The New Anti-Kant

F. Prihonsky, Kenneth A. Loparo, Sandra Lapointe

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137312655
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

Finally available in English, Príhonský's New Anti-Kant is an inescapable book for anyone interested in Kant's Critical philosophy. It provides a concise and systematic recapitulation ofBolzano's insightful, trenchant criticisms of Kant, andprovides a fresh window into historical developments in 19th century post-Kantian philosophy

Part I

1

Introduction^*

Sandra Lapointe and Clinton Tolley

§1 A unique philosophical dialogue

The present volume contains an altogether remarkable document in the history of nineteenth-century philosophy: a critical commentary on the most influential systematic work (the Critique of Pure Reason) of one major philosopher (Kant), written from the point of view of another major systematic philosopher (Bolzano), just decades after the former’s publication. Bolzano, at the height of his powers, and with his mature philosophical views having fully taken shape with the publication of his Theory of Science (1837), undertakes the project of engaging, key point by key point, with Kant’s masterwork. In collaboration with Bolzano, František Příhonský (who would ultimately publish the final record of this work in 1850, shortly after Bolzano’s death) both compiles a comprehensive and thorough summary of the main definitions, theses, and arguments in Kant’s book, and then proceeds to bring to light the most important unclarities, confusions, and fallacies that he finds each step along the way. The result, New Anti-Kant, is not only an extremely useful and even-handed overview of the entire first Critique itself – including parts often neglected by even Kant’s most sympathetic readers – but also a catalogue of philosophically insightful and textually well-grounded challenges to signature Kantian doctrines. This work helps us to see anew the overarching contours of Kant’s philosophy, and brings a fresh focus onto deep points of tension within Kant’s system – all the while serving to introduce us, through instructive contrast, to the powerful alternative perspective that Bolzano develops in his own systematic philosophy.

The value of New Anti-Kant rests at once in the fabulous richness of Bolzano’s own theories as well as in the diligence and insight with which he approached Kant’s Critique. After a ‘Preface’ that motivates the need for such a project, the volume begins with an ‘Introduction’ that contains a concise and very helpful summary of those of Bolzano’s doctrines that are most relevant to the criticisms that follow. The main part, the ‘Treatise’, consists of a systematic examination of the entirety of the first Critique. Towards the end, it also engages in an extensive discussion of the moral theory found in Kant’s other writings. Throughout, the ‘Treatise’ alternates between extremely economical, well-articulated little digests of Kant’s main doctrines following the order in which they appear in the Critique, followed by ‘Objections’ and ‘Remarks’ in which Příhonský deftly recapitulates the essence of Bolzano’s concerns with the Kantian philosophy and thereby assesses Kant’s views in light of Bolzano’s own theories.

Beyond the originality and intelligence of its critical perspective, New Anti-Kant thus has the merit of offering an exhaustive discussion of Kant’s philosophy, one which devotes its attention to both the doctrines of the Critique that have traditionally been of most interest to Kant scholars (e.g. the distinction between concepts and intuitions, the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgements, the possibility of synthetic a priori cognition, the nature of space and time, the transcendental deduction, the nature and status of transcendental Ideas, the Antinomies), as well as those doctrines that are too often overlooked (e.g. the discussions in the ‘Doctrine of Method’ concerning definitions or those concerning the differences between opinion, belief, and knowledge). By thoughtfully engaging with the full scope of Kant’s views, New Anti-Kant also introduces the reader to Bolzano’s own positions in both theoretical and practical philosophy, as well as his philosophy of religion. Moreover, it does so in a way that, for readers more familiar with Kant’s views than with Bolzano’s (which will perhaps be most of its readers), promises to make Bolzano’s positions more accessible insofar as they are introduced by reference to Kant’s better-known terminology.

§2 A long and vigorous intellectual engagement

Bolzano’s relationship to Kant is complicated and, perhaps for this reason, it is also often misunderstood. Part of the difficulty resides in the fact that the context in which Bolzano’s theories evolved – and in particular the circumstances that ultimately contributed to isolate Austrian Academia from the rest of the German-speaking world – is little known. At the turn of the nineteenth century, Kant’s theories constituted the mainstream in Germany, and a vast portion of German intellectual life was recognizably “post-Kantian”, with lively debate for and against him, in a non-trivial sense. In Austria, by contrast, the rampant antagonism to which Kant’s theories became subject in the 1790s, the subsequent imposition of bans on his books and the interdiction against including the study of his work in philosophy curricula in the years that followed, all made for a considerable lack of continuity with the kind of philosophy that was being done in neighbouring countries.¹ By the time Bolzano was admitted at Charles University in the late 1790s, Austrian philosophy students were being trained according to a rigid, state-imposed programme designed predominantly to promote Leibniz–Wolffian doctrines (with the help of official textbooks!). Given such a context, the vast interest Bolzano took in Kant’s philosophy early on and the diligence with which he studied his theories are thus even more remarkable. Less surprising is the fact that this should have caused Bolzano to be singled out as a trouble-maker: a few months after he took up the chair of “Science of the (Catholic) Religion” in Prague in 1805, Bolzano was accused of being a “Kantian”, a label that would cause the professional demise of a number of his colleagues under the reign of Francis II. He could remain in his position only after he had ‘officially’ vindicated himself. Even this, however, was short-lived, as in 1819 Bolzano was eventually discharged for ‘heresy’.

Judged from the perspective of Bolzano’s early publications, but especially in light of his own mature positions, one could wonder whether such charges of ‘Kantianism’ made much sense. But Bolzano’s intellectual engagement with Kant’s thought began quite early – in fact, years earlier than his appointment in 1805 – and proved to be deeply influential on the course of Bolzano’s intellectual career in ways that ran much deeper than academic politics. In his Autobiography, we learn that Bolzano began to study the Critique of Pure Reason in 1799, when he was 18 years old.² From the outset Bolzano found himself in fundamental accord with Kant over the importance of the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgements, between a priori and a posteriori judgements, as well as between intuitions and concepts, among other things (ibid.). Yet already by the time of his seminal Contributions to a Better-Founded Exposition of Mathematics (1810), Bolzano had also arrived at some of the basic commitments that would motivate his later criticisms of Kant’s works. Indeed, the ‘Appendix’ to this work directly targets ‘the Kantian theory of construction of concepts through intuitions’ on the grounds (among others) that Kant’s underlying doctrine of pure intuition is incoherent.³ Such criticisms were expanded extensively in Bolzano’s writings throughout the 1820s and 1830s, his Science of Religion (1834), and especially in his Theory of Science (1837), with Bolzano now challenging Kant not just on his philosophy of mathematics but on all fronts (logic, epistemology, metaphysics, morals, religion, etc.). All of this ultimately coalesced in Bolzano’s discussions with Příhonský in the late 1830s and 1840s, which eventually were to yield New Anti-Kant.

§3 The text

When he died in 1848, Bolzano left behind a considerable stock of unpublished writings, the bulk of which has now appeared in the Bernard Bolzano Gesamtausgabe (BBGA). František Příhonský was one of three of Bolzano’s former pupils and/or collaborators to which the management of the latter was assigned.⁴ His contribution to Bolzano studies, though humble, was nonetheless the most significant among them. Perhaps most notably, we owe to him the publication of the Paradoxes of the Infinite (1851), a work that had considerable influence on the philosophy of mathematics and the emergence of set theory at the turn of the century, and which was both republished and then translated (into English⁵ and French⁶).

We also owe to Příhonský the publication of the thoughts captured in New Anti-Kant. Unlike the Paradoxes, however, this work is not to be counted as part of the Nachlass. Neither is it a disciple’s tribute to the memory of his teacher. Rather, New Anti-Kant is the outcome of a collaboration between Bolzano and Příhonský that lasted over a decade. The project took form in early 1837 at Bolzano’s initiative. Bolzano had heard of a French literary competition inviting submissions presenting critically the Kantian philosophical system and its idealist offshoots. The two philosophers who collaborated by correspondence were unable to meet the initial deadline, and even though the competition was protracted until the following year – for lack of high-quality submissions – Bolzano resolved not to take part in it. There were apparently two reasons for this decision: on the one hand, Bolzano was not particularly interested in spending time presenting the basics of Kant’s ideas – what was supposed to be the first part of the essay. On the other hand, the idea of having to publish in French or in Latin (the official languages of the competition) was likely to prevent him from reaching the German-speaking philosophical public he was targeting.⁷

The project of a criticism of Kant and the idealists was not, however, abandoned. Bolzano and Příhonský divided the labour between themselves: Příhonský, with Bolzano’s help, would deal with Kant; he ultimately delivered New Anti-Kant. For his part, Bolzano wrote three essays on idealism that were published posthumously by Příhonský,⁸ one year after New Anti-Kant. Bolzano also provided constant input into Příhonský’s work, even offering to draft parts of the book. The manuscript, which was finished in 1847, was granted Bolzano’s approval, though Bolzano succumbed to his lifetime struggle with pulmonary illness the following year, and so was unable to see the document through to publication.

§4 The reception of New Anti-Kant

New Anti-Kant’s literary fate turned out not to meet what had been Bolzano’s hopes and expectations: to contain “as much as he could – through the diffusion of distinct notions – the terrible disaster Kant unwittingly brought about in Germany through his philosophy”.⁹ The initial distribution of the book was limited and its success dismal. Though we can find occasional references to the work – perhaps most notably by Hans Vaihinger in his Commentary on the first Critique, and by Benno Kerry, one of Brentano’s students¹⁰ – few copies survived. There is a record of a projected new edition of New Anti-Kant in the 1930s by Walter Dubislav and Heinrich Scholz,¹¹ though this unfortunately never materialized. Rather, all the way up through the 1990s, the work continued to languish in neglect. Evidence of this is that the only monograph (Laz 1993; in French) devoted to Bolzano’s criticism of Kant actually never consulted New Anti-Kant: the author presumed that it was lost.

In recent years, the situation has much improved. A key factor here is Edgar Morscher’s excellent new critical edition (in the Beyträge zur Bolzano-Forschung, vol. 7), with its meticulous revision of the passages quoted from Kant’s works and its detailed introduction, all of which forms a tremendous resource for continuing research. Its appearance has dovetailed with New Anti-Kant beginning to garner more of the attention that it deserves within the circles of Bolzano studies. Yet even if its reception-history has begun to take a happy turn for the better, the depths of this work have by no means been plumbed, with existing discussion remaining neither exhaustive nor definitive.¹² Our translation of this little book is meant to bring it even further into the spotlight. What is more, we hope to make it accessible to an even broader readership: to English-readers primarily interested in Bolzano’s own thought; those who are interested in his influence on the history of analytical philosophy at large and that of phenomenology; those who are already invested in Kant’s thought and his context; and those who are looking for a fresh perspective to bring to bear on Kant scholarship and the history of German thought more broadly.

This work will add a new voice to the recent growth of interest in tracing out the Kantian themes in the history of theoretical philosophy in the...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Part I
• Part II
• Index