Book contents
- Kant on the Sources of Metaphysics
- Kant on the Sources of Metaphysics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Note on References and Citations
- Preface
- Introduction
- Part I From Reason to Metaphysics
- Part II The Other Side of the Transcendental Dialectic
- Postscript
- Bibliography
- Index of Names
- Index of Subjects
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 November 2018
Book contents
- Kant on the Sources of Metaphysics
- Kant on the Sources of Metaphysics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Note on References and Citations
- Preface
- Introduction
- Part I From Reason to Metaphysics
- Part II The Other Side of the Transcendental Dialectic
- Postscript
- Bibliography
- Index of Names
- Index of Subjects
- 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 the Sources of MetaphysicsThe Dialectic of Pure Reason, pp. 276 - 290Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Primary Sources
Auszug: Meier, Georg Friedrich. Auszug aus der Vernunftlehre. Halle: Gebauer, 1752. Cited from Immanuel Kant’s Schriften. Berlin: Königlich-Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1900–. Vol. 16, 1–872.Google Scholar
Categories: Aristotle, . Categories, trans. with notes by Ackrill, J. L.. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.Google Scholar
De Anima: Aristotle, . On the Soul, in Barnes, Jonathan (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton University Press, 1984, 641–93.Google Scholar
Deutsche Metaphysik: Wolff, Christian. Vernünfftige Gedancken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen, auch allen Dingen überhaupt. Halle: Renger, 1751. Repr. in Charles A. Corr (ed.), Christian Wolff. Gesammelte Werke, section 1, vol. 2.1. Hildesheim: Olms, 2003.Google Scholar
Discours: Descartes, René. Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One’s Reason and Seeking the Truth in the Sciences, in Cottingham, John, Stoothoff, Robert, and Murdoch, Dugald (eds. and trans.), Descartes. Selected Philosophical Writings. Cambridge University Press, 1988, 20–56.Google Scholar
Discours de Metaphysique: Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Discourse on Metaphysics, in Discourse on Metaphysics, Correspondence with Arnauld and Monadology, trans. Montgomery, George R.. Chicago, IL: Open Court, 1947, 1–65.Google Scholar
Enquiry: Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Beauchamp, Tom L.. Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Entwurf: Crusius, Christian August. Entwurf der nothwendigen Vernunftwahrheiten, wiefern sie den zufälligen entgegen gesetzet werden. Leipzig: Gleditsch, 1745. Repr. in Giorgio Tonelli (ed.), Christian August Crusius. Die philosophischen Hauptwerke, vol. 2. Hildesheim: Olms, 1964.Google Scholar
Ethics: de Spinoza, Baruch. Ethics, in Morgan, Michael L. (ed.), Spinoza: Complete Works, trans. Shirley, Samuel. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2002, 213–383.Google Scholar
Grimmsches Wörterbuch: Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1852–1971. (Online at http://woerterbuchnetz.de/cgi-bin/WBNetz/wbgui_py?sigle=DWB.)Google Scholar
Instauratio Magna: Bacon, Francis. The Instauratio Magna, in Rees, Graham and Wakely, Maria (eds.), The Oxford Francis Bacon, vols. XI, XII, XIII. Oxford University Press, 2000–7.Google Scholar
Meditations: Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy, in Cottingham, John, Stoothoff, Robert, and Murdoch, Dugald (eds. and trans.), Descartes. Selected Philosophical Writings. Cambridge University Press, 1988, 73–122.Google Scholar
Metaphysica: Baumgarten, Alexander Gottlieb. Metaphysica-Metaphysik. Historisch-kritische Ausgabe, ed. Gawlick, Günther and Kreimendahl, Lothar. Stuttgart, Bad Canstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2001.Google Scholar
Metaphysics: Aristotle, . Metaphysics, in Barnes, Jonathan (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton University Press, 1984, 552–729.Google Scholar
Monadology: Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Monadology, in Discourse on Metaphysics, Correspondence with Arnauld and Monadology, trans. Montgomery, George R.. Chicago, IL: Open Court, 1947, 249–72.Google Scholar
Natürliche Gottesgelahrtheit: Wolff, Christian. Natürliche Gottesgelahrtheit nach beweisender Lehrart abgefasset. Halle: Renger, 1742–5. Repr. in Jean École et al. (eds.), Christian Wolff. Gesammelte Werke. Deutsche Schriften. Natürliche Gottesgelahrtheit, section 1, vol. 23. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1994.Google Scholar
Nicomachean Ethics: Aristotle, . Nicomachean Ethics, in Barnes, Jonathan (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton University Press, 1984, 729–868.Google Scholar
Politeia: Platon, . Republic, in Cooper, John M. (ed.), Plato. Complete Works. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1997, 971–1224.Google Scholar
Principles: Descartes, René. Principia Philosophiae. Principles of Philosophy, trans. Miller, Valentine R. and Miller, Reese P.. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1983.Google Scholar
Regulae: Descartes, René. Regulae ad directionem ingenii. Rules for the Direction of the Natural Intelligence. A Bilingual Edition of the Cartesian Treatise on Method, ed. and trans. Heffernan, George. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Secondary Sources
Abaci, Uygar. 2017. ‘Kant, the Actualist Principle, and the Fate of the Only Possible Proof,’ Journal of the History of Philosophy 55, 261–91.Google Scholar
Al-Azm, Sadiq J. 1972. The Origins of Kant’s Arguments in the Antinomies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Allais, Lucy. 2015. Manifest Reality. Kant’s Idealism and His Realism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E. 1998. ‘The Antinomy of Pure Reason, Section 9 (A515/B543–A567/B595),’ in Mohr, Georg and Willaschek, Marcus (eds.), Immanuel Kant. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Berlin: Akademie, 465–91.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E. 2004. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. Revised and enlarged edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry E. 2012. ‘Transcendental Realism, Empirical Realism, and Transcendental Idealism,’ in Allison, Henry E., Essays on Kant. Oxford University Press, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameriks, Karl. 1982/2000. Kant’s Theory of Mind. An Analysis of the Paralogisms of Pure Reason. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ameriks, Karl. 1992. ‘The Critique of Metaphysics. Kant and Traditional Ontology,’ in Guyer, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant. Cambridge University Press, 249–80.Google Scholar
Ameriks, Karl. 1998. ‘The Paralogisms of Pure Reason in the First Edition (A338/B396–A347/B406; A348–380),’ in Mohr, Georg and Willaschek, Marcus (eds.), Immanuel Kant. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Berlin: Akademie, 371–90.Google Scholar
Ameriks, Karl. 2001. ‘Kant on Science and Common Knowledge,’ in Watkins, Eric (ed.), Kant and the Sciences. New York: Oxford University Press, 31–52.Google Scholar
Ameriks, Karl. 2006. ‘The Critique of Metaphysics. The Structure and Fate of Kant’s Dialectic,’ in Guyer, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant and Modern Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 269–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. Larnier. 2015. The Poverty of Conceptual Truth. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, David. 2010. ‘You Are Simple,’ in Koons, Robert C. and Bealer, George (eds.), The Waning of Materialism. Oxford University Press, 161–74.Google Scholar
Baum, Manfred. 2001. ‘Die Kantische Systematik im Umriss. Systemform und Selbsterkenntnis der Vernunft bei Kant,’ in Fulda, Hans Friedrich and Stolzenberg, Jürgen (eds.), Architektonik und System in der Philosophie Kants. Hamburg: Meiner, 25–41.Google Scholar
Beckermann, Ansgar. 1998. ‘Zum Verhältnis von Kantischer und Fregischer Logik. Kritische Einwände gegen Michael Wolff (II. Teil),’ Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 52, 422–34.Google Scholar
Beckermann, Ansgar. 2008. Analytische Einführung in die Philosophie des Geistes. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bird, Graham. 2017. ‘The Antinomies. An Entirely Natural Antithetic of Human Reason,’ in O’Shea, James R. (ed.), Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. A Critical Guide. Cambridge University Press, 223–4.Google Scholar
Birken-Bertsch, Hanno. 2006. Subreption und Dialektik bei Kant. Der Begriff des Fehlers der Erschleichung in der Philosophie des 18. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart, Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Birken-Bertsch, Hanno. 2015. ‘Konstitutiv/Regulativ,’ in Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano (eds.), Kant-Lexikon. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1264–6.Google Scholar
Bliss, Ricki, and Trogdon, Kelly. 2014. ‘Metaphysical Grounding,’ in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2016 edition), plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/grounding/.Google Scholar
Boehm, Omri. 2016. ‘The Principle of Sufficient Reason, the Ontological Argument and the Is/Ought Distinction,’ European Journal of Philosophy 24, 556–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brook, Andrew. 2016. ‘Kant’s View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self,’ in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2016 edition), plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/kant-mind/.Google Scholar
Brook, Andrew, and Raymont, Paul. 2017. ‘The Unity of Consciousness,’ in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (summer 2017 edition), plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/consciousness-unity/.Google Scholar
Butts, Robert E. 1997. ‘Kant’s Dialectic and the Logic of Illusion,’ in Easton, Patricia A. (ed.), Logic and the Workings of the Mind. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview, 307–17.Google Scholar
Caimi, Mario. 1995. ‘Über eine wenig beachtete Deduktion der regulativen Ideen,’ Kant-Studien 86, 308–20.Google Scholar
Caimi, Mario. 2000. ‘Einige Bemerkungen über die Metaphysische Deduktion in der Kritik der reinen Vernunft,’ Kant-Studien 91, 257–82.Google Scholar
Caimi, Mario. 2012. ‘Zur Metaphysischen Deduktion der Ideen in der Kritik der reinen Vernunft,’ Methodus 7, 23–41.Google Scholar
Caimi, Mario. 2017. ‘Der Begriff der praktisch-dogmatischen Metaphysik,’ in Hahmann, Andree and Ludwig, Bernd (eds.), Über die Fortschritte der kritischen Metaphysik. Beiträge zu System und Architektonik der kantischen Philosophie. Hamburg: Meiner, 157–69.Google Scholar
Callanan, John J. 2017. ‘The Ideal of Reason,’ in O’Shea, James R. (ed.), Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. A Critical Guide. Cambridge University Press, 243–59.Google Scholar
Cantor, Georg. 1895. ‘Beiträge zur Begründung der transfiniten Mengenlehre,’ Mathematische Annalen 46, 481–512.Google Scholar
Carruthers, Peter. 2004. The Nature of the Mind. An Introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David. 1996. The Conscious Mind. In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David, Manley, David, and Wassermann, Ryan. 2009. Metametaphysics. New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Chignell, Andrew. 2009. ‘Kant, Modality, and the Most Real Being,’ Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 91, 157–92.Google Scholar
Chignell, Andrew. 2010. ‘Real Repugnance and Belief about Things-in-Themselves. A Problem and Kant’s Three Solutions,’ in Bruxvoort Lipscomb, Benjamin J. and Krueger, James (eds.), Kant’s Moral Metaphysics. God, Freedom, and Immortality. New York: de Gruyter, 177–209.Google Scholar
Chignell, Andrew. 2012. ‘Kant, Real Possibility, and the Threat of Spinoza,’ Mind 121, 635–75.Google Scholar
Chignell, Andrew. 2017. ‘Kant on Cognition, Givenness and Ignorance,’ Journal of the History of Philosophy 55, 131–42.Google Scholar
Correia, Fabrice, and Schnieder, Benjamin. 2012. ‘Grounding. An Opinionated Introduction,’ in Correia, Fabrice and Schnieder, Benjamin, Metaphysical Grounding. Understanding the Structure of Reality. Cambridge University Press, 1–36.Google Scholar
Dahlstrom, Daniel. 2015a. ‘Schluss,’ in Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano (eds.), Kant-Lexikon. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2023–9.Google Scholar
Dahlstrom, Daniel. 2015b. ‘System,’ in Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano (eds.), Kant-Lexikon. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2238–42.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
Della Rocca, Michael. 2010. ‘Principle of Sufficient Reason,’ Philosophers’ Imprint 10, 1–13.Google Scholar
Dohrn, Daniel. 2015. ‘Transzendental,’ in Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano (eds.), Kant-Lexikon. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2313–19.Google Scholar
Dörflinger, Bernd, and Kruck, Günter (eds.). 2011. Über den Nutzen von Illusionen. Die regulativen Ideen in Kants theoretischer Philosophie. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael. 1978a. ‘Preface,’ in Dummett, Michael, Truth and Other Enigmas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, ix–li.Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael. 1978b. ‘Realism,’ in Dummett, Michael, Truth and Other Enigmas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 145–65.Google Scholar
Emundts, Dina. 2010. ‘The Refutation of Idealism and the Distinction between Phenomena and Noumena,’ in Guyer, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason.’ Cambridge University Press, 168–89.Google Scholar
Engelhard, Kristina. 2005. Das Einfache und die Materie. Untersuchungen zu Kants Antinomie der Teilung. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Engfer, Hans-Jürgen. 1989. ‘Principium rationis sufficientis,’ in Ritter, Joachim et al. (eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vol. 7. Basel: Schwabe, 1325–36.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Stephen P. 1992. ‘The Concept of the Highest Good in Kant’s Moral Theory,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52, 747–80.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Stephen P. 2009. The Form of Practical Knowledge. A Study of the Categorical Imperative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ertl, Wolfgang. 1998. Kants Auflösung der ‘dritten Antinomie.’ Zur Bedeutung des Schöpfungskonzepts für die Freiheitslehre. Freiburg: Karl Alber.Google Scholar
Falkenburg, Brigitte. 2000. Kants Kosmologie. Die wissenschaftliche Revolution der Naturphilosophie im 18. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Ferrari, Jean. 1998. ‘Das Ideal der reinen Vernunft (A567/B595–A642/B670),’ in Mohr, Georg and Willaschek, Marcus (eds.), Immanuel Kant. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Berlin: Akademie, 491–525.Google Scholar
Ferrarin, Alfredo. 2015. The Powers of Pure Reason. Kant and the Idea of Cosmic Philosophy. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, Mark, and Watkins, Erik. 1998. ‘Kant on the Material Ground of Possibility. From the “Only Possibe Argument” to the “Critique of Pure Reason”,’ Review of Metaphysics 52, 369–95.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1974. ‘Special Sciences (Or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis),’ Synthese 28, 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Förster, Eckart. 2011. Die 25 Jahre der Philosophie. Eine systematische Rekonstruktion. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1991. ‘Regulative and Constitutive,’ The Southern Journal of Philosophy 30, 73–102.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1992. Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2001. Dynamics of Reason. The 1999 Kant Lectures at Stanford University. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fulda, Hans Friedrich, and Stolzenberg, Jürgen (eds.) 2001. Architektonik und System in der Philosophie Kants. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Gardner, Sebastian. 2006. ‘The Primacy of Practical Reason,’ in Bird, Graham (ed.), A Companion to Kant. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 259–74.Google Scholar
Gava, Gabriele. 2014. ‘Kant’s Definition of Science in the Architectonic of Pure Reason and the Essential Ends of Reason,’ Kant-Studien 105, 372–93.Google Scholar
Gava, Gabriele. 2016. ‘The Fallibilism of Kant’s Architectonic,’ in Gava, Gabriele and Stern, Robert (eds.), Pragmatism, Kant and Transcendental Philosophy. London: Routledge, 46–66.Google Scholar
Gava, Gabriele. (in press). ‘Kant, Wolff and the Method of Philosophy,’ Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy 8.Google Scholar
Gawlick, Günther, and Kreimendahl, Lothar. 2011. ‘Einleitung,’ in Baumgarten, Alexander Gottlieb, Metaphysica – Metaphysik. Historisch-kritische Ausgabe, ed. Günther, Gawlick and Kreimendahl, Lothar. Stuttgart, Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, ix–lxxxiv.Google Scholar
Geiger, Ido. 2003. ‘Is the Assumption of a Systematic Whole of Empirical Concepts a Necessary Condition of Knowledge?,’ Kant-Studien 94, 273–98.Google Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah. 2017. ‘Why Must We Presuppose the Systematicity of Nature?,’ in Massimi, Michela and Breitenbach, Angela (eds.), Kant and the Laws of Nature. Cambridge University Press, 71–89.Google Scholar
Gomes, Anil, and Stephenson, Andrew (eds.). 2017. Kant and the Philosophy of Mind. Perception, Reason and the Self. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goy, Ina. 2007. Architektonik oder Die Kunst der Systeme. Eine Untersuchung zur Systemphilosophie der Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
Grier, Michelle. 1993. ‘Illusion and Fallacy in Kant’s First Paralogism,’ Kant-Studien 83, 257–82.Google Scholar
Grier, Michelle Gilmore. 2001. Kant’s Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grier, Michelle Gilmore. 2011. ‘Reason. Syllogisms, Ideas, Antinomies,’ in Dudley, Will and Engelhard, Kristina (eds.), Immanuel Kant. Key Concepts. Durham, NC: Acumen, 63–82.Google Scholar
