Shell, as well as an introduction and individual contributions by the editors themselves. The essays are broad-ranging in nature, treating Kant's ideas about antbropology from a variety of viewpoints, including their overall relationship to his theoretical philosophy, practical philosophy, aesthetics, and philosophy of history. For present purposes, I want to closely examine what I take to be the two most relevant issues for those interested in gaining a better understanding of Kant's practical philosophy: first, the relationship of Kant's anthropology to his overall critical philosophy; and second, the relationship of Kant's anthropology to his ethical theory in particular.Before proceeding, however, it is worthwhile to provide some historical background on Kant's relationship to anthropology more generally. As Jacobs and Kain state in their introduction, Kant's focus upon human nature is perhaps the only theme which appears consistently in all ICant's major writings. Kant first taught a lecture course on anthropology in the winter semester of 1772-73 and continued to offer it for over two decades until bis retirement in 1 796. Sbortly afterwards, in 1798, Kant compiled his notes from his widely popular lectures in order to eventually publisb them as a textbook entitled Anthropology from a Pragniatie Point of View. Despite his long-standing interest in this topic, however, Kant's attitude toward anthropology has not always been wholly affirmative. Several essays in this volume, especially those by Jacobs and Kain, Stark, Louden, and Brandt, draw attention to
In order to make headway on the debate about whether Kant was a constructivist, nonconstructivist, or instead defends a hybrid view that somehow entirely sidesteps these categories, I attempt to clarify the terms of the debate more carefully than is usually done. First, I discuss the overall relationship between realism and constructivism. Second, I identify four main features of Kantian constructivism in general. Third, I examine three rival versions of metanormative Kantian constructivism, what I’ll call axiological, constitutivist, and rationalist constructivist. I argue that Kant is best seen as a rationalist constructivist. I conclude by arguing that although it’s a constructivist view, this reading avoids the main pitfalls of traditional Kantian constructivism. In doing so, it helps us to achieve a satisfying rapprochement between constructivist and non-constructivist (that is, so-called ‘realist’) readings of Kant.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.