Kant and Force: Dynamics, Natural Science and Transcendental Philosophy Stephen HOWARD January 2017 Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy (CRMEP), Kingston University, for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy. Abstract This thesis presents an interpretation of Immanuel Kant’s theoretical philosophy in which the notion of ‘force’ (Kraft) is of central importance. My analysis encompasses the full span of Kant’s theoretical and natural-scientific writings, from the first publication to the drafts of an unfinished final work. With a close focus on Kant’s texts, I explicate their explicit references to force, providing a narrative of the philosophical role and significance of force in the various periods of the Kantian oeuvre. This represents an intervention into Kant scholarship that seeks to correct the marginal role accorded to ‘force’. The central problem that emerges through the thesis’ attention to force is: how to interpret the simultaneous separation and connection of physical and psychological forces in Kant’s mature, critical philosophy? Physical and psychological forces are strictly separated, and yet a common, ontological conception of force underpins these two domains. I show that this issue has its basis in a tradition of philosophical ‘dynamics’ stemming from Leibniz, which is examined in part one. The three parts of the thesis proceed chronologically through the Kantian oeuvre. Part one reconstructs the historical context of Leibnizian and Newtonian conceptions of force, and presents a narrative of the employment of force in Kant’s pre-critical writings, in their relation to the broad problematic of Leibniz’s dynamics. Part two explores the account of physical and psychological forces, and the common, ontological notion of force, in the major critical-period discussions. Part three presents the late works, namely the third Critique and the Opus postumum, as a ‘philosophy of force’, in which force, with all its necessary ambiguities, plays central roles in Kant’s late systematising endeavours. I conclude that the perspective of this thesis makes possible a new understanding of the nature and unity of Kant’s philosophical project. 1 Acknowledgements I am fortunate to have accrued many debts of gratitude over the course of this research. My sincere thanks to my supervisor Howard Caygill for many inspiring conversations, for his encouragement and selfless engagement with my project, and for a remarkable capacity to intuit where I was (or should be) going. Howard's seminar on the Opus postumum at Paris 8 in Autumn 2013 provided a stimulating example of the possibilities of philosophical interpretation. I am grateful to my second supervisor Stella Sandford for her insistence on rigorous argumentation and focus on the real implications of philosophy, for incisive comments, and for first sparking my interest in Kant. I feel privileged to have been part of the unique heterotopic space of the CRMEP, which challenged me to produce work I would not have elsewhere, and which has fundamentally shaped my philosophical outlook. Many thanks for stimulating discussions to Catherine Malabou, Étienne Balibar, Peter Osborne, Peter Hallward, Eric Alliez, and many fellow students. Among those with whom I discussed the content of the thesis, I wish to extend my heartfelt thanks to Hammam Aldouri, who read quantities of drafts far beyond any reasonable expectation, provided untiringly insightful comments, and whose generosity and belief in my work has been a great motivation. I am grateful, for comments on drafts and discussion, to Jussi Palmusaari, Mijael Jimenez, Lucie Mercier, Andres Saenz de Sicilia, Will Strong, Chris Law, and the members of our research forum; and to numerous conference audiences, particularly the organisers and participants of the Leuven Kant conference, and Henny Blomme, Tzuchien Tho, Daniel Garber, and Eric Watkins. Thanks, for academic and non-academic inspiration, to Rachel Bower, Jernej Mozic, Peter Ely, Michael Washington, Maria El-Turk, Oliver Fuke, Matt Phull, Charlie Clarke, the [Again] circle, Helen Hibbard for encouraging me to return to academia, Alex Howard, and friends in London, Leipzig and Paris. Finally, my thanks and love to my parents, to whom I dedicate this thesis. * I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Arts and Humanities Research Council, both for this PhD research and earlier Masters study. I thank the Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Handschriftenabteilung of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin for permission to reproduce the facsimile pages from Kant’s Opus postumum in Appendix 2, and the Kant-Arbeitsstelle at the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften for their help in making the arrangements. A version of sections 1-3 of chapter 1 has been published as 'Why did Leibniz fail to complete his dynamics?' in the British Journal of the History of Philosophy 25.1 (2017): 22-40, and a version of sections 1-3 of chapter 2 is forthcoming as ‘Modes of cognition, proto-transcendentalism and force in Kant’s Living Forces’ in Akten des 12. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses ‚Natur und Freiheit‘ in Wien vom 21.-25. September 2015, ed. by Violetta L. Waibel und Margit Ruffing. 2 Es ist sehr gut, den Dogmatiker in Bewegung zu bringen, daß er nicht glaubt: er sei sicher und seiner Sache gewiß. [It is very good to bring the dogmatist into motion, so that he does not believe: he is sure and his matter is certain.] – Kant, Metaphysik L1 Man kann kein Urteil über Kant abgeben, ohne in jeder Zeile zu verraten, welche Welt man im eigenen Kopfe trägt. [One cannot submit any judgement about Kant without betraying, in every line, which world one carries in one’s own head.] – Hermann Cohen, Kants Theorie der Erfahrung 3 Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 1. Space, time – and force ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Kant and force: argument of the study ....................................................................................................... 8 3. Kraft and force ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 4. Periodisation .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 5. Force: an overlooked Kantian problematic?............................................................................................. 15 Part One. Dynamics Chapter 1: The ‘new science of dynamics’ ................................................................................................ 23 1. Leibniz’s dynamics .............................................................................................................................................. 23 2. The relation of dynamics, physics and metaphysics ............................................................................. 26 3. Primitive and derivative forces ...................................................................................................................... 29 4. Developments of dynamics in Wolff ............................................................................................................ 37 5. An overview of Leibnizian and Newtonian forces ................................................................................. 42 Chapter 2: Kant’s pre-critical dynamics .................................................................................................... 47 1. Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces................................................................................... 47 2. The implicit aim: conceptualising living force ......................................................................................... 51 3. Dynamics in Living Forces ................................................................................................................................ 54 4. Forces in the 1750s ............................................................................................................................................. 62 5. The forthcoming dynamics treatise ............................................................................................................. 69 6. The broader scope of the forecast dynamics ............................................................................................ 73 7. Dreams and the evaporation of Kant’s confidence in dynamics ....................................................... 80 8. Further limitations in the Inaugural Dissertation .................................................................................. 84 9. Reasons for Dreams’ rejection of dynamics .............................................................................................. 86 Part Two. Kant’s account of force Chapter 3: Nature and knowability of forces ......................................................................................... 99 1. Forces in the critical period ............................................................................................................................. 99 2. Grundkräfte in the Metaphysical Foundations .........................................................................................