Grüne, Stefanie. 2009. Blinde Anschauung. Die Rolle von Begriffen in Kants Theorie sinnlicher Synthesis. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Grüne, Stefanie. 2017. ‘Givenness, Objective Reality, and A Priori Intuitions,’ Journal of the History of Philosophy 55, 113–30.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 1979. Kant and the Claims of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 1990. ‘Reason and Reflective Judgment. Kant on the Significance of Systematicity,’ Noûs 24, 17–43.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 2000. ‘The Unity of Reason. Pure Reason as Practical Reason in Kant’s Early Conception of the Transcendental Dialectic,’ in Guyer, Paul, Kant on Freedom, Law and Happiness. Cambridge University Press, 60–95.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 2003. ‘Kant on the Systematicity of Nature. Two Puzzles,’ History of Philosophy Quarterly 20, 277–95.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 2005. ‘The Unity of Nature and Freedom. Kant’s Conception of the System of Philosophy,’ in Guyer, Paul, Kant’s System of Nature and Freedom. Selected Essays. Oxford University Press, 277–313.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul, and Wood, Allen. 1998. ‘Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason,’ in Guyer, Paul and Wood, Allen (eds.), The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant. The Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge University Press, 1–73.Google Scholar
Haag, Johannes. 2007. Erfahrung und Gegenstand. Das Verhältnis von Sinnlichkeit und Verstand. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Hafemann, Burkhard. 1998. Aristoteles’ Transzendentaler Realismus. Inhalt und Umfang erster Prinzipien in der ‘Metaphysik.’ Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hahmann, Andree, and Ludwig, Bernd (eds.). 2017. Über die Fortschritte der kritischen Metaphysik. Beiträge zu System und Architektonik der kantischen Philosophie. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Hawking, Stephen. 2005. The Theory of Everything. The Origin and Fate of the Universe. Beverly Hills, CA: Phoenix Books.Google Scholar
Hebbeler, James C. 2012. ‘The Principles of the First “Critique”,’ The Review of Metaphysics 65, 555–79.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. 1929. Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Heidemann, Dietmar H. 2017. ‘Kants Vermögensmetaphysik,’ in Hahmann, Andree and Ludwig, Bernd (eds.), Über die Fortschritte der kritischen Metaphysik. Beiträge zu System und Architektonik der kantischen Philosophie. Hamburg: Meiner, 59–77.Google Scholar
Heimsoeth, Heinz. 1924. Metaphysische Motive in der Ausbildung des kritischen Idealismus. Berlin: Pan-Verlag Rolf Heise.Google Scholar
Heimsoeth, Heinz. 1966–71. Transzendentale Dialektik. Ein Kommentar zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft, vol. 1 (1966): Ideenlehre und Paralogismen; vol. 2 (1967): Vierfache Vernunftantinomie; Natur und Freiheit; intelligibler und empirischer Charakter; vol. 3 (1969): Das Ideal der reinen Vernunft; die spekulativen Beweisarten vom Dasein Gottes; dialektischer Schein und Leitideen der Forschung; vol. 4 (1971): Die Methodenlehre. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 1960. Der ontologische Gottesbeweis. Sein Problem und seine Geschichte in der Neuzeit. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 2001. ‘Systemform und Abschlussgedanke. Methode und Metaphysik als Problem in Kants Denken,’ in Schumacher, Ralph, Horstmann, Rolf-Peter, and Gerhardt, Volker (eds.), Kant und die Berliner Aufklärung. Proceedings of the Ninth International Kant Congress, Berlin 2000, vol. 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 94–115.Google Scholar
Hessbrüggen-Walter, Stefan. 2004. Die Seele und ihre Vermögen. Kants Metaphysik des Mentalen in der “Kritik der reinen Vernunft.” Münster: Mentis.Google Scholar
Heßbrüggen-Walter, Stefan. 2015. ‘Vermögen,’ in Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano (eds.), Kant-Lexikon. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2481–4.Google Scholar
Hicks, Amanda. 2013. ‘Kant’s Response to the Principle of Sufficient Reason,’ in Bacin, Stefano, Ferrarin, Alfredo, La Rocca, Claudio, and Ruffing, Margit (eds.), Kant und die Philosophie in Weltbürgerlicher Absicht. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Kant Congress, Pisa 2010, vol. 5. Berlin: de Gruyter, 359–70.Google Scholar
Hinske, Norbert. 1991. ‘Die Wissenschaften und ihre Zwecke. Kants Neuformulierung der Systemidee,’ in Funke, Gerhard, Kleinschnieder, Manfred, Malter, Rudolf, Müller, Gisela, and Seebohm, Thomas M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Kant Congress, Mainz 1990, vol. 1. Berlin, Bonn: Bouvier, 157–78.Google Scholar
Hinske, Norbert. 1993. ‘Kants Rede vom Unbedingten und ihre philosophischen Motive,’ in Baumgartner, Hans Michael and Jacobs, Wilhelm G. (eds.), Philosophie der Subjektivität. Zur Bestimmung des Neuzeitlichen Philosophierens, Akten des 1. Kongresses der Internationalen Schelling-Gesellschaft 1989, vol. 1. Stuttgart, Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 265–80.Google Scholar
Hinske, Norbert. 1998. ‘transzendental; Transzendentalphilosophie,’ in Joachim, Ritter, Karlfried, Gr?nder, and Gottfried, Gabriel (eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vol. 10. Basel: Schwabe, 1359–436.Google Scholar
Hoefer, Carl. 2016. ‘Causal Determinism,’ in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (spring 2016 edition), plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/determinism-causal/.Google Scholar
Höffe, Otfried. 2003. Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Die Grundlegung der modernen Philosophie. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Hogan, Desmond. 2010. ‘Kant’s Copernican Turn and the Rationalist Tradition,’ in Guyer, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge University Press, 21–40.Google Scholar
Horn, Christoph, and Rapp, Christof. 2001. ‘Verstand; Vernunft,’ in Ritter, Joachim, Karlfried, Gr?nder, Gottfried, Gabriel (eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vol. 11. Basel: Schwabe, 748–64.Google Scholar
Horn, Christoph, and Rapp, Christof. 2005. ‘Intuition und Methode. Abschied von einem Dogma der Platon- und Aristoteles-Exegese,’ Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 8, 11–45.Google Scholar
Horstmann, Rolf-Peter. 1997. ‘Kants Paralogismen,’ in Rolf-Peter Horstmann, Bausteine Kritischer Philosophie. Arbeiten zu Kant. Bodenheim: Philo, 79–107Google Scholar
Horstmann, Rolf-Peter. 1998. ‘Der Anhang zur Transzendentalen Dialektik (A642/B670–A704/B732). Die Idee der systematischen Einheit’, in Mohr, Georg and Willaschek, Marcus (eds.), Immanuel Kant. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Berlin: Akademie, 525–46.Google Scholar
Höwing, Thomas. 2016. ‘Kant on Opinion, Belief, and Knowledge,’ in Höwing, Thomas (ed.), The Highest Good in Kant’s Philosophy. Berlin: de Gruyter, 201–22.Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. S. 2011. ‘Is Metaphysical Dependence Irreflexive?,’ The Monist 94, 267–76.Google Scholar
Kern, Andrea. 2006. Quellen des Wissens. Zum Begriff vernünftiger Erkenntnisfähigkeiten. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Patricia. 1990. Kant’s Transcendental Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1986. ‘Projecting the Order of Nature,’ in Robert, E. Butts (ed.), Kant’s Philosophy of Physical Science. Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft 1786–1986. Dordrecht: Reidel, 201–35.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1994. ‘The Unity of Science and the Unity of Nature,’ in Parini, Paolo (ed.), Kant and Contemporary Epistemology. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 253–72.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline. 1995. ‘What Do the Virtuous Hope For? Re-Reading Kant’s Doctrine of the Highest Good,’ in Robinson, Hoke (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Kant Congress, Memphis 1995, vol. 1. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 91–112.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline. 1998a. ‘The Conative Character of Reason in Kant’s Philosophy,’ Journal of the History of Philosophy 36, 77–97.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline. 1998b. ‘Kant on the Unity of Theoretical and Practical Reason,’ The Review of Metaphysics 52, 311–39.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline, and Willaschek, Marcus. (forthcoming). ‘Autonomy without Paradox. Kant on Self-Legislation and the Moral Law.’Google Scholar
Klemme, Heiner F. 1996. Kants Philosophie des Subjekts. Systematische und entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Selbstbewußtsein und Selbsterkenntnis. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Klemme, Heiner F. 2010. ‘Die rationalistische Interpretation von Kants “Paralogismen der reinen Vernunft.” Eine Kritik,’ in Chotaš, Jiří, Karásek, Jindřich, and Stolzenberg, Jürgen (eds.), Metaphysik und Kritik. Interpretationen zur ‘Transzendentalen Dialektik’ der ‘Kritik der reinen Vernunft.’ Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann, 141–61.Google Scholar
Klimmek, Nikolai F. 2005. Kants System der transzendentalen Ideen. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kneale, William, and Kneale, Martha. 1984. The Development of Logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Knoepffler, Nikolaus. 2001. Der Begriff ‘transzendental’ bei Immanuel Kant. Eine Untersuchung zur ‘Kritik der reinen Vernunft.’ 5. ?berarbeitete Auflage. München: Herbert UTZ.Google Scholar
König, Peter. 2015. ‘Bedingung,’ in Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano (eds.), Kant-Lexikon. Berlin: de Gruyter, 223–6.Google Scholar
Kraus, Katharina T. (in press). ‘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.Google Scholar
Kreimendahl, Lothar. 1998. ‘Die Antinomie der reinen Vernunft. 1. und 2. Abschnitt (A405/B432-A461/B489),’ in Mohr, Georg and Willaschek, Marcus (eds.), Immanuel Kant. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Berlin: Akademie, 413–47.Google Scholar
Kreimendahl, Lothar, and Oberhausen, Jens. 2011. ‘Einleitung,’ in Lothar, Kreimendahl and Jens, Oberhausen (eds.), Immanuel Kant. Der einzig mögliche Beweisgrund zu einer Demonstration des Daseins Gottes. Historisch-kritische Edition. Hamburg: Meiner, xiii–cccxxxix.Google Scholar
Kreines, James. 2015. Reason in the World. Hegel’s Metaphysics and Its Philosophical Appeal. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kreis, Guido. 2015. Negative Dialektik des Unendlichen – Kant, Hegel, Cantor. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Ladyman, James, Ross, Don, and Spurrett, David. 2007. ‘In Defence of Scientism,’ in Ladyman, James, Ross, Don, Spurrett, David, and Collier, John (eds.), Every Thing Must Go. Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford University Press, 1–66.Google Scholar
Lau, Chong-Fuk. 2015. ‘Spekulation, spekulativ,’ in Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano (eds.), Kant-Lexikon. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2143–5.Google Scholar
Leary, Stephanie. 2016. ‘In Defense of Practical Reasons for Belief,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 95, 529–42.Google Scholar
Levey, Samuel. 2016. ‘The Paradox of Sufficient Reason,’ Philosophical Review 125, 397–430.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice. 1998. Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Sensibility and Discursivity in the Transcendental Analytic of the Critique of Pure Reason. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice. 2005a. ‘Kant’s Deconstruction of the Principle of Sufficient Reason,’ in Longuenesse, Béatrice, Kant on the Human Standpoint. Cambridge University Press, 117–142.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice. 2005b. ‘The Transcendental Ideal and the Unity of the Critical System,’ in Longuenesse, Béatrice, Kant on the Human Standpoint. Cambridge University Press, 211–35.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2006. ‘Non-Cartesian Substance Dualism and the Problem of Mental Causation,’ Erkenntnis 65, 5–23.Google Scholar
Ludwig, Bernd. 2017. ‘Kants Fortschritte auf dem langen Weg zur konsequent-kritischen Metaphysik,’ in Hahmann, Andree and Ludwig, Bernd (eds.), Über die Fortschritte der kritischen Metaphysik. Beiträge zu System und Architektonik der kantischen Philosophie. Hamburg: Meiner, 79–118.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, John. 2002. ‘Frege, Kant, and the Logic in Logicism,’ The Philosophical Review 111, 25–65.Google Scholar
Malzkorn, Wolfgang. 1995. ‘Kants Kritik an der traditionellen Syllogistik,’ History and Philosophy of Logic 16, 75–88.Google Scholar
Malzkorn, Wolfgang. 1998. ‘Sind Kants Paralogismen ein natürliches und unvermeidliches Problem der Vernunft?,’ in Lechner, Jochen (ed.), Analyse, Rekonstruktion, Kritik. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 95–111.Google Scholar
Malzkorn, Wolfgang. 1999. Kants Kosmologie-Kritik. Eine formale Analyse der Antinomienlehre. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Martin, Raymond, and Barresi, John (eds.). 2003. Personal Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Marušić, Berislav. 2015. Evidence and Agency. Norms of Belief for Promising and Resolving. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marwede, Florian. 2018. Das Höchste Gut in Kants Deontologischer Ethik. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela. 2017. ‘What Is This Thing Called “Scientific Knowledge”? – Kant on Imaginary Standpoints and the Regulative Role of Reason,’ Kant Yearbook 9, 63–84.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Hannes O. 2014. Epistemic Entitlement. The Right to Believe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Hannes O. 2016. ‘Empirical Conditions for a Reidean Geometry of Visual Experience,’ Topoi 35, 511–22.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Peter. 2014. ‘Transcendental Presuppositions and Ideas of Reason,’ Kant-Studien 105, 554–72.Google Scholar
Meerbote, Ralf. 1982. ‘Kant’s Use of the Notions “Objective Reality” and “Objective Validity”,’ Kant-Studien 63, 51–8.Google Scholar
Messina, James. 2014. ‘Kantian Space, Supersubstantivalism, and the Spirit of Spinoza,’ Kant Yearbook 6, 43–64.Google Scholar
Mohr, Georg. 2004. Kants Grundlegung der kritischen Philosophie. Werkkommentar und Stellenkommentar zur Kritik der reinen Vernunft, zu den Prolegomena und zu den Fortschritten der Metaphysik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Mudd, Sasha. 2013. ‘Rethinking the Priority of Practical Reason in Kant,’ European Journal of Philosophy 24, 78–102.Google Scholar
Naeve, Nico, and Pringe, Hernán. 2015. ‘Antinomie der reinen Vernunft,’ in Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano (eds.), Kant-Lexikon. Berlin: de Gruyter, 127–35.Google Scholar
Neiman, Susan. 1994. The Unity of Reason. Rereading Kant. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neiman, Susan. 1995. ‘Understanding the Unconditioned,’ in Robinson, Hoke (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Kant Congress, Memphis 1995, vol. 1. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 505–19.Google Scholar
Nenon, Thomas. 2015. ‘Gültigkeit, objektive,’ in Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano (eds.), Kant-Lexikon. Berlin: de Gruyter, 966–7.Google Scholar
Nortmann, Ulrich. 1998. ‘Kants Urteilstafel und die Vollständigkeitsfrage. Kritische Einwände gegen Michael Wolff (I. Teil),’ Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 52, 406–21.Google Scholar
Pasternack, Lawrence. 2014. ‘Kant on Opinion. Assent, Hypothesis, and the Norms of General Applied Logic,’ Kant-Studien 105, 41–82.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1992. The Essential Peirce. Selected Philosophical Writings, ed. Houser, Nathan and Kloesel, Christian J. W.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Pissis, Jannis. 2012. Kants transzendentale Dialektik. Zu ihrer systematischen Bedeutung. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1953. ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism,’ in Van Orman Quine, Willard, From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 20–46.Google Scholar
Reath, Andrews. 1988. ‘Two Conceptions of the Highest Good in Kant,’ Journal of the History of Philosophy 26, 593–619.Google Scholar
Recki, Birgit. 2001. Ästhetik der Sitten. Die Affinität von ästhetischem Gefühl und praktischer Vernunft bei Kant. Klostermann: Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Redaktion. 2015. ‘Realität, objektive,’ in Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano (eds.), Kant-Lexikon. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1897–8.Google Scholar
Renaut, Alain. 1998. ‘Transzendentale Dialektik. Einleitung und Buch I (A293/B349–A338/B396),’ in Mohr, Georg and Willaschek, Marcus (eds.), Immanuel Kant. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Berlin: Akademie, 353–71.Google Scholar
Ricken, Friedo. 2010. ‘Von der Unentbehrlichkeit der transzendentalen Theologie. Zum “Ideal der Reinen Vernunft”,’ in Fischer, Norbert (ed.), Kants Grundlegung einer kritischen Metaphysik. Einführung in die ‘Kritik der reinen Vernunft’. Hamburg: Meiner, 313–23.Google Scholar
Rinard, Susanna. 2017. ‘No Exception for Belief,’ in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 94, 121–143.Google Scholar
Rohlf, Michael. 2010. ‘The Ideas of Pure Reason,’ in Guyer, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason.’ Cambridge University Press, 190–209.Google Scholar
Rohs, Peter. 1978. ‘Kants Prinzip der durchgängigen Bestimmung alles Seienden,’ Kant-Studien 69, 170–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohs, Peter. 1987. ‘Philosophie als Selbsterhellung von Vernunft,’ in Köhler, Wolfgang R., Kuhlmann, Wolfgang, and Rohs, Peter (eds.), Philosophie und Begründung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 363–91.Google Scholar
Rosefeldt, Tobias. 2000. Das logische Ich. Kant über den Gehalt des Begriffes von sich selbst. Stuttgart: Philo.Google Scholar
Rosefeldt, Tobias. 2017. ‘Subjects of Kant’s First Paralogism,’ in Gomez, Anil and Stephenson, Andrew (eds.), Kant and the Philosophy of Mind. Perception, Reason, and the Self. Oxford University Press, 221–44.Google Scholar
Rosen, Gideon. 2010. ‘Metaphysical Dependence. Grounding and Reduction,’ in Hale, Bob and Hoffmann, Aviv (eds.), Modality, Metaphysics, Logic and Epistemology. Oxford University Press, 109–35.Google Scholar
Rutherford, Donald. 1995. Leibniz and the Rational Order of Nature. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schafer, Karl. 2017. ‘Rationality as the Capacity for Understanding,’ Nous. Online at https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12231.Google Scholar
Schaffer, Jonathan. 2010. ‘Monism. The Priority of the Whole,’ Philosophical Review 119, 31–76.Google Scholar
Schmucker, Josef. 1990. Das Weltproblem in Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Kommentar und Strukturanalyse des ersten Buches und des zweiten Hauptstücks des zweiten Buches der transzendentalen Dialektik. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
Schulting, Dennis. 2011. ‘Kant’s Idealism. The Current Debate,’ in Schulting, Dennis and Verburgt, Jacco (eds.), Kant’s Idealism. New Interpretations of a Controversial Doctrine. Dordrecht: Springer, 1–29.Google Scholar
Schulting, Dennis, and Verburgt, Jacco (eds.) 2011. Kant’s Idealism: New Interpretations of a Controversial Doctrine. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Seeberg, Ulrich. 2015. ‘Richtigkeit, objektive,’ in Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano (eds.), Kant-Lexikon. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984–5.Google Scholar
Stephenson, Andrew. 2015. ‘Kant on the Object-Dependence of Intuition and Hallucination,’ Philosophical Quaterly 65, 486–508.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Leslie. 2011a. ‘A Theory of Everything? Kant Speaks to Stephen Hawking,’ in Stevenson, Leslie, Inspirations from Kant. Essays. Oxford University Press, 63–76.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Leslie. 2011b. ‘Opinion, Belief or Faith, and Knowledge,’ in Stevenson, Leslie, Inspirations from Kant. Essays. Oxford University Press, 77–94.Google Scholar
Stich, Stephen P., and Warfield, Ted A. (eds.) 2003. The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter F. 1959. Individuals. An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter Frederick. 1966. The Bounds of Sense. An Essay on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Street, Sharon. 2006. ‘A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value,’ Philosophical Studies 127, 109–66.Google Scholar
Stuhlmann-Laeisz, Rainer. 1976. Kants Logik. Eine Interpretation auf der Grundlage von Vorlesungen, veröffentlichten Werken und Nachlaß. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stuhlmann-Laeisz, Rainer. 1990. ‘Formale und transzendentale Logik im Paralogismenkapitel von Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft,’ in Busche, Hubertus, Heffernan, George, and Lohmar, Dieter (eds.), Bewußtsein und Zeitlichkeit. Ein Problemschnitt durch die Philosophie der Neuzeit. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann, 61–75.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 University Press, 163–85.Google Scholar
Sturm, Thomas. 2015. ‘Hypothese,’ in in Willaschek, Marcus, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Mohr, Georg, and Bacin, Stefano (eds.), Kant-Lexikon. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1059-61.Google Scholar
Sturm, Thomas. (in press). ‘Kant on the Roles of Ends in Science,’ Kant-Studien.Google Scholar
Sturma, Dieter. 1998. ‘Die Paralogismen der reinen Vernunft in der zweiten Auflage,’ in Mohr, Georg and Willaschek, Marcus (eds.), Immanuel Kant. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Berlin: Akademie, 391–412.Google Scholar
Tahko, Tuomas E. 2015. An Introduction to Metametaphysics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tetens, Holm. 2006. Kants ‘Kritik der reinen Vernunft.’ Ein systematischer Kommentar. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
Theis, Robert. 2010. ‘Kants Ideenmetaphysik. Zur “Einleitung” und dem “Ersten Buch” der “transzendentalen Dialektik”,’ in Fischer, Norbert (ed.), Kants Grundlegung einer kritischen Metaphysik. Einführung in die ‘Kritik der reinen Vernunft.’ Hamburg: Meiner, 197–214.Google Scholar
Thöle, Bernhard. 2000. ‘Die Einheit der Erfahrung. Zur Funktion der regulativen Prinzipien bei Kant,’ in Enskat, Rainer (ed.), Erfahrung und Urteilskraft. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann, 113–34.Google Scholar
Thöle, Bernhard. 2010. ‘Kants Diagnose der Illusionen der rationalen Psychologie,’ in Chotaš, Jiří, Karásek, Jindřich, and Stolzenberg, Jürgen (eds.), Metaphysik und Kritik. Interpretationen zur ‘Transzendentalen Dialektik’ der Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann, 99–116.Google Scholar
Timmermann, Jens. 2009. ‘The Unity of Reason. Kantian Perspectives,’ in Robertson, Simon (ed.), Spheres of Reason. New Essays in the Philosophy of Normativity. Oxford University Press, 183–98.Google Scholar
Tolley, Clinton. 2007. ‘Kant’s Conception of Logic.’ Dissertation, University of Chicago, Department of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Tolley, Clinton. 2012. ‘The Generality of Kant’s Transcendental Logic,’ Journal of the History of Philosophy 50, 417–46.Google Scholar
Verburgt, Jacko. 2011. ‘How to Account for Reason’s Interest in an Ultimate Prototype? A Note on Kant’s Doctrine of the Transcendental Ideal,’ in Schulting, Dennis and Verburgt, Jacko (eds.), Kant’s Idealism. New Interpretations of a Controversial Doctrine. Dordrecht: Springer, 237–54.Google Scholar
Wartenberg, Thomas E. 1992. ‘Reason and the Practice of Science,’ in Guyer, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant. Cambridge University Press, 228–48.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 1998. ‘The Antinomy of Pure Reason. Sections 3–8 (A462/B490–A515/B543),’ in Mohr, Georg and Willaschek, Marcus (eds.), Immanuel Kant. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Berlin: Akademie, 447–65.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 2005. Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric (ed.) 2009. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Background Source Materials. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 2010. ‘The Antinomy of Practical Reason. Reason, the Unconditioned and the Highest Good,’ in Reath, Andrews and Timmermann, Jens (eds.), Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. A Critical Guide. Cambridge University Press, 145–67.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 2013. ‘Kant on Infima Species,’ in Bacin, Stefano, Ferrarin, Alfredo, La Rocca, Claudio, and Ruffing, Margit (eds.), Kant und die Philosophie in Weltbürgerlicher Absicht. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Kant Congress, Pisa 2010, vol. 5. Berlin: de Gruyter, 283–94.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 2016a. ‘Kant on Materialism,’ British Journal for the History of Philosophy 24, 1035–52.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 2016b. ‘The Unconditioned and the Absolute in Kant and Early German Romanticism,’ Kant Yearbook 8, 117–42.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. (in press). ‘Kant on Real Conditions,’ in Ruffing, Margit and Waibel, Violetta (eds.), Natur und Freiheit. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Kant Congress, Wien 2015. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric, and Willaschek, Marcus. 2017. ‘Kant’s Account of Cognition,’ Journal of the History of Philosophy 55, 83–112.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 1992. Praktische Vernunft. Handlungstheorie und Moralbegründung bei Kant. Stuttgart, Weimar: J. B. Metzler.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 1998. ‘Phaenomena/Noumena und die Amphibolie der Reflexionsbegriffe (A235/B294–A292/B349),’ in Mohr, Georg and Willaschek, Marcus (eds.), Immanuel Kant. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Berlin: Akademie, 325–51.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 2003. Der mentale Zugang zur Welt. Realismus, Skeptizismus und Intentionalität. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 2006. ‘Practical Reason. A Commentary on Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (GMS II, 412–417),’ in Horn, Christoph and Schönecker, Dieter (eds.), Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Berlin: de Gruyter, 121–38.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 2007. ‘Contextualism about Knowledge and Justification by Default,’ Grazer Philosophische Studien 74, 251–72.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 2008. ‘Kant on the Necessity of Metaphysics,’ in Rohden, Valerio, Terra, Ricardo R., Almeida, Guido A., and Ruffing, Margit (eds.), Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants. Proceedings of the Tenth International Kant Congress, Sao Paulo 2005, vol. 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 285–307.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 2010. ‘The Primacy of Pure Practical Reason and the Very Idea of a Postulate,’ in Reath, Andrews and Timmermann, Jens (eds.), Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. A Critical Guide. Cambridge University Press, 168–96.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 2012. ‘Non-Relativist Contextualism about Knowledge,’ in Jäger, Christoph and Löffler, Winfried (eds.), Epistemology: Contexts, Values, Disagreement. Proceedings of the 34th International Ludwig Wittgenstein Symposium in Kirchberg. Frankfurt: Ontos, 53–62.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 2013. ‘Kant’s Two Conceptions of (Pure) Reason in the “Critique of Pure Reason”,’ in Bacin, Stefano, Ferrarin, Alfredo, La Rocca, Claudio, and Ruffing, Margit (eds.), Kant und die Philosophie in Weltbürgerlicher Absicht. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Kant Congress, Pisa 2010, vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 483–93.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 2015. ‘The Sensibility of Human Intuition. Kant’s Causal Condition on Accounts of Representation,’ in Enskat, Rainer (ed.), Kants Theorie der Erfahrung. Berlin: de Gruyter, 129–49.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 2016. ‘Kant and Peirce on Belief,’ in Gava, Gabriele and Stern, Robert (eds.), Pragmatism, Kant, and Transcendental Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 133–51.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 2018. ‘Freedom as a Postulate,’ in Watkins, Eric (ed.), Kant on Persons and Agency. Cambridge University Press, 102–19.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. (forthcoming). ‘Transcendental Idealism,’ in Julian Wuerth (ed.), Cambridge Kant-Lexicon. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus, and Watkins, Eric. 2017. ‘Kant on Cognition and Knowledge.’ Synthese. Online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1624-4.Google Scholar
Williams, Michael. 2001. Problems of Knowledge. A Critical Introduction to Epistemology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolff, Michael. 1995. Die Vollständigkeit der kantischen Urteilstafel. Mit einem Essay über Freges Begriffsschrift. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Wolff, Michael. 1998. ‘Erwiderung auf die Einwände von Ansgar Beckermann und Ulrich Nortmann,’ Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 52, 435–59.Google Scholar
Wolff, Michael. 2000. ‘Kantische Urteilstafel und vollständige Induktion. Nachtrag zu meiner Kontroverse mit Ulrich Nortmann,’ Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 54, 86–94.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. 2010. ‘The Antinomies of Pure Reason,’ in Guyer, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge University Press, 245–66.Google Scholar
Wuerth, Julian. 2010. ‘The Paralogisms of Pure Reason,’ in Guyer, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge University Press, 210–44.Google Scholar
Wundt, Max. 1924. Kant als Metaphysiker. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der deutschen Philosophie im 18. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Enke Verlag.Google Scholar
Young, John M. 1992. ‘Functions of Thought and the Synthesis of Intuitions,’ in Guyer, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant. Cambridge University Press, 101–22.Google Scholar
Zöller, Günther. 1984. Theoretische Gegenstandsbeziehung bei Kant. Zur systematischen Bedeutung der Termini “objektive Realität” und “objektive Gültigkeit” in der “Kritik der reinen Vernunft.” Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar