The implied standpoint of kant's religion: An assessment of kant's reply to (and an english translation of) an early book review of religion within the bounds of bare reason

Stephen R PALMQUIST*, Steven Otterman

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the second edition Preface of Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason Kant responds to an anonymous review of the first edition. We present the first English translation of this obscure book review. Following our translation, we summarize the reviewer's main points and evaluate the adequacy of Kant's replies to five criticisms, including two replies that Kant provides in footnotes added in the second edition. A key issue is the reviewer's claim that Religion adopts an implied standpoint, described using transcendental terminology. Kant could have avoided much confusion surrounding Religion, had he taken this review more seriously. We therefore respond to three objections that Kant failed to address: how the Wille–Willkür distinction enables the propensity to evil to be viewed as coexisting with freedom of choice; how moral improvement is possible, even though the propensity to evil is necessary and universal; and how a ‘deed’ can be regarded as ‘noumenal’.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)73-97
Number of pages25
JournalKantian Review
Volume18
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2013

Scopus Subject Areas

  • Philosophy

User-Defined Keywords

  • Kant
  • Moral interpretation of scripture
  • Propensity to evil
  • Religion Within the bounds of bare reason
  • Transcendental
  • Wille and Willkür

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The implied standpoint of kant's religion: An assessment of kant's reply to (and an english translation of) an early book review of religion within the bounds of bare reason'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this