II The Inner Value of the World: Freedom as the Keystone of Kant’s Moral Philosophy
- Part III Freedom as Autonomous Willing: Kant’s Sensible Agent
- Part IV Freedom on a Bounded Sphere: Kant’s Political Philosophy
- Postscript
- Bibliography
- Index
- 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 on Freedom and Spontaneity , pp. 295 - 304Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Allison, Henry E. 1996. “Autonomy and Spontaneity in the Self,” in Idealism and Freedom: Essays on Kant’s Theoretical and Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996: 129–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry E. 2001. Kant’s Theory of Taste. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E. 2004. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense, revised ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E. 2011. Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ameriks, Karl 2003. “Kant’s Transcendental Deduction as a Regressive Argument,” in Interpreting Kant’s Critiques. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 51–66.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah 1992. Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baumgarten, A. G. 2011. Metaphysica/Metaphysik, Gawlick, Günter and Kreimendahl, Lothar (trans. and eds.). Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Fromann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Baxley, Anne Margaret 2015. Kant’s Theory of Virtue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Lewis White 1969. Early German Philosophy: Kant and His Predecessors. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Lewis White 2002. “Did the Sage of Königsberg Have No Dreams?” in Robinson, Hoke (ed.), Lewis White Beck: Selected Essays on Kant. Rochester: University of Rochester Press: 85–102.Google Scholar
Berger, Larissa 2015. “Der ‘Zirkel’ im Dritten Abschnitt der Grundlegung,” in Schönecker, Dieter (ed.), Kants Begründung von Freiheit und Moral in Grundlegung III. Münster: Mentis: 9–81.Google Scholar
Bittner, Rüdiger 1996. “What is Enlightenment?” in Schmidt, James (ed.), What is Enlightenment? Eighteenth Century Answers and Twentieth Century Questions. Berkeley: University of California Press: 345–58.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. E. 1989. “Intention and Personal policies,” in Tomberlin, J. E. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives: Philosophy of Mind and Action Theory, vol. 3. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing.Google Scholar
Bräuer, Juliane, Call, Joseph, and Tomasello, Michael, 2006. “Are Apes Really Inequity Averse?” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273:3123–8.Google Scholar
Bräuer, Juliane, Call, Joseph, and Tomasello, Michael, 2009. “Are Apes Inequity Averse? New Data on the Token-Exchange Paradigm,” American Journal of Primatology 71:175–81.Google Scholar
Brosnan, Sarah F. and de Waal, Frans B. M. 2003. “Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay,” Nature 425: 297–9.Google Scholar
Browning, Christopher 1992. Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Bushnell, I. W. R. 2001. “Mother’s Face Recognition in Newborn Infants: Learning and Memory,” Infant and Child Development 10: 67–74.Google Scholar
Das Chatterjee, Nilanjana 2016. Man–Elephant Conflict: A Case Study from Forests in West Bengal, India. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Dean, Richard 2006. The Value of Humanity in Kant’s Moral Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dean, Richard 2009. “The Formula of Humanity as an End in Itself,” in Hill, Thomas (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Kant’s Ethics. Malden: Blackwell: 83–101.Google Scholar
Dean, Richard 2013. “Humanity as an Idea, as an Ideal, and as an End in Itself,” Kantian Review 18: 171–95.Google Scholar
de Boer, Karin 2016. “Categories versus Schemata: Kant’s Two-Aspect Theory of Pure Concepts and His Critique of Wolffian Metaphysics,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 54: 441–68.Google Scholar
Deligiorgi, Katerina 2012. The Scope of Autonomy: Kant and the Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis, Lara 2011a. “Freedom, Primacy, and Perfect Duties to Oneself,” in Denis, Lara (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 170–91.Google Scholar
Denis, Lara (ed.), 2011b. Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dobe, Jennifer 2010. “Kant’s Common Sense and the Strategy for a Deduction,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 68: 48–60.Google Scholar
Doris, John M. 2002. Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dunham, Barrows 1933. A Study of Kant’s Aesthetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dyck, Corey 2011. “Kant’s Transcendental Deduction and the Ghosts of Kant and Hume,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19: 473–96.Google Scholar
Esser, Andrea M. 2013. “The Inner Court of Conscience, Moral Self-Knowledge, and the Proper Object of Duty,” in Trampota, Andreas et al. (eds.), Kants “Tugendlehre.” Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Estlund, David 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin 2012. “Personal Autonomy and Public Authority,” in Sensen 2012 (ed.): 169–89.Google Scholar
Forman, David 2012. “Kant on Moral Freedom and Moral Slavery,” Kantian Review 17: 1–32.Google Scholar
Formosa, Paul 2013. “Is Kant a Moral Constructivist or a Moral Realist?” European Journal of Philosophy 21: 170–96.Google Scholar
Frierson, Patrick 2014. Kant’s Empirical Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, James J. 2015. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah 1997. “Lawfulness Without a Law: Kant on the Free Play of Imagination and Understanding,” Philosophical Topics 25: 37–81.Google Scholar
Gottsched, J. C. 1762. Erste Gründe der gesammten Weltweissheit, 7th ed. Leipzig: Breitkopf. Reprinted in Christian Wolff, Gesammelte Werke, Pt. 3, vols. 20.1–20.2. Hildesheim: Olms, 1983.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Robert 2001. Kant’s Theory of A Priori Knowledge. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Gregor, Mary and Timmermann, Jens 2012 (trans. and eds.). Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grenberg, Jeanine 2011. “What is the Enemy of Virtue?” in Denis 2011 (ed.): 152–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul 1979. Kant and the Claims of Taste. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 1987. Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 1992. “The Transcendental Deduction of the Categories,” in Guyer, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 123–60.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 1995. “Os Simbolos Da Liberdade Na Estetica Kantiana,” o que nos faz pensar 9: 73–92.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 1996b. Kant and the Experience of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2000a. “Freedom as the Inner Value of the World,” in Guyer 2000c: 96–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2000c. Kant on Freedom, Law and Happiness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2000d. “Kant’s Morality of Law and Morality of Freedom,” in Guyer 2000c: 129–71.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2001. “Space, Time, and the Categories: The Project of the Transcendental Deduction,” in Schumacher, R. (ed.), Idealismus als Theorie der Repräsentation? Paderborn: Mentis: 313–38.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2005a. “Kant’s Deductions of the Principles of Right,” in Guyer 2005c: 198–242.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2005c. Kant’s System of Nature and Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2006a. “Aesthetics and Cognition in Kant’s Critical Philosophy,” in R. Kukla 2011 (ed.): 162–93.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2007a. Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Reader’s Guide. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2007b. “Naturalistic and Transcendental Moments in Kant’s Moral Philosophy,” Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 50: 444–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2007c. “Perfection, Autonomy, and Heautonomy: The Path of Reason from Wolff to Kant,” in Stolzenburg, Jürgen and Rudolph, Oliver-Pierre (eds.), Christian Wolff und die europäishe Aufklärung: Akten des. 1. Internationalen Christian-Wolff-Kongress. Hildesheim: Olms: 299–322.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2009a. “The Harmony of the Faculties in Recent Books on the Critique of the Power of Judgment,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 67: 201–21.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2009b. “Problems with Freedom: Kant’s Argument in Groundwork III and Its Subsequent Emendations,” in Timmermann, Jens (ed.), Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 176–202.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2010. “The Deduction of the Categories: The Metaphysical and Transcendental Deductions,” in Guyer, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 118–50.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2016. “Proving Ourselves Free,” in Virtues of Freedom: Selected Essays on Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 146–163.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2017. “Setting and Pursuing Ends: Internal and External Freedom,” in The Virtues of Freedom: Selected Essays on Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 87–104.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul and Allison, Henry E. 2011. “Dialogue: Paul Guyer and Henry Allison on Allison’s Theory of Taste,” in R. Kukla 2011 (ed.): 111–37.Google Scholar
de Haan, Michelle, Pascalis, Olivier, and Johnson, Mark H. 2002. “Specialization of Neural Mechanisms Underlying Face Recognition in Human Infants,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 14:199–209.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1960. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1967. “The Principles of a Liberal Social Order,” in Hayek, Friedrich A. (ed.), Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967: 160–77.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1988. Faith and Knowledge, Cerf, Walter and Harris, H. S. (trans. and eds.). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter 1982. “The Proof-Structure of Kant’s Transcendental Deduction,” in Walker, Ralph C. S. (ed.), Kant on Pure Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 66–81.Google Scholar
Herman, Barbara 1993. The Practice of Moral Judgement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Thomas E. and Zweig, Arnulf 2002. “Editor’s Introduction,” in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Hill, Thomas E. Jr., and Zweig, Arnulf (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hume, David 1998. An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals. Beauchamp, Tom (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hume, David 1985. “Of the Original Contract,” in Miller, Eugene F. (ed.), Essays: Moral, Political and Literary. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Jensen, K., Hare, B., Call, J., and Tomasello, M. 2006. “Chimpanzees Are Self-Regarding Maximizers in a Food Acquisition Task,” Proceedings of the Royal Society 273: 1013–21.Google Scholar
Johnson, Robert N. 2007. “Value and Autonomy in Kantian Ethics,” in Shafer-Landau, Russ (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 133–48.Google Scholar
Johnson, Robert N. 2011. Self-Improvement: An Essay in Kantian Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kersting, Wolfgang 1983. “Kant und der staatsphilosophische Kontraktualismus,” Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie 8: 1–26.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Patricia 2017a. “A Kantian Argument for the Formula of Humanity,” Kant-Studien 108(2): 218–46.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Patricia 2017b. “A Kantian Critique of Transparency,” in Gomes, Anil and Stephenson, Andrew (eds.), Kant and the Philosophy of Mind: Perception, Reason, and the Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 158–72.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine 1996a. Creating the Kingdom of Ends. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine 1996c. The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine 1999. “Self-Constitution in the Ethics of Plato and Kant,” Journal of Ethics 3: 1–29.Google Scholar
Kuehn, Manfred 1997. “The Wolffian Background of Kant’s Transcendental Deduction,” in Easton, Patricia (ed.), Logic and the Workings of the Mind: The Logic of Ideas and Faculty Psychology in Early Modern Philosophy. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview: 229–50.Google Scholar
Kukla, Rebecca (ed.) 2011. Aesthetics and Cognition in Kant’s Critical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Larmore, Charles 2011. “Kant and the Meanings of Autonomy,” Internationales Jahrbuch des Deutschen Idealismus/International Yearbook of German Idealism 9: 3–21.Google Scholar
Laywine, Alison 1993. Kant’s Early Metaphysics and the Origins of the Critical Philosophy. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Press.Google Scholar
Leblan, Vincent 2016. “Territorial and Land-Use Rights Perspectives on Human-Chimpanzee-Elephant Coexistence in West Africa (Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Senegal, Nineteenth to Twenty-First Centuries),” Primates 57:359–66.Google Scholar
Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M., Henning, A., Striano, T., and Tomasello, M. 2004. “Twelve-Month-Olds Point to Share Attention and Interest,” Developmental Science 7:297–307.Google Scholar
Locke, John 1960. Two Treatises of Government, Laslett, Peter, (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lomasky, Loren 1987. Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice 1998. Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice 2005. Kant on the Human Standpoint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice 2006. “Kant on A Priori Concepts: The Metaphysical Deduction of the Categories,” in Guyer, Paul (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Kant and Modern Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 129–68.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice 2007. Hegel’s Critique of Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ludovici, C. G. 1737–8. Entwurf einer vollständigen Historie der Wolffschen Philosophie, 3 vols. Leipzig: Löwe.Google Scholar
Matthews, Patricia 1997. The Significance of Beauty: Kant on Feeling and the System of the Mind. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Mehler, Jacques, Jusczyk, Peter, Lambertz, Gislaine, Halsted, Nilofor, Bertancine, Josiane, and Amiel-Tilson, Claudine 2002. “A Precursor of Language Acquisition in Young Infants,” in Altmann, Gerry T. M., (ed.), in Psycholinguistics: Critical Concepts in Psychology, vol. 4. London: Routledge: 25–60.Google Scholar
Meier, G. F. 1765. Metaphysik, 4 vols. Halle: Gebauer. Reprinted in Christian Wolff, Gesammelte Werke, Pt. 3, vols. 108.1–108.4. Hildesheim: Olms, 2007.Google Scholar
Mensch, Jennifer 2007. “The Key to All Metaphysics: Kant’s Letter to Herz, 1772,” Kantian Review 12: 109–27.Google Scholar
Milgram, Stanley 1963. “Behavioral Study of Obedience,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67: 371–8.Google Scholar
Moll, H. and Tomasello, M. 2007. “Cooperation and Human Cognition: The Vygotskian Intelligence Hypothesis,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 362: 639–48.Google Scholar
Mondloch, Catherine J. et al. 1999. “Face Perception During Early Infancy,” Psychological Science 10:419–22.Google Scholar
Munzel, G. Felicitas 2012. Kant’s Conception of Pedagogy. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora 1975. Acting on Principle: An Essay on Kantian Ethics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora 2002. “Constructivism in Rawls and Kant,” in Freeman, Samuel (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 347–67.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora 2013. “Postscript: Heteronomy as the Clue to Kantian Autonomy,” in Sensen, Oliver (ed.), Kant on Moral Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 282–7.Google Scholar
Pascalis, Olivier, de Haan, Michelle, and Nelson, Charles 2002. “Is Face processing Species-Specific During the First Year of Life,” Science 296: 1321–3.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert 1987. “Kant on the Spontaneity of Mind,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 17: 449–75.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert 2006. “Mine and Thine? The Kantian State,” in Guyer, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant and Modern Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 416–46.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert 2013. “Reason’s Form,” in Ameriks, Karl (ed.), The Impact of Idealism. The Legacy of Post-Kantian German Thought, vol. 1: Philosophy and Natural Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 373–94.Google Scholar
Pluhar, Werner (trans.) 1996. Immanuel Kant. Critique of Pure Reason: Unified Edition. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Prauss, Gerold 1989. “Für sich selber praktische Vernunft,” in Höffe, Otfried (ed.), Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten: Ein kooperativer Kommentar. Frankfurt: Klostermann: 253–63.Google Scholar
Pufendorf, Samuel 2003. On the Whole Duty of Man, Tooke, Andrew (trans.), Hunter, Ian and Saunders, David (eds.). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Rauscher, Frederick 2002. “Kant’s Moral Anti-Realism,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 40: 477–99.Google Scholar
Rauscher, Frederick 2007. “‘God’ Without God: Kant’s Postulate,” Kant e-Prints 2: 27–62.Google Scholar
Rauscher, Frederick 2015. Naturalism and Realism in Kant’s Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John 1989. “Themes in Kant’s Moral Philosophy,” in Förster, Eckart (ed.), Kant’s Transcendental Deductions. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John 2000. Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Herman, Barbara (ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reddy, Vasudevi 2010. How Infants Know Minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur 2009. Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Roche, Andrew 2010. “Kant’s Principle of Sense,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 18: 663–91.Google Scholar
Rohlf, Michael 2013. “Promissory Notes: Kant’s Argument for Transcendental Idealism,” in Bacin, S., Ferrarin, A., La Rocca, C., and Ruffing, M. (eds.), Kant und die Philosophie in weltbürgerlicher Absicht: Akten des XI. Kant-Kongresses 2010. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter: 371–82.Google Scholar
Rosenkoetter, Timothy 2009. “Truth Criteria and the Very Project of a Transcendental Logic,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 91: 193–236.Google Scholar
Samuels, C. A. et al. 1994, “Facial Aesthetics: Babies Prefer Attractiveness to Symmetry” Perception 23: 823–31.Google Scholar
Sayre-McCord, Geoffrey 1988. “The Many Moral Realisms,” in Sayre-McCord, Geoffrey (ed.), Essays on Moral Realism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 1–23.Google Scholar
Schönecker, Dieter 2013. “‘A Free Will and a Will Under the Moral Law are the Same’: Kant’s Concept of Autonomy and His Thesis of Analyticity in Groundwork III,” in Sensen 2011: 225–45.Google Scholar
Sensen, Oliver (ed.), 2012. Kant on Moral Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Silk, J. B., Brosnan, S. F., Vonk, J., Henrich, J., Povinelli, D. J., Richardson, A. S., Lambeth, S. P., Mascaro, J., and Schapiro, S. J. 2005. “Chimpanzees Are Indifferent to the Welfare of Unrelated Group Members,” Nature 437:1357–9.Google Scholar
Smith, Norman Kemp 1918. A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. London: MacMillan and Company.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert 2011. Understanding Moral Obligation: Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sticker, Martin 2017. “When the Reflective Watch Dog Barks: Conscience and Self-Deception in Kant,” Journal of Value Inquiry 51: 85–104.Google Scholar
Sturm, Thomas 2001. “Kant on Empirical Psychology: How Not to Investigate the Human Mind,” in Watkins, Eric (ed.), Kant and the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sukumar, Raman 2003. The Living Elephants: Evolutionary Ecology, Behavior, and Conservation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thorpe, Lucas 2006. “What is the Point of Studying Ethics According to Kant?” Journal of Value Inquiry 40: 461–5.Google Scholar
Thorpe, Lucas 2011. “Autonomy and Community,” in Thorpe, Lucas and Payne, Charlton (eds.), Kant and the Concept of Community, A North American Kant Society Special Volume. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
Thorpe, Lucas 2010. “Is Kant’s Realm of Ends a Unum per Se? Aquinas, Suárez, Leibniz and Kant on Composition,” British Journal of the History of Philosophy 18: 461–85.Google Scholar
Thorpe, Lucas 2013. “One Community or Many? Community and Interaction in Kant: From Logic to Politics via Metaphysics and Ethics,” in Williams, Howard, Baiasu, Sorin, and Pihlström, Sami (eds.), Politics and Metaphysics in Kant. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Timmermann, Jens 2007. Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Timmermann, Jens 2009. “Acting from Duty: Inclination, Reason, and Moral Worth,” in Timmermann, Jens (ed.), Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tolley, Clinton 2012. “The Generality of Kant’s Transcendental Logic,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 50: 417–46.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael, Carpenter, Malinda, Call, Josep, Behne, Tanya, and Moll, Henrike 2005. “Understanding and Sharing Intentions: The Origins of Cultural Cognition,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28: 675–735.Google Scholar
Tonelli, Georgio 1974. “Leibniz on Innate Ideas and the Earl Reactions to the Publication of the Noveaux Essais (1765),” Journal of the History of Philosophy 12: 437–54.Google Scholar
Varden, Helga 2008. “Kant’s Non-Voluntarist Conception of Political Obligation,” Kantian Review 13: 1–45.Google Scholar
Vespers, Achim 2015. “Bedürfniß,” in Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano (eds.), Kant-Lexikon. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vouloumanos, P. A. and Werker, J. F. 2007. “Listening to Language at Birth: Evidence For a Bias For Speech in Neonates,” Developmental Science 10: 159–64.Google Scholar
de Waal, Frans. 1989. “Food Sharing and Reciprocal Obligations Among Chimpanzees,” Journal of Human Evolution 18: 433–59.Google Scholar
