The Methodological Prescriptions of the "Appendix to the Transcendental Dialectic" of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and the Foundations of Improper Science
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/sk.v15i2.89210Palavras-chave:
Kant, "Improper" Science, Laws, Foundation, RegulativeResumo
In the Preface to his Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, Kant holds that empirical disciplines, such as -at least- chemistry, are improper natural sciences. What he has primarily in mind is the phlogistic chemistry mainly developed by Georg Stahl. Contrary to mathematical physics, phlogistic chemistry is not a proper natural science because it lacks a metaphysical pure part and mathematics cannot be adequately applied to its domain. The aim of this article is to show that the scientific character of improper sciences, such as -at least- phlogistic chemistry, depends on the application of two methodological prescriptions demanded by the regulative function of theoretical reason. These prescriptions are presented by Kant in the Appendix to the Transcendental Dialectic of his Critique of Pure Reason. The first prescription requires the use of certain ideas of reason in empirical scientific laws. The second one consists in a demand of systematicity for those laws.
Referências
ABELA, P. “The Demands of Systematicity: Rational Judgment and the Structure of Nature”. In: BIRD, G. (ed.), A Companion to Kant, pp. 408–22, Oxford: Blackwell,2006.
ALLISON, H. E. “Causality and Causal Laws in Kant: A Critique of Michael Friedman”. In: PARRINI, P. (ed.), Kant and Contemporary Epistemology, pp. 291–307, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1994.
ALLISON, H. E. Kant’s Theory of Taste. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
ALLISON, H. E. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. Revised and Enlarged Edition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.
ARIAS ALBISU, M. “Acerca de la relación entre los dos tipos de esquemas de las ideas de la razón en la Crítica de la razón pura de Kant”, Areté, 24.1 (2012): 7–24.
BLOMME, H. “Kant’s Conception of Chemistry in the Danziger Physik”. In: CLEWIS, R. R. (ed.), Reading Kant’s Lectures, pp. 484–502, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015
BRITTAN, G. G. “The Kantian Foundations of Modern Science”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1984.2 (1984): 706–14.
BRITTAN, G. G. “Systematicity and Objectivity in the Third Critique”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 30.S1 (1992): 167–86.
BUCHDHAL, G. “Causality, Causal Laws and Scientific in Theory in the Philosophy of Kant”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 16.63 (1965): 187–208.
BUCHDHAL, G. “The Relation between ‘Understanding’ and ‘Reason’ in the Architectonic of Kant’s Philosophy”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 67 (1967): 209–26.
BUCHDHAL, G. “The Kantian ‘Dynamic of Reason’, with Special Reference to the Place of Causality in Kant’s System”. In: BECK, L. W. (ed.), Kant Studies Today, pp. 341– 74, La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1969.
BUCHDHAL, G. “The Conception of Lawlikeness in Kant’s Philosophy of Science”, Synthese, 23.1 (1971): 24–46.
BUCHDAHL, G. “Gravity and Intelligibility: Newton to Kant”. In: Buchdahl, G., Kant and the Dynamics of Reason, pp. 245–70, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
BUTTS, R. E. “The Methodological Structure of Kant’s Metaphysics of Science”. In: BUTTS, R. E. (ed.), Kant’s Philosophy of Physical Science, pp. 163–99, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1986.
CAIMI, M. “Über eine wenig beachtete Deduktion der regulativen Ideen”, Kant Studien, 86.3 (1995): 308–20.
CAIMI, M. “La función regulativa del ideal de la razón pura”, Diánoia, 42.42 (1996): 61– 79.
CARRIER, M. “Kant’s Theory of Matter and His Views on Chemistry”. In: WATKINS, E. (ed.), Kant and the Sciences, pp. 205–30, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
FRIEDMAN, M. Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1992a.
FRIEDMAN, M. “Causal Laws and the Foundations of Natural Science”. In: GUYER, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant, pp. 161–99, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992b.
FRIEDMAN, M. “Regulative and Constitutive”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 30.S1 (1992c): 73–102.
FRIEDMAN, M. “Laws of Nature and Causal Necessity”, Kant Studien, 105.4 (2014): 531–53.
GEIGER, I. “Is the Assumption of a Systematic Whole of Empirical Concepts a Necessary Condition of Knowledge?”, Kant Studien, 94.3 (2003): 273–98.
GOLDBERG, N. “Do Principles of Reason Have ‘Objective but Indeterminate Validity’?”, Kant Studien, 95.4 (2004): 405–25.
KANT, I. Kant’s gesammelte Schriften. Deutsche (formerly Königlich Preußische) Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter and predecessors, 1900–.
KANT, I. Lectures on Logic. Trans. J. M. Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
KANT, I. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
KANT, I. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Trans. P. Guyer and E. Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
KANT, I. Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Trans. M. Friedman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
KITCHER, P. “Projecting the Order of Nature”. In: BUTTS, R. E. (ed.), Kant’s Philosophy of Physical Science, pp. 201–35, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1986.
KITCHER, P. “The Unity of Science and the Unity of Nature”. In: PARRINI, P. (ed.), Kant and Contemporary Epistemology, pp. 253–72, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1994.
KRAUSSER, P. “Über den hypothetischen Vernunftgebrauch in der Kritik der reinen Vernunft”, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 69.2 (1987): 164–96.
KRAUSSER, P. “Kant on the Hypothetical Employment of Reason in Science”. In: FUNKE, G. and SEEBOHM, T. M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Kant Congress, II, pp. 123–34, Washington, D.C.: Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology and University Press of America, 1989.
McNULTY, M. B. “Kant on Chemistry and the Application of Mathematics in Natural Science”, Kantian Review, 19.3 (2014): 393–418.
McNULTY, M. B. “Rehabilitating the Regulative Use of Reason: Kant on Empirical and Chemical Laws”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 54 (2015): 1–10.
McNULTY, M. B. “Chemistry in Kant’s Opus Postumum”, HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 6.1 (2016): 64–95.
MORRISON, M. “Methodological Rules in Kant’s Philosophy of Science”, Kant Studien, 80.2 (1989): 155–72.
NAYAK, A. C; SOTNAK, E. “Kant on the Impossibility of the ‘Soft Sciences’”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55.1 (1995): 133–51.
OKRUHLIK, K. “Kant on Realism and Methodology”. In: BUTTS, R. E. (ed.), Kant’s Philosophy of Physical Science, pp. 307–29, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1986.
PARTINGTON, J. R. A History of Chemistry (2nd vol.). Macmillan: London, 1961.
RAJIVA, S. “Is Hypothetical Reason a Precursor to Reflective Judgment?”, Kant Studien, 97.1 (2006): 114–26.
RAUSCHER, F. “The Appendix to the Dialectic and the Canon of Pure Reason. The Positive Role of Reason”. In: GUYER, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, pp. 290–309, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
RUSH, F. L. “Reason and Regulation in Kant”, The Review of Metaphysics, 53.4 (2000): 837–62.
SANTOS GARCÍA, M. A. “Kant y la lógica de la investigación científica”, Teorema, 23.1- 3 (2004): 199–213.
SLOAN, P. R. “Kant on the History of Nature: The Ambiguous Heritage of the Critical Philosophy for Natural History”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 37.4 (2006): 627–48.
STAHL, G. E. Zufällige Gedancken und nützliche Bedencken über den Streit von dem so genannten Sulphure. Halle: Wäysenhaus, 1718.
STEPANENKO, P. “Sistematicidad y unidad de la experiencia en Kant”, Diánoia, 42.42 (1996): 91–105.
VAN DEN BERG, H. “Kant’s Conception of Proper Science”, Synthese, 183.1 (2011): 7– 26.
VANZO, A. “Kant on Experiment”. In: MACLAURIN, J. (ed.), Rationis Defensor. Essays in Honour of Colin Chenye, pp. 75–96, Dordrecht: Springer, 2012.
WARTENBERG, T. E. “Order through Reason. Kant’s Transcendental Justification of Science”, Kant Studien, 70.4 (1979): 409–24.
WARTENBERG, T. E. “Reason and the Practice of Science”. In: GUYER, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant, pp. 228–48, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
ZOCHER, R. “Zu Kants transzendentaler Deduktion der Ideen der reinen Vernunft”, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 12.1 (1958): 43–58.
ZOCHER, R. “Der Doppelsinn der kantischen Ideenlehre. Eine Problemstellung”, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 20.2 (1966): 222–6.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Autores mantém os direitos de republicação, sob condição de indicação de primeira publicação na Studia Kantiana.
Autores cedem o direito aos editores de vincular seus artigos em futuras bases de dados.
A Studia Kantiana utiliza a licença Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Você tem o direito de:
Compartilhar — copiar e redistribuir o material em qualquer suporte ou formato.
De acordo com os termos seguintes:
Atribuição — Você deve dar o crédito apropriado, prover um link para a licença e indicar se mudanças foram feitas. Você deve fazê-lo em qualquer circunstância razoável, mas de nenhuma maneira que sugira que o licenciante apoia você ou o seu uso.
Não Comercial — Você não pode usar o material para fins comerciais.
Sem Derivações — Se você remixar, transformar ou criar a partir do material, você não pode distribuir o material modificado.
