KANTIANISM

either the system of thought contained in the writings of the epoch-making 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant or those later philosophies that arose from the study of Kant's writings and drew their inspiration from his principles. Only the latter is the concern of this article. the system of critical philosophy created by the 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant, or the philosophies that have arisen from the study of his writings and have drawn inspiration from his principles. In his general methodological approach, Kant sought to avoid the confusions of earlier thinkers who proposed theories about the nature of the world based on reasona procedure he called dogmaticby first examining the possibilities and limits of reason itselfa procedure he called transcendental or critical. The Kantian movement comprises a loose assemblage of diverse philosophies that participate in the critical spirit and method of Kant and share his concern to explore the nature, and especially the limits, of human knowledge in the hope of raising philosophy to the level of a science. Inasmuch as the work of Kant himself constituted a synthesis of elements very different in origin and nature, each of the sub-movements of Kantianism has tended to focus on its own selection and reading of Kant's many concerns. At the end of his chief work, the Kritik der reinen Vernunft (1781; Critique of Pure Reason), Kant enjoined his readers to enter with him upon the narrow footpath of critical thought. At the end of the 1790s, Kant's philosophy was being taught at virtually every major German university. Works on the critical philosophy were published in Holland and England by 1796, and by 1801 it had even come to the attention of the French Academy. Almost immediately, the philosophy generated opposition and reinterpretation. Rationalists and empiricists objected to Kant's critical idealism, while some idealists decried his rationalism and intellectualism. A large group of disciples, especially in Berlin, set about rendering Kant's rigorous teachings more widely accessible. There emerged in Germany a group of philosophers, often called the semi-Kantians, who, while identifying themselves with the original Kantian standpoint, nonetheless found it necessary to adapt and reconstruct certain features of Kant's system that they viewed as inadequate, unclear, or even wrong. Notable among this group was Friedrich Schiller, who began his career as a dramatist and turned his attention to philosophy for a few years after reading Kant's Kritik der Urteilskraft (1790; Critique of Judgment). Schiller agreed with Kant on the task and limits of philosophy, on the distinction between realism and idealism, and on many other points, but perceived a serious error in Kant's sharp distinction between reason and nature and in his location of freedom, morality, beauty, and the aesthetic impulse solely in the former. Schiller sought something that would unite the two, some third impulse to harmonize reason and nature, which he called the aesthetic impulse, or play. Friedrich Bouterwek initially diverged from Kant in the realm of ethics, where he could not tolerate the lack of a material moral principle; in later writings, he introduced several more realist elements. Jakob Fries detested the prejudice of the transcendental and attempted to give a foundation of psychological analysis to Kant's critical theory. The period from 1790 to 1835 was the age of the great system-builders in German philosophy. The numerous branches that diverged after the death of G.W.F. Hegel in 1831 became preoccupied with religious, social, and political questions. A major revival of interest in Kantian philosophy began about 1860, however, the motto for which was coined shortly thereafter by Otto LiebmannZurck nach Kant! (Back to Kant!). At first, neo-Kantianism, as the revival came to be called, was primarily an epistemological movement, but it slowly extended over the whole domain of philosophy. The neo-Kantians asserted that philosophy was to be considered not merely a personal conviction or point of view, but a science whose conditions had yet to be formulated. Yet, in attempting to repeat Kant's efforts to lead philosophy into the safe road of a science, the neo-Kantians found themselves confronted with a new model in science itself. The first decisive impetus toward the reception and revival of Kant's fundamental ideas came from natural scientists. The physicist and physiologist Hermann von Helmholtz, for instance, applied physiological studies of the senses to the question of the epistemological significance of spatial perception raised by the Transcendental Aesthetic of the first Critique. Helmholtz abandoned transcendental for psychological inquiries; for him, the true and permanent achievement of Kantian philosophy was to show the participation of the innate laws of the mind in the formulation of ideas. Neo-Kantianism reached its apex in the Marburg school of the early 20th century, which included Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp. These philosophers repudiated the naturalism of Helmholtz and others and reaffirmed the importance of the transcendental method. Another major figure of Marburg neo-Kantianism was Ernst Cassirer, who brought Kantian principles to bear on the whole realm of cultural phenomena, including art, religion, and mythology. Meanwhile, at Heidelberg, Wilhelm Windelband and Heinrich Rickert carried Kantianism into the realm of the philosophy of history. The phenomenology of Edmund Husserl and of the early works of Martin Heidegger (who taught at Marburg from 1923 to 1928) relies upon transcendental concepts. Proponents of other modern schools of philosophy have continued to borrow heavily from Kant, but most have drawn as deeply from other sources as well, rendering the label neo-Kantian inappropriate. Additional reading Though the literature on Kant himself comprises innumerable titles, that on Kantianism is relatively scanty. One work that contains the complete history of Kantianism is Freidrich Ueberwegs Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, 13th ed. (1953), vol. 3:606620 and 4:1128 for the first period and pp. 410483 for the second. For the first period, there is an abundant literature. Of particular interest are Johann E. Erdmann, Versuch einer wissenschaftlichen Darstellung der Geschichte der neuern Zeit, 2nd ed., vol. 3 (1923); and G. Lehmann, Kant im Sptidealismus und die Anfnge der neukantischen Bewegung, in Zeitschrift fr philosophische Forschung, 17:438456 (1963). For the second period, Mariano Campo began the history in his Schizzo storico della esegesi e critica Kantiana (1959); and summaries were written by Lewis W. Beck in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 5:468473 (1967, reissued 1972); and by Hermann Noack in his Die Philosophie Westeuropas, pp. 143196 (1962). See also the Enciclopedia Filosofica, new ed., vol. 3, col. 1225, and vol. 4, col. 953 (1967); Wolfgang Ritzel, Studien zum Wandel der Dantauffassung (1952); Henri Dussort, L'cole de Marbourg (1963); and Heinrich Rickert, Die Heidelberger Tradition und Kants Kritizismus (1934).