de Waal, Frans. 1997. “The Chimpanzee’s Service Economy: Food for Grooming,” Evolution and Human Behavior 18: 375–86.Google Scholar
Ware, Owen 2009. “The Duty of Self-Knowledge,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79: 671–98.Google Scholar
Warneken, F., and Tomasello, M. 2006. “Altruistic Helping in Human Infants and Young Chimpanzees,” Science 31: 1301–3.Google Scholar
Warneken, F., and Tomasello, M. 2007. “Helping and Co-Operation at 14 Months of Age,” Infancy 11: 271–94.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric 2002. “Kant’s Transcendental Idealism and the Categories,” History of Philosophy Quarterly 19: 191–215.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric and Fitzpatrick, William 2002. “O’Neill and Korsgaard on the Construction of Normativity,” Journal of Value Inquiry 36: 349–67.Google Scholar
Waxman, Wayne 2005. Kant and the Empiricists: Understanding Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waxman, Wayne 2008. “Kant’s Humean Solution to Hume’s Problem,” in Garber, Daniel and Longuenesse, Béatrice (eds.), Kant and the Early Modern. Princeton: Princeton University Press: 172–92.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian 1736. Philosophia prima seu Ontologia, 2nd ed. Frankfurt and Leipzig: Regner. Reprinted in Christian Wolff, Gesammelte Werke, Pt. 2, vol. 3. Hildesheim: Olms, 1962.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian 1738. Psychologia empirica, 2nd ed. Frankfurt am Main: Regner. In Christian Wolff, Gesammelte Werke, Pt. 2, vol. 5. Hildesheim: Olms, 1968.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian 1740. Der vernüfftigen Gedanken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen, auch allen Dinge überhaupt, anderer Theil, bestehend aus ausführlichen Anmerkungen, 4th ed. Frankfurt am Main: Andreä and Hort. Reprinted in Christian Wolff, Gesammelte Werke, Pt. 1, vol. 3. Hildesheim: Olms, 1983.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian 1740. Discurses praeliminaris de philosophia in genere. In Philosophia rationalis, sive Logica, 3rd ed. Frankfurt am Main: Regner. Reprinted in Christian Wolff, Gesammelte Werke, Pt. 2, vols. 1–2. Hildesheim: Olms, 1983.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian 1751. Vernüfftige Gedanken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen, auch allen Dinge überhaupt, 11th ed. Halle: Regner. Reprinted in ChristianWolff, Gesammelte Werke, Pt. 1, vol. 2. Hildesheim: Olms, 1983.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian 1754. Vernüftige Gedanken von den Kräften des menschlichen Verstandes und ihrem Gebrauch in Erknänntnis der Wahrheit, 14th ed. Halle: Regner. Reprinted in ChristianWolff, Gesammelte Werke, Pt. 1, vol. 1. Hildesheim: Olms, 1965.Google Scholar
Wolff, R. P. 1963. Kant’s Theory of Mental Activity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen 2001. “The Moral Law as a System of Formulas,” in Fulda, Hans-Friederich and Stolzenberg, Jürgen (eds.), Architektonik und System in der Philosophie Kants. Hamburg: Felix Meiner: 287–306.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen 2003. “Kant and the Problem of Human Nature,” in Jacobs, Brian and Kain, Patrick (eds.), Essays on Kant’s Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 38–59.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen 2006. “The Supreme Principle of Morality,” in Guyer, Paul, (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant and Modern Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 342–80.Google Scholar
Wuerth, Julian 2011. “Moving Beyond Kant’s Account of Agency in the Grounding,” in Wuerth and Jost 2011 (eds.): 147–63.Google Scholar
Wuerth, Julian and Jost, Lawrence (eds.) 2011. Perfecting Virtue: New Essays on Kantian Ethics and Virtue Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wuerth, Julian and Jost, Lawrence 2013. “Sense and Sensibility in Kant’s Practical Agent: Against the Intellectualism of Korsgaard and Sidgwick.” European Journal of Philosophy 21: 1–36.Google Scholar
Wuerth, Julian and Jost, Lawrence 2014. Kant on Mind, Action, and Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zinkin, Melissa 2006. “Intensive Magnitudes and the Normativity of Taste,” in Kukla, Rebecca (ed.), Aesthetics and Cognition in Kant’s Critical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 138–61.Google Scholar
Zuckert, Rachel 2002. “A New Look at Kant’s Theory of Pleasure,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 60: 239–52.Google Scholar
Zuckert, Rachel 2007. Kant on Beauty and Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar