DOCSLIB.ORG

SEEING ALL THINGS in SPACE Kant and the Reality of Space in the Context of Early Modern Philosophy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SEEING ALL THINGS in SPACE Kant and the Reality of Space in the Context of Early Modern Philosophy Reports from the Department of Philosophy Vol. 43 SEEING ALL THINGS IN SPACE Kant and the Reality of Space in the Context of Early Modern Philosophy Jan Johansson University of Turku Finland Copyright © 2020 Jan Johansson SERIES EDITORS: Olli Koistinen Juha Räikkä Department of Philosophy University of Turku FI-20014 Finland ISSN 1457-9332 ISBN 978-951-29-7813-7 (print) ISBN 978-951-29-7814-4 (pdf) Painosalama Oy, Turku 2020 Written by Jan Johansson Doctoral Programme of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Turku, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Philosophy, Contemporary History and Political Science Supervised by Professor Olli Koistinen Dr Hemmo Laiho University of Turku, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Philosophy, Contemporary History and Political Science Reviewed by Professor Corey W. Dyck University of Western Ontario Dr Anssi Korhonen University of Helsinki Opponent Professor Corey W. Dyck University of Western Ontario Chairperson (custos) Professor Olli Koistinen University of Turku, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Philosophy, Contemporary History and Political Science Turun yliopiston laatujärjestelemän mukaisesti tämän julkaisun alkuperäisyys on tarkastettu Turnitin OriginalityCheck-järjestelmällä. The originality of this dissertation has been checked in accordance with the University of Turk quality assurance system using the Turnitin OriginalityCheck service. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In May 2006, at a seminar on Leibniz in Uppsala, with Lilli Alanen and John Carriero, I had the great pleasure and honour of making acquaintance with Olli Koistinen. I made a remark on Kant’s metaphysics, which Olli did not think was particularly accurate. But to my surprise, Olli later chatted me up, and it turned out that he had taken keen interest in Kant’s lectures on metaphysics. Olli’s understanding of the lectures resonated well with mine, namely that they reveal a more relaxed Kant, a Kant ready to unlock the keys to his metaphysics, once so familiar to his students. Unlocking Kant’s metaphysics involves, more precisely, understanding it in the context of early modern philosophy. Thus, Kant’s original attempt to uncover the ideality of the world, the soul, and God, starts to make sense once we consider what he has to say about their substantiality, which brings him into dialogue with early modern philosophy. The following year I attended a seminar, in the company of Camilla Serck-Hansen and Christel Fricke, arranged by the department of philosophy, at the University of Turku. For me personally, this was a first opportunity to air some thoughts about Kant’s metaphysics, and to familiarise myself with the Rationalist Circle. From that moment, the Rationalist Circle became my philosophical family. Here I want to take the opportunity to thank Olli Koistinen, Joseph Almog, Hemmo Laiho, Valtteri Viljanen, Arto Repo, Tapio Korte, Markus Nikkarla, Jani Sinokki, Matti Sarni, and Peter Myrdal, for all their critical comments and suggestions during the work with my dissertation. Throughout the years, I have benefited much from their deep knowledge of philosophy in general and early modern philosophy in particular. It is my hope that at least some of this work can live up to the high standards of the Rationalist Circle. During the academic year 2017-2018, I had the opportunity to stay in Turku, partly thanks to a grant from the University of Turku, which I want to acknowledge. This was one of the happiest years of my life. To this contributed not only the debates of the Rationalist Circle – often extended to Fabbes Café –, but also the practical help I received from the lovely Hanna-Mari Salonen. In particular, I am indebted to Hemmo Laiho for his help in all sorts of practical matters, among them reading an earlier version of the manuscript of this work. Thanks also to the valuable comments and swift work of the reviewers, Professor Corey W. Dyck and Doctor Anssi Korhonen, and the proof-reader, Professor Mark Dougherty. On a personal note, I want to thank my late father Gunnar, my mother Hildegard, and my sister Siv for all their encouragement and patience throughout the years. Finally, I want to thank my wife Gitta, who literally has a heart that is too big for her little body. Without your love, I am nothing. ABSTRACT One of the basic concepts of the metaphysics of the pre-critical Kant is the early modern, Leibnizian concept of the world as a synthetic whole of simple substances. Space is the order according to which these simple substances coexist, in the presence of God. Kant’s turn to critical philosophy contained a re-evaluation of Leibnizian metaphysics. Space is an ideal form of sensibility, not a real order of coexisting simple substances. This dissertation argues that Kant’s critical turn inspired him to outline a new science of subjective space – the Transcendental Aesthetic. Leibnizians argued that our knowledge of space is innate, but still abstracted from the common sense idea of extension. In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant responded that this misrepresents our knowledge of the subjective space, which is the topic of the Transcendental Aesthetic. An exposition of the marks of the concept of subjective space not only shows that space is a form of sensibility, but that it is a continuous, actually infinite whole, which precedes its potentially infinite parts. In Kant’s terminology space is an analytic whole, which gives a key to the ideality of space, according to this dissertation. One important topic in the literature concerns Kant’s awareness of the Leibnizian alternative that space might be both a form of sensibility and an order of coexistence. This dissertation claims that Kant could not rule out this alternative completely. However, in one aspect, Kant was successful: Leibnizians had to admit that continuity belongs to space, not as an order of coexistence, but as a form of sensibility. We see all things in continuous space, not in God. However, seeing things in space is analogous to seeing them in God. Keywords: metaphysics, early modern philosophy, space, ideality TIIVISTELMÄ Kantin niin sanotun esikriittisen metafysiikan yksi leibnizilaisista peruskäsityksistä on, että maailma on yksinkertaisten substanssien muodostama synteettinen kokonaisuus. Tässä näkemyksessä avaruus on järjestys, jonka mukaisesti yksinkertaiset substanssit ovat yhdessä olemassa Jumalan läsnäollessa. Kantin kriittiseen filosofiaan sisältyy leibnizilaisen metafysiikan uudelleen arviointi. Sen sijaan, että avaruus olisi yhdessä olemassa olevien yksinkertaisten substanssien reaalinen järjestys, avaruus on aistimellisuuden ideaali muoto. Tässä väitöskirjassa esitetään, kuinka Kantin kriittinen käänne sai hänet hahmottelemaan uuden subjektiivisen avaruuden tieteen – transsendentaalisen estetiikan. Leibnizilaiset väittivät, että tietomme avaruudesta on sisäsyntyistä, joskin abstrahoitu arkiajatteluunkin kuuluvasta ulotteisuuden ideasta. Puhtaan järjen kritiikissä Kant puolestaan väittää, että leibnizilaiset vääristävät tietomme subjektiivisesta avaruudesta, joka on aiheena transsendentaalisessa estetiikassa. Subjektiivisen avaruuden käsitteen erittely osoittaa, että avaruus on paitsi aistimellisuuden muoto, myös jatkuva, aktuaalisesti ääretön kokonaisuus, joka edeltää sen potentiaalisesti äärettömiä osia. Kantin terminologiassa avaruus on analyyttinen kokonaisuus, joka tässä väitöskirjassa esitetyn perusteella toimii avaimena avaruuden ideaalisuuteen. Tutkimuskirjallisuudessa tärkeä aihe on, miten tietoinen Kant oli leibnizilaisesta vaihtoehdosta, että avaruus saattaisi olla sekä aistimellisuuden muoto että yhdessä olemisen järjestys. Tässä väitöskirjassa esitetään, ettei Kant voinut kokonaan sulkea pois tätä vaihtoehtoa. Yhdessä mielessä Kant kuitenkin onnistui: leibnizilaiset olivat pakotettuja myöntämään, että jatkuvuus kuuluu avaruuteen aistimellisuuden muotona eikä yhdessä olemisen järjestyksenä. Näemme kaikki oliot jatkumollisessa avaruudessa, emme Jumalassa. Niiden näkeminen avaruudessa on kuitenkin analogista niiden näkemiselle Jumalassa. Asiasanat: metafysiikka, uuden ajan alun filosofia, avaruus, idealismi CONTENTS 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Previous Studies of the Dogmatic Period ................................................................. 3 1.4 Interpreting the Transcendental Turn......................................................................... 8 1.5 The Transcendental Turn and the Concept of Space ............................................... 10 1.6 Leibniz’s Analysis Situs and Kant’s Science of Space ............................................ 13 1.7 Rereading the Inaugural Dissertation....................................................................... 15 1.8 Towards a Reading of the Transcendental Aesthetic as a Phenomenology............. 18 1.9 Disposition ............................................................................................................... 22 2. Monads, Places, and Space in the Metaphysics of the Young Kant .............................. 27 2.1 Background: Leibniz on Monads, Places and Points of View ................................. 27 2.2 Physical Unities, Places, and Space: Wolff’s Response .......................................... 34 2.3 Monads, Places and Physical Influx: Knutzen’s Arguments ..................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • François Duchesneau, Leibniz, Le Vivant Et L'organisme, Paris: J. Vrin
    François Duchesneau, Leibniz, le vivant et l’organisme, Paris: J. Vrin, 2010. 348 p. Reviewed by Justin E. H. Smith, Concordia University or some time, this reviewer has been championing the translation into English of François Duchesneau’s many books on the natural philosophy of Leibniz. GreaterF availability of his work in the English-speaking world, along with that of Michel Fichant and, more recently, the contributions of Anne-Lise Rey, Raphaële Andrault, and Arnaud Pelletier, would in combination play a powerful role in helping scholars to form a richer picture of Leibniz’s natural-philosophical model of the corporeal world, and of this model’s centrality to his deepest and most mature philosophical project. With the publication of his most recent book, Duchesneau has reconfirmed the urgency of learning about this side of Leibniz. The principal purpose of this review will be simply to summarize the recent book and to impart in a synoptic way the picture of Leibniz it draws for readers who may not have the time or capacity to work through the French text. If I am successful, this synopsis might then serve as an argument for the eventual publication of a translation. Following this, I will conclude by raising a few questions that I see as arising from this rich study, questions that might in turn serve as the germs of future research along the path Duchesneau has carved. Duchesneau’s book has six principal theses. First, he argues that Leibniz is committed to the need for a distinct philosophical account of the living being within the order of nature, as well as of the integrated and functional character of the micromachines that compose it.
    [Show full text]
  • Anubav Vasudevan
    Anubav Vasudevan University of Chicago Tel: (773) 702-4234 Department of Philosophy Email: [email protected] 1115 E. 58th St. Office: Rosenwald Hall 218C Chicago, IL 60637 Education 2012 Ph.D., Philosophy, Columbia University 2004 M.A., Philosophy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 2002 B.S., Physics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, summa cum laude Employment 2011- Assistant Professor, Philosophy Department, University of Chicago 2009-2011 Core Curriculum Preceptor, Columbia University Publications Malink, M. and Vasudevan, A. (2018). Leibniz on the Logic of Conceptual Containment and Coincidence. In de Risi, V., editor, Leibniz on the Structure of Sciences: Modern Essays in Logic, Mathematics, Dynamics. Forthcoming from Springer International Publishing Vasudevan, A. (2018). Chance, Determinism and the Classical Theory of Probability. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 67:32{43 Vasudevan, A. (2017). Entropy and Insufficient Reason: A Note on the Judy Benjamin problem. Forthcoming in British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Vasudevan, A. (2017). Biased Information and the Exchange Paradox. Forthcoming in Synthese. Malink, M. and Vasudevan, A. (2017). Leibniz's Theory of Propositional Terms: A reply to Massimo Mugnai. The Leibniz Review, 27:139{55 Kim, B. and Vasudevan, A. (2017). How to Expect a Surprising Exam. Synthese, 194:3101{33 Malink, M. and Vasudevan, A. (2016). The Logic of Leibniz's Generales inquisitiones de analysi notionum et veritatum. Review of Symbolic Logic, 9:686{751 Vasudevan, A. (2013). On the A Priori and A Posteriori Assessment of Probabilities. Journal of Applied Logic, 11(4):440{451 Gaifman, H. and Vasudevan, A. (2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz on Logic, Language and Signs: a Bibliography (L- Z)
    Leibniz on Logic, Language and Signs: a Bibliography (L- Z) https://www.historyoflogic.com/biblio/leibniz-logic-biblio-two.htm History of Logic from Aristotle to Gödel by Raul Corazzon | e-mail: [email protected] Leibniz on Logic, Language and Semiotics. Annotated bibliography (Second Part: L - Z) BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Lenders, Winfried. 1971. Die Analytische Begriffs- Und Urteilstheorie Von G.W. Leibniz Und Chr. Wolff. Hildesheim: Georg Olms. 2. Lenzen, Wolfgang. 1983. "Leibniz Und Die Entwicklung Der Modernen Logik." In Leibniz, Werk Und Wirkung. Iv. Internationaler Leibniz-Kongress (Hannover, 14 - 19 November 1983), 418-425. Hannover: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Gesellschaft. Reprinted in revised form in: W. Lenzen - Calculus Universalis (2004) pp. 15-22 3. ———. 1983. "Zur 'Extensionalen' Und 'Intensionalen' Interpretation Der Leibnizschen Logik." Studia Leibnitiana no. 15:129-148. Reprinted in revised form in: W. Lenzen - Calculus Universalis (2004) pp. 23-46. "Against the prevailing opinion expressed, e.g., by L. Couturat it is argued that the so-called "intensional" point of view which Leibniz mostly preferred to the nowadays usual extensional interpretation is neither "confuse et vague" nor may it be made responsible for the alleged "échec final de son système" (Couturat, La logique de Leibniz, 387). We present a precise definition of an "intensional" semantics which reflects the Leibnizian ideas and which may be proven to be equivalent to standard extensional semantics." 4. ———. 1984. "'Unbestimmte Begriffe' Bei Leibniz." Studia Leibnitiana
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz and the Foundations of Physics: the Later Years
    Leibniz and the Foundations of Physics: The Later Years The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation McDonough, Jeffrey K. 2016. Leibniz and the Foundations of Physics: The Later Years. Philosophical Review 125, no. 1: 1–34. doi:10.1215/00318108-3321711. Published Version doi:10.1215/00318108-3321711 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:30780190 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP Leibniz and the Foundations of Physics: The Later Years Jeffrey K. McDonough 0. Introduction In the opening paragraphs of his now classic paper “Leibniz and the Foundations of Physics: The Middle Years,” Daniel Garber suggests that Leibniz must seem something of a paradox to contemporary readers (1985, 27). On the one hand, Leibniz is commonly held to have advanced a broadly idealist metaphysics according to which the world is ultimately grounded in mind-like monads whose properties are exhausted by their perceptions and appetites. On such a picture, physical bodies would seem to be nothing more than the perceptions or thoughts (or contents thereof) enjoyed by immaterial substances.1 On the other hand, it is generally recognized (if perhaps less clearly) that Leibniz was also a prominent physicist in his own day and that he saw his work in physics as supporting, and being supported by, his metaphysics.2 But how, in light of his idealism, could that be? How could Leibniz think that his pioneering work in physics might lend support to his idealist metaphysics, and conversely that his Earlier versions of this essay were presented to audiences at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Yale University, Brown University, and Dartmouth College.
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz on Human Finitude, Progress, and Eternal Recurrence: the Argument of the ‘Apokatastasis’ Essay Drafts and Related Texts
    Leibniz on Human Finitude, Progress, and Eternal Recurrence: The Argument of the ‘Apokatastasis’ Essay Drafts and Related Texts Forthcoming in Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy DAVID FORMAN In a draft essay from around 1701, Leibniz argues that because humanity can express only a finite number of unique statements, it will eventually run out of new things to say. From this, Leibniz draws the further conclusion that if humanity lasts long enough, ‘there must also be a time when the same deeds would return and when nothing would be done that had not been done before, for deeds provide matter for speech’ (F 58). This is a remarkable conclusion, its conditional formulation notwithstanding: it recalls the cyclical cosmology, defended by ancient Stoics and Platonists, in which future world ages will be indistinguishable from the present one. And far from distancing this conclusion from such ancient antecedents, Leibniz invites us to consider it as their rehabilitation: ‘Indeed, there would necessarily be certain periods like the Platonic year, such that in the course of one age exactly the same things would be done, as far as the senses are concerned, as were done before in another age’ (F 56–58). One reason that this apparent rehabilitation of an ancient cyclical cosmology is remarkable is that it stands in such obvious conflict with the sacred history and prophecy contained in Christian Scripture, which contains several unique events: for example, the fall of mankind into corruption, the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus, and the redemption of the elected in the world to come after the destruction of the present world.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conflict of Philosophy
    THE CONFLICT OF PHILOSOPHY A HISTORY OF REASON DISORDER RAWAA MAHMOUD HUSSAIN Publishing Partner: IJSRP In Publication Partner: International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications (ISSN: 2250-3153) THE CONFLICT OF PHILOSOPHY A HISTORY OF REASON DISORDER RAWAA MAHMOUD HUSSAIN Publishing Partner: IJSRP Inc. www.ijsrp.org Publication Partner: International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications (ISSN: 2250-3153) Preface I have been inquiring about the ongoing nature of human relations and wondering: Whether the conflict represents a fundamental value that determines the international relationships or is there a way to the possibility of human coexistence and world peace? Today, in my work, “The Conflict of Philosophy,” I am trying to discover this idea in a new and different field, Philosophy. This book has been written and designed to collect the philosophy and its history as a methodology of research to study the conflict of philosophy. It is started with an introduction to understanding Samuel Huntington’s project of the Clash of Civilizations. It also maintains to search for the shadows and historical, social, cultural, scientific and religious extensions of this idea: Galileo Galilei (1564–1642): The message of science, the creation of the universe, Religion and life, the death of philosophy, and the turbulence of reason. I have also started, in chapter 1, with the most prominent eras in philosophy, which is the era of Greek philosophy, represented by Socrates (470/469 – 399 BC), Plato (c. 427 – 347 BCE), and Aristotle (c. 384 – 322 BCE). In chapter 2, I moved directly to the modern philosophy stated by Francis Bacon (1561–1626) and René Descartes (1596–1650).
    [Show full text]
  • Why Do We Study Leibniz (After 300 Years)?
    This is a repository copy of Why Do We Study Leibniz (After 300 Years)?. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/115492/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Wilson, Catherine orcid.org/0000-0002-0760-4072 (2017) Why Do We Study Leibniz (After 300 Years)? The Leibniz Review. pp. 1-9. Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Why Do We Study Leibniz (After 300 Years)? The task of writing a piece on why Leibniz continues to fascinate and perplex us 300 years after his death is one I approach with both enthusiasm and hesitation. I begin with a question? Can our traditional attitude towards the canonical philosophers of the past survive the innovations in historical research that have taken place over the last half century? The growth of research in the historiography of philosophy, the opportunities for inviquires, sharing of knowledge through conferences, discussion, and publications that have been made possible by modern academic life have brought the figures we study closer to us.
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz's Theory of Propositional Terms: a Reply to Massimo
    Leibniz’s Theory of Propositional Terms: A Reply to Massimo Mugnai Marko Malink, New York University Anubav Vasudevan, University of Chicago n his contribution to this volume of the Leibniz Review, Massimo Mugnai provides a very helpful review of our paper “The Logic of Leibniz’s Generales IInquisitiones de Analysi Notionum et Veritatum.” Mugnai’s review, which contains many insightful comments and criticisms, raises a number of issues that are of central importance for a proper understanding of Leibniz’s logical theory. We are grateful for the opportunity to explain our position on these issues in greater depth than we did in the paper. In his review, Mugnai puts forward two main criticisms of our reconstruction of the logical calculus developed by Leibniz in the Generales Inquisitiones. Both of these criticisms relate to Leibniz’s theory of propositional terms. The first concerns certain extensional features that we ascribe to the relation of conceptual containment as it applies to propositional terms. The second concerns the syntactic distinction we draw between propositions and propositional terms in the language of Leibniz’s calculus. In what follows, we address each of these criticisms in turn, beginning with the second. Propositions and Propositional Terms One of the most innovative aspects of the Generales Inquisitiones is Leibniz’s in- troduction into his logical theory of the device of propositional terms. By means of this device, Leibniz proposed to represent propositions of the form A is B by terms such as A’s being B. Leibniz regarded these propositional terms as abstract terms (abstracti termini, A VI 4 987), with the important qualification that they are merely “logical” or “notional” abstracts (A VI 4 740; cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Interoffice MEMORANDUM To: Senate Committee for Quality Assurance From: Anthony Clarke, Assistant V.P
    Office of Assistant Vice-President (Program Quality Assurance) x54124 interoffice MEMORANDUM to: Senate Committee for Quality Assurance from: Anthony Clarke, Assistant V.P. (PQA) subject: Periodic Review of the Department of Philosophy date: 12 March 2013 Please find attached the documents for the periodic review of the Department of Philosophy: Final Assessment Report, the Executive Summary which includes the responses of the Chair and Dean, and the responses of the Chair, Dean, and Provost as separate documents. As per section IV.4.A.(vii) of our IQAP for the review of departments and schools, the Executive Summary has been prepared for the information of Senate, and submission to the Ontario Universities Council for Quality Assurance. SENATE COMMITTEE FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of FINAL ASSESSMENT REPORT March 2013 Membership of Internal Review Subcommittee (IRS) External Reviewers: Dr. Andrew Hunter, Ryerson University Dr. Eduardo Mendieta, Stony Brook University, New York Facilitator: Dr. Michèle Preyde, The Internal Review Committee (IRC) received the Final Assessment Report for the Department of Philosophy from the IRS on 05 February 2013. The IRC now presents an Executive Summary of the review, which includes the following: - Introduction - Summary of the review process - Review Committee’s recommendations - Administrative responses to the report from the Chair, Dean, and Provost INTRODUCTION The Department of Philosophy is a community of dedicated teachers and productive philosophical researchers. It was founded in 1965 with an initial complement of five male faculty (John Bruce (chair), Brian Calvert, Michael Ruse, Donald Stewart, George Todd) which quickly grew: in 1975 there were 21 regular faculty (1 female).
    [Show full text]
  • Yitzhak Y. Melamed Curriculum Vitae (07.01.2013) 2317 Mellow Court, Baltimore, MD 21209 Phone: (410) 484-3926 Email: [email protected]
    Yitzhak Y. Melamed Curriculum Vitae (07.01.2013) 2317 Mellow Court, Baltimore, MD 21209 Phone: (410) 484-3926 Email: [email protected] EDUCATION 1996-2005 Yale University - Ph.D., Philosophy (2005). Dissertation The Metaphysics of Substance and the Metaphysics of Thought in Spinoza. Advisor: Professor Michael Della Rocca (Philosophy, Yale University). 1996-2000 Yale University - M. Phil. in Philosophy, June 2000. 1992-1996 Tel Aviv University - M.A. in History and Philosophy of Science, Summa cum laude. Master's thesis: The Liar Paradox, Sentence Construction, and the atemporality of Logic. 1991-1995 Tel Aviv University - B.A.-M.A. Program, The Elkana-Lautman Interdisciplinary Program for Outstanding Students. Main fields of study: Philosophy, Neuropsychology, and Mathematics. 1990-1991 Tel Aviv University - B.A. Studies, Psychology and Philosophy. AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION Early Modern Philosophy; Kant and German Idealism. AREAS OF COMPETENCE Metaphysics (primarily, tropes, mereology, and time); 19th Century Philosophy; Medieval Philosophy; History & Philosophy of Science; Political philosophy. TEACHING EXPERIENCE July 2013 - Johns Hopkins University. Professor. Department of Philosophy. 2010-2013 Johns Hopkins University. Associate Professor (tenured). Department of Philosophy. 2008-2010 Johns Hopkins University. Assistant Professor (tenure-track). Department of Philosophy. Courses taught: “Spinoza’s Metaphysics”; “History of Modern Philosophy”; “Spinoza’s Theological Political Treatise”; “Spinoza and German Idealism” (co-taught with Eckart
    [Show full text]
  • Kant Bibliography
    KANT BIBLIOGRAPHY The literature on Kant is very large and con- edition (see further the List of Abbreviations stantly growing so it is necessarily the case in this volume). that this bibliography is selective but the selection is aimed at providing for the reader reference to the major recent works on each aspect of Kant’s philosophy, at least with 2. ENGLISH TRANSlationS regard to English-language contributions. Only very selective attention has been paid The Cambridge Edition of Kant’s work, which to work in other languages with the result has been appearing since 1992, edited by Paul that the overwhelming focus is on works in Guyer and Allen Wood, has gained authority English. However, this bibliography is rare in as the source for many of Kant’s works and presenting works on each of the major ele- includes translations of lectures and notes ments of the Critical division of Kant’s works that were, until very recently, not available in addition to incorporating wide material at all in English. The edition of the Critique on the background, context and influence of of Pure Reason, published in 1998, has not, the Critical philosophy. – GB however, decisively replaced the long-classic translation by Norman Kemp Smith (1929) (published by Palgrave Macmillan). The 2007 edition of Kemp Smith also includes an 1. KANT’s WORKS IN GERMAN extensive bibliography of English-language work on the Critique but does not entirely The standard critical edition of Kant’s works, overlap with this one as it is more focused which provides the pagination for all vol- than this.
    [Show full text]
  • Yitzhak Y. Melamed Curriculum Vitae (11.22.2015) 7808 Crossland Road, Baltimore, MD 21208 Phone: (410) 484-0276 Email: [email protected]
    Yitzhak Y. Melamed Curriculum Vitae (11.22.2015) 7808 Crossland Road, Baltimore, MD 21208 Phone: (410) 484-0276 Email: [email protected] EDUCATION 1996-2005 Yale University - Ph.D., Philosophy (2005). Dissertation The Metaphysics of Substance and the Metaphysics of Thought in Spinoza. Advisor: Professor Michael Della Rocca (Philosophy, Yale University). 1992-1996 Tel Aviv University - M.A. in History and Philosophy of Science, Summa cum laude. Master's thesis: The Liar Paradox, Sentence Construction, and the atemporality of Logic. 1991-1995 Tel Aviv University - B.A.-M.A. Program, The Elkana-Lautman Interdisciplinary Program for Outstanding Students. Main fields of study: Philosophy, Neuropsychology, and Mathematics. 1990-1991 Tel Aviv University - B.A. Studies, Psychology and Philosophy. AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION Early Modern Philosophy; Kant and German Idealism. AREAS OF COMPETENCE Metaphysics (primarily, tropes, mereology, and time); 19th Century Philosophy; Medieval Philosophy; History & Philosophy of Science; Political philosophy. TEACHING EXPERIENCE July 2013 - Johns Hopkins University. Professor. Department of Philosophy. Courses taught: “The Identity of Indiscernibles”; “Spinoza’s Metaphysics”; “History of Modern Philosophy”; “Spinoza’s Theological Political Treatise”; “Spinoza and German Idealism” (co-taught with Eckart Förster); “Topics in Metaphysics: Mereology”; “Spinoza and the Pantheism Controversy” (co- taught with Eckart Förster); “Descartes”; “Kant and the Early Moderns” (co-taught with Eckart Förster); “Possible Worlds: Metaphysics and Logic (co-taught with Justin Bledin); “Spinoza’s Political Theology”; “Introduction to Contemporary Metaphysics.” 2010-2013 Johns Hopkins University. Associate Professor (tenured). Department of Philosophy. 2008-2010 Johns Hopkins University. Assistant Professor (tenure-track). Department of Philosophy. February 2008 Competing tenure-track job offers: University of Pittsburgh (Philosophy); Ohio State University (Philosophy); University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill (Philosophy).
    [Show full text]