Metaphysics in Königsberg Prior to Kant (1703-1770)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
METAPHYSICS IN KÖNIGSBERG PRIOR TO KANT (1703-1770) Marco SGARBI* ABSTRACT: The present contribute aims to reconstruct, using the methodology of intellectual history, the broad spectrum of metaphysical doctrines that Kant could know during the years of the formation of his philosophy. The first part deals with the teaching of metaphysics in Königsberg from 1703 to 1770. The second part examines the main characteristics of the metaphysics in the various handbooks, which were taught at the Albertina, in order to have an exhaustive overview of all metaphysical positions. KEYWORDS: Metaphysics. Eclecticism. Wolffianism. Aristotelianism. Kant. Königsberg. Quellengeschichte. 1 Introduction The Kant-Forschung has never paid a lot of attention to the reconstruction of the Kantian philosophy beginning from the cultural background of Königsberg’s university. Working on Königsberg’s framework * Marco Sgarbi studies Kantian philosophy, German Enlightenment, and the history of Aristotelian tradition. He has published the following books: La Kritik der reinen Vernunft nel contesto della tradizione logica aristotelica (Olms, 2010) Logica e metafisica nel Kant precritico. L’ambiente intellettuale di Königsberg e la formazione della filosofia kantiana (Peter Lang, 2010); La logica dell’irrazionale. Studio sul significato e sui problemi della Kritik der Urteilskraft (Mimesis, 2010). He has published more than ten volumes and he has published in «Rivista di Storia della Filosofia», «Rivista di Filosofia Neo-scolastica», «Medioevo», «Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte», and «Fenomenologia e Società». Trans/Form/Ação, Marília, v.33, n.1, p.31-64, 2010 31 does not mean to deal with Kant’s biography, but to understand if and how the cultural context, in which he grew up, had influenced his philosophical perspectives particularly in the metaphysical field. In fact, according to Giorgio Tonelli, who wrote the only meaningful investigation in this sense (TONELLI, 1975), the Albertina was a battlefield between philosophical and religious positions that determined decisevly Kant’s development. Tonelli, unfortunately, had no the Vorlesungsverzeichnisse available, which have been rediscovered by Riccardo Pozzo two decades ago and which shed light upon the conditions in Königsberg and the making of Kant’s philosophy in three crucial moments: 1) from 1703 to 1740, before Kant’s matriculation; 2) from 1740 to 1746, when Kant was a university student; 3) from 1746 to 1770, when he was lecturer at the Albertina. The present contribute aims to reconstruct the broad spectrum of metaphysical doctrines that Kant could know during the years of the formation of his philosophy. The first part, following the methodology of the new edition of the Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie and of the Quellengeschichte,1 deals with the teaching of metaphysics in Königsberg from 1703 to 1770, using the unpublished materials of the Ratio praelectionum (1703-1719).2 The second part examines the definition, the subject, and the divison of metaphysics in the various handbooks, which were taught at the Albertina, in order to have an exhaustive overview of all metaphysical positions. 2 The teaching of metaphysics in Königsberg A fruitful approach to study metaphysics in Königsberg between 1703 to 1770 is to reconstruct the history of the chair of “logic and metaphysics”. The chair was founded in 1552 and it was simply of “dialectics”, as it was usual in that epoch when metaphysics was incorporated into logic and the metaphysical problems were investigated in theology (POZZO, 2004). During the 17th century the chair became of “logic” and then of “logic and metaphysics”. From its foundation the chair was occupied by Nikolaus Jagenteufel (1552-1567), Martin Lauben (1569-1578), Michael Scrinius (1579- 1 The Quellengeschichte focuses its attention on six issues to reconstruct Kantian philosophy: 1) the statement of Kant; 2) the references in the Briefwechsel and in the Nachlass; 3) the references in other authors; 4) university professors; 5) the textbooks at the Albertina; 6) the intellectual background of Königsberg (HINSKE, 2006). This paper deals particularly with the last three issues. 2 I am preparing a critical edition of Königsberg’s Ratio praelectionum (1703-1719). 32 Trans/Form/Ação, Marília, v.33, n.1, p.31-64, 2010 1585), Lorenz Pantän (1585-1589), Martin Winter (1589-1595), Johann Geldern (1595-1620), Georg Crusius (1621-1625), Levin Pouchen (1626), Lorenz Weger (1626-1629), Micheal Eifler (1630-1657), Melchior Zeidler (1658-1663), Lambert Steger (1663-1667), and Andreas Hedio (1667-1703) (PISANSKI, 1886, p. 149, 291). Many of these professors were extremely important for the history of Königsberg’s university and for the development of the Schulphilosophie in Germany. For example Crusius was the first to introduce the Suárez’s metaphysics at the Albertina, Calov invented the new sciences of gnostologia, noologia, and methodologia, contributing also to the development of the ontology, Zeidler imported Jacopo Zabarella’s methodological works and Hedio wrote the most exhaustive and exstensive commentary to Aristotle’s Organon of the 17th century. These few examples show how much the chair was charaterized by Aristotelianism and Scholastic philosophy. This is the framework within it is necessary to contextualize the first professor of logic and metaphysics of the 18th century: Paul Rabe (SGARBI, 2009a). Rabe was professor of logic and metaphysics from 1703 until his death in 1713. His main contribute in the field of metaphysics is Cursus philosophicus, seu Compendium praecipuarum scientiarum philosophicarum, Dialecticae nempe, Analyticae, Politicae, sub qua comprehenditur Ethica, Physicae atque Metaphysicae. After Rabe, Johann Böse was professor of logic and metaphysics from 1713 to 1719, but he never wrote on metaphysical topics. From 1715 to 1725 Heinrich Oelmann was associate professor of logic and metaphysics. He is important because was the first to lecture Wolffian metaphysics in Königsberg. After Rabe, the most important Aristotelian was Johann Jakob Rohde, who was professor of logic and metaphysics from 1720 to 1727. He was Aristotelian during all his life, teaching Aristotelian metaphysics, as the academic program Meditatione philosophica qua Aristotelica sapientissimus de veritate judice shows (ROHDE, 1722). Another important Aristotelian and a pupil of Rabe was Johann David Kypke, who had the chair of logic and metaphysics from 1725 to 1758, and also hosted Kant for a while in his house.3 From 1728 to 1729 the Aristotelian Johann Gottfried Teske, who was extremley close to Kant, became associate professor of logic and metaphysics. After Teske, the future theologician Daniel Lorenz Salthenius was associate professor of logic and metaphysics between 1729 and 1732. He was usual to teach and comment the Aristotelian works during his lectures. From 1732 to 1733 Johann Georg Bock, one of the most important aestheticians of his time, had the chair 3 Records are extremely ambiguous, and some believe he lodged with Kypke’s nephew, Johann Georg. Anyway the important thing is that Kant was familiar with Kypke’s house. Trans/Form/Ação, Marília, v.33, n.1, p.31-64, 2010 33 of logic and metaphysics, which was subsequently occupied in 1733 by the eclectic Konrad Gottlieb Marquardt, who was Kant’s professor of mathematics.4 From 1734 to 1751 Martin Knutzen, who was Kant’s mentor, became associate professor of logic and metaphysics. After Kypke’s death, Friedrich Johann Buck became from 1759 to 1770 had the chair until Kant replaced him. For an exhaustive investigation on Königsberg’s metaphysical background it is necessary to consider also the teachings at the Albertina in order to understand the main trends and influences of the period and the various changes during times. Before to analyze the teaching of metaphysics in each semester, it is important to recall that in Königsberg in order to be admitted to the faculty of theology it was required to complete the whole cursus philosophicus, which was composed by six different philosophical disciplines: 1) dialectics; 2) analytics; 3) ethics; 4) politics; 5) physics; 6) metaphysics (ERDMANN, 1876, p. 21). This cursus could be taught on different handbooks (POZZO, 1991, p. 75), even if the more suitable handbook for this kind of teaching was Rabe’s Cursus philosophicus (SGARBI, 2009a, p. 276-278). In fact, it was highly recommended to the students of theology, law, and medicine as its subtitle says explicitly – “in superioribus Facultatibus usui esse potest in Theologia nempe, Jurisprudentia et Medicina” – and it was divided in dialectics, analytics, ethics, politics, natural philosophy and metaphysics. The fortune of this handbook is testified by the publication in 1716 of its companion Philosophia propaedeutica sive Philosophiae Fundamenta praerequisita, ad ductum et methodum Cursus Philosophici b. Professoris Raben in tres tomos iuxta triplicem Philosophiam breviter et perspicue distributa (PISANSKI, 1886, p. 529). It is reasonable to suppose that Rabe’s Cursus was for its propaedeuticity and ufficiality the reference handbook of the cursus philosophicus. Other possible handbooks to study the cursus were Franz Albert Aepinus’s Introductio in philosophiam, Ludwig Thümmig’s Institutiones philosophiae wolfianae, Johann Georg Walch’s Introductio in Philosophiam, Johann Christoph Gottsched’s Erste Gründe der gesammten Weltweisheit, Christian Friedrich Ammon’s Lineae primae eruditionis humanae. Only occasionally the cursus philosophicus