What do you think?
Rate this book
The Cambridge Companion to Kant
The fundamental task of philosophy since the seventeenth century has been to determine whether the essential principles of both knowledge and action can be discovered by human beings unaided by an external agency. No one philosopher contributed more to this enterprise than Kant, whose Critique of Pure Reason (1781) shook the very foundations of the intellectual world. Kant argued that the basic principles of the natural sciences are imposed on reality by human sensibility and understanding, and thus that human beings are also free to impose their own free and rational agency on the world. This volume is the only systematic and comprehensive account of the full range of Kant's writings available, and the first major overview of his work to be published in more than a dozen years. An internationally recognized team of Kant scholars explore Kant's conceptual revolution in epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of science, moral and political philosophy, aesthetics, and the philosophy of religion. The volume also traces the historical origins and consequences of Kant's work.
500 pages, Paperback
First published March 11, 1988
25 people are currently reading
568 people want to read
About the author
Paul Guyer
94 books31 followersPaul Guyer is an American philosopher. He is a leading scholar of Immanuel Kant and of aesthetics and has served as Jonathan Nelson Professor of Philosophy and Humanities at Brown University since 2012.
Guyer has written nine books on Kant and Kantian themes, and has edited and translated a number of Kant's works into English. In addition to his work on Kant, Guyer has published on many other figures in the history of philosophy, including Locke, Hume, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and others. Guyer's Kant and The Claims of Knowledge (Cambridge University Press) is widely considered to be one of the most significant works in Kant scholarship. Recent works by Guyer include Knowledge, Reason, and Taste: Kant's Response to Hume (Princeton University Press), and The Cambridge Companion to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (Cambridge University Press).
His other areas of specialty include the history of philosophy and aesthetics. His three-volume work A History of Modern Aesthetics was published by Cambridge University Press in February 2014. Guyer was President of the American Society for Aesthetics in 2011–13. Guyer was also President of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association in 2011-12.
Guyer has written nine books on Kant and Kantian themes, and has edited and translated a number of Kant's works into English. In addition to his work on Kant, Guyer has published on many other figures in the history of philosophy, including Locke, Hume, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and others. Guyer's Kant and The Claims of Knowledge (Cambridge University Press) is widely considered to be one of the most significant works in Kant scholarship. Recent works by Guyer include Knowledge, Reason, and Taste: Kant's Response to Hume (Princeton University Press), and The Cambridge Companion to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (Cambridge University Press).
His other areas of specialty include the history of philosophy and aesthetics. His three-volume work A History of Modern Aesthetics was published by Cambridge University Press in February 2014. Guyer was President of the American Society for Aesthetics in 2011–13. Guyer was also President of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association in 2011-12.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
March 15, 2010
This is a really good book for people who find reading Kant himself too abstruse to be worth it. The only full work I’ve read by him is the Prologemena to Any Future Metaphysics (which is a kind of primer for the Critique of Pure Reason) and I definitely did not understand large chunks of it. Sometimes these academics seem as baffled by what Kant’s trying to say as I am.
So this is a bunch of essays, all equally dense. Schneewind’s “Autonomy, obligation, and virtue” stands out for its utopian take on Kantian political philosophy (plus it’s near the end of the collection). He implies that the “perfect good” must “exist,” otherwise it’s irrational to strive towards something (good) that has no way of taking place in pure form. “The moral agent, knowing herself required to act in a way that makes sense only if certain ends can be achieved, finds herself simply taking it that the world must allow the possibility of success.” There are no details as to how this paroxysm could take place, but philosophy, according to Kant according to this essayist, helps by showing “that nothing can prove the attitude unwarranted.” So the fact that we have a sense of good at all means the perfect good must be possible! This is just straight-up Descartes, right? Academics in the humanities, pragmatic about so much else, can be strangely softheaded when it comes to the possibility of Utopia.
Maybe the following is kind of true about Kant:
Kant was critical of what was called rationalism in his day. He held that “reason” did not correspond to reality but that it was “merely a subjective law for the orderly management of our understanding. . . .” The transcendental analytic seems to mean that we are locked into the way we see the world.
Kant also seems to think that without relying on metaphysics or deductive reasoning, you are left with nothing to say about the world, no propositions with which to anchor experience: without metaphysics it’s just phenomenal anarchy.
Even though he disavowed the idea that there was a way to prove the existence of God, he did believe that the existence of God as a “substratum of possibility” was “a subjectively necessary hypothesis.” It seems that it was somewhat common for philosophers to think that positing the existence of a God-like figure was somehow “necessary.” Even Nietzsche conceded this on a certain level, I think.
Here’s a final Kantian quote to ponder:
“Art is a mode of representation which is intrinsically final.”
So this is a bunch of essays, all equally dense. Schneewind’s “Autonomy, obligation, and virtue” stands out for its utopian take on Kantian political philosophy (plus it’s near the end of the collection). He implies that the “perfect good” must “exist,” otherwise it’s irrational to strive towards something (good) that has no way of taking place in pure form. “The moral agent, knowing herself required to act in a way that makes sense only if certain ends can be achieved, finds herself simply taking it that the world must allow the possibility of success.” There are no details as to how this paroxysm could take place, but philosophy, according to Kant according to this essayist, helps by showing “that nothing can prove the attitude unwarranted.” So the fact that we have a sense of good at all means the perfect good must be possible! This is just straight-up Descartes, right? Academics in the humanities, pragmatic about so much else, can be strangely softheaded when it comes to the possibility of Utopia.
Maybe the following is kind of true about Kant:
Kant was critical of what was called rationalism in his day. He held that “reason” did not correspond to reality but that it was “merely a subjective law for the orderly management of our understanding. . . .” The transcendental analytic seems to mean that we are locked into the way we see the world.
Kant also seems to think that without relying on metaphysics or deductive reasoning, you are left with nothing to say about the world, no propositions with which to anchor experience: without metaphysics it’s just phenomenal anarchy.
Even though he disavowed the idea that there was a way to prove the existence of God, he did believe that the existence of God as a “substratum of possibility” was “a subjectively necessary hypothesis.” It seems that it was somewhat common for philosophers to think that positing the existence of a God-like figure was somehow “necessary.” Even Nietzsche conceded this on a certain level, I think.
Here’s a final Kantian quote to ponder:
“Art is a mode of representation which is intrinsically final.”
December 18, 2012
An excellent, comparatively recent (1992) collection of essays on Kant's overall views (epistemological, metaphysical, moral, political, aesthetic) by leading scholars, including Paul Guyer (the editor), Allen Wood and J.P. Schneewind.
Guyer's introduction nicely summarizes Kant's life and work in a readable, concise manner; however of real interest is Guyer's weighty tackling of the 'Transcendental Deduction' section in Kant's 'First Critique'; offering a very close reading, Guyer concludes that though the deduction fails to coherently achieve its goal of applying the a priori categories of reason to sensory intuitions (which is arguable the key section of the 'Critique'), its importance, historically, is inestimable:
'Formally speaking, the transcendental deduction is a failure, and at best sets the agenda for the detailed demonstration of the role of the categories in the determination of empirical relations in space and especially time in the following sections of the 'Critique of Pure Reason'. Nevertheless, the transcendental deduction also completely transformed the agenda of modern philosophy. While he had difficulty spelling it out, Kant clearly perceived that there was some inescapable connection between self-knowledge and knowledge of objects and this completely undermined the Cartesian assumptions that we could have a determinate knowledge of our inner states without any knowledge of the external world at all and that we had to discover some means of inferring from the former to the latter. And while Kant had difficulty in distinguishing between the categories as merely logical functions of judgment and as extra-logical constraints on judgment, he nevertheless clearly saw that both self-knowledge and knowledge of objects were intrinsically judgmental and necessarily involved logical structures as well as empirical inputs. This completely undermined the Lockean and Humean project of discovering the foundations of all knowledge and belief in the empirical input of sensation and reflection alone. Progress in philosophy is rarely dependent upon the formal soundness of an argument but on the compelling force of a new vision and from the point of view the transcendental deduction was a total success, turning Cartesian rationalism and Lockean empiricism into mere history and setting new agendas for subsequent philosophical movements from German idealism to logical positivism and the linguistic philosophy of our own times.'
Guyer's introduction nicely summarizes Kant's life and work in a readable, concise manner; however of real interest is Guyer's weighty tackling of the 'Transcendental Deduction' section in Kant's 'First Critique'; offering a very close reading, Guyer concludes that though the deduction fails to coherently achieve its goal of applying the a priori categories of reason to sensory intuitions (which is arguable the key section of the 'Critique'), its importance, historically, is inestimable:
'Formally speaking, the transcendental deduction is a failure, and at best sets the agenda for the detailed demonstration of the role of the categories in the determination of empirical relations in space and especially time in the following sections of the 'Critique of Pure Reason'. Nevertheless, the transcendental deduction also completely transformed the agenda of modern philosophy. While he had difficulty spelling it out, Kant clearly perceived that there was some inescapable connection between self-knowledge and knowledge of objects and this completely undermined the Cartesian assumptions that we could have a determinate knowledge of our inner states without any knowledge of the external world at all and that we had to discover some means of inferring from the former to the latter. And while Kant had difficulty in distinguishing between the categories as merely logical functions of judgment and as extra-logical constraints on judgment, he nevertheless clearly saw that both self-knowledge and knowledge of objects were intrinsically judgmental and necessarily involved logical structures as well as empirical inputs. This completely undermined the Lockean and Humean project of discovering the foundations of all knowledge and belief in the empirical input of sensation and reflection alone. Progress in philosophy is rarely dependent upon the formal soundness of an argument but on the compelling force of a new vision and from the point of view the transcendental deduction was a total success, turning Cartesian rationalism and Lockean empiricism into mere history and setting new agendas for subsequent philosophical movements from German idealism to logical positivism and the linguistic philosophy of our own times.'
August 4, 2023
Some of the essays were clear and helpful for understanding Kant. Others were not. I hope you've enjoyed my review.
December 16, 2024
Kant remains a great thinker, but he is still seminal only in a few areas left- ethics, aesthetics, political theory. His epistemology & similar fields are superseded by later developments of physics, mathematics & cognitive psychology (brain imaging etc.). Many of his most analyzed topics are now dated (sense, perception, phenomena, noumena,..).
Just, this is the case with most philosophers. Those who are still worth reading basically offer a myth, some great vision of life & cosmos not, in most cases, susceptible to analysis or scientific verification. Other than that, apart from ethics/religious thought/aesthetics/political “science”- fundamental philosophical concepts, both East & West (mind, perception, karma, Being, essence, existence, senses, innate ideas, free will, reason, spirit, soul, ..) are, at best, just fruitful metaphors.
Kant, of course, did not know about ways of cognition of other beings. For instance, it is scientifically established that rattlesnakes & frogs perceive the world “out there” in a different way. They all have their own cognitive “spaces” (it is impossible for any living being to envision anything without “space”. Even Dante’s immortal souls live in a sort of imagined hyper-space, since their situation is described as “beings” in “worlds”, i.e. spaces, never mind its dimensions. Even “time” in Dante’s worlds does exist, because one can, hypothetically, measure processes between his imagined events, however weird they may be). So, “space”- as “world outside of a being” & “time”- as duration of process- are universals of any cognition of any being, real or imaginary. Kant insisted that our 3-dimensional Euclidean space & conventional clock-time were human universals of cognition. But, they are universals of our perception- which is trivial, it was evident for everyone & anyone, including Papuans & Aborigines – while our cognition has gone beyond it with the Einsteinian revolution. It doesn’t matter what we perceive in our ordinary waking consciousness; what matters is that we can not only imagine, but even construct multidimensional realities beyond 3 dimensions & measure what “really” happens, irrespective of our common-sense perception apparatus.
As for causality, it is mostly human (although many primates have rudiments of before>after, therefore cause>effect way of relating to the world). Then again, quantum mechanics in various interpretations (Bohr, Heisenberg, Bohm, Everett, De Witt, Feynman,..) has dispensed with common-sense approach to reality & established new ways of describing the world, out-there & in-here (including probabilities & many worlds). Of course we still, in our everyday lives, perceive as we have always done, but our knowing of the world has been vastly enlarged.
In short, I don’t see how these rather trivial things re. our ordinary waking consciousness in relation to world “out there” (space, time, causality,..) are much relevant either with regard to scientific knowledge of the world (relativity, quantum physics,..), and let alone quasi supra-rational intuitive insights in the world (mystics of all times).
Still, Kant remains a seminal thinker for those who have passed through the crucible of modern fundamental physics.
Just, this is the case with most philosophers. Those who are still worth reading basically offer a myth, some great vision of life & cosmos not, in most cases, susceptible to analysis or scientific verification. Other than that, apart from ethics/religious thought/aesthetics/political “science”- fundamental philosophical concepts, both East & West (mind, perception, karma, Being, essence, existence, senses, innate ideas, free will, reason, spirit, soul, ..) are, at best, just fruitful metaphors.
Kant, of course, did not know about ways of cognition of other beings. For instance, it is scientifically established that rattlesnakes & frogs perceive the world “out there” in a different way. They all have their own cognitive “spaces” (it is impossible for any living being to envision anything without “space”. Even Dante’s immortal souls live in a sort of imagined hyper-space, since their situation is described as “beings” in “worlds”, i.e. spaces, never mind its dimensions. Even “time” in Dante’s worlds does exist, because one can, hypothetically, measure processes between his imagined events, however weird they may be). So, “space”- as “world outside of a being” & “time”- as duration of process- are universals of any cognition of any being, real or imaginary. Kant insisted that our 3-dimensional Euclidean space & conventional clock-time were human universals of cognition. But, they are universals of our perception- which is trivial, it was evident for everyone & anyone, including Papuans & Aborigines – while our cognition has gone beyond it with the Einsteinian revolution. It doesn’t matter what we perceive in our ordinary waking consciousness; what matters is that we can not only imagine, but even construct multidimensional realities beyond 3 dimensions & measure what “really” happens, irrespective of our common-sense perception apparatus.
As for causality, it is mostly human (although many primates have rudiments of before>after, therefore cause>effect way of relating to the world). Then again, quantum mechanics in various interpretations (Bohr, Heisenberg, Bohm, Everett, De Witt, Feynman,..) has dispensed with common-sense approach to reality & established new ways of describing the world, out-there & in-here (including probabilities & many worlds). Of course we still, in our everyday lives, perceive as we have always done, but our knowing of the world has been vastly enlarged.
In short, I don’t see how these rather trivial things re. our ordinary waking consciousness in relation to world “out there” (space, time, causality,..) are much relevant either with regard to scientific knowledge of the world (relativity, quantum physics,..), and let alone quasi supra-rational intuitive insights in the world (mystics of all times).
Still, Kant remains a seminal thinker for those who have passed through the crucible of modern fundamental physics.
March 19, 2018
Immanuel Kant: Metaphysics. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the most influential philosophers in the history of Western philosophy. His contributions to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics have had a profound impact on almost every philosophical movement that followed him.
December 30, 2010
Anything with Immanuel Kant and a smooth delivery is beautiful.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews