|Part of a series on|
Neo-Kantianism refers broadly to a revived type of philosophy along the lines of that laid down by Immanuel Kant in the 18th century, or more specifically by Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy in his work The World as Will and Representation (1818), as well as by other post-Kantian philosophers such as Jakob Friedrich Fries and Johann Friedrich Herbart. It has some more specific reference in later German philosophy.
Origins and forms of Neo-Kantian philosophy
In addition to the work of Hermann von Helmholtz and Eduard Zeller, early fruits of the movement were Kuno Fischer's works on Kant and Friedrich Albert Lange's History of Materialism (Geschichte des Materialismus), the latter of which argued that transcendental idealism superseded the historic struggle between material idealism and mechanistic materialism. Fischer was earlier involved in a dispute with the Aristotelian Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg concerning the interpretation of the results of the Transcendental Aesthetic, a dispute that prompted Hermann Cohen's 1871 seminal work Kants Theorie der Erfahrung, a book often regarded as the foundation of 20th century neo-Kantianism. It is in reference to the Fischer-Trendelenburg quarrel and Cohen's work that Hans Vaihinger started his massive commentary on the Critique of Pure Reason.
Cohen became the leader of the 'Marburg School', the other prominent representatives of which were Paul Natorp and Ernst Cassirer. Another important group, the 'Southwest School' (or Baden School, in Southwest Germany) included Wilhelm Windelband, Heinrich Rickert and Ernst Troeltsch. The Marburg School emphasized epistemology and logic, whereas the Southwest school emphasized issues of culture and value. A third group, mainly represented by Leonard Nelson, developed a Frisean trend.
The Neo-Kantian schools tended to emphasize scientific readings of Kant, often downplaying the role of intuition in favour of concepts. However, the ethical aspects of Neo-Kantian thought often drew them within the orbit of socialism, and they had an important influence on Austromarxism and the revisionism of Eduard Bernstein. Lange and Cohen in particular were keen on this connection between Kantian thought and socialism. Another important aspect of the Neo-Kantian movement was its attempt to promote a revised notion of Judaism, particularly in Cohen's seminal work, one of the few works of the movement available in English translation.
The Neo-Kantian school was of importance in devising a division of philosophy that has had durable influence well beyond Germany. It made early use of terms such as epistemology and upheld its prominence over ontology. Natorp had a decisive influence on the history of phenomenology and is often credited with leading Edmund Husserl to adopt the vocabulary of transcendental idealism. Emil Lask was influenced by Husserl's work, and himself exerted a remarkable influence on the young Martin Heidegger. The debate between Cassirer and Heidegger over the interpretation of Kant led the latter to formulate reasons for viewing Kant as a forerunner of phenomenology; this view was disputed in important respects by Eugen Fink. An abiding achievement of the Neo-Kantians was the founding of the journal Kant-Studien, which still survives today. In the Anglo-American world recent interest in Neo-Kantianism has revived in the wake of the work of Gillian Rose, who is a critic of this movement's influence on modern philosophy, and because of its influence on the work of Max Weber. The Kantian concern for the limits of perception strongly influenced the antipositivist sociological movement in late 19th century Germany, particularly in the work of Georg Simmel (Simmel's question 'What is society?' a direct allusion to Kant's own: 'What is nature'?). The sociologist-philosopher, Michel Foucault, established a radical critique of modernity based in a polemical rediscovery of Kant, drawing influence also from the work of Nietzsche. The current work of Michael Friedman is explicitly neo-Kantian.
The term "Neo-Kantian" can also be used as a general term to designate anyone who adopts Kantian views in a partial or limited way.` The revival of interest in the work of Kant that has been underway since Peter Strawson's work The Bounds of Sense can also be viewed as effectively Neo-Kantian, not least due to its continuing emphasis on epistemology at the expense of ontology. The converse European tradition drawing on the understandings of the transcendental derived from phenomenology continues to emphasize the converse reading as is shown by the recent works of Jean-Luc Nancy.
- Friedrich Albert Lange (1828–1875)
- African Spir (1837–1890)
- Hermann Cohen (1842–1918)
- Alois Riehl (1844–1924)
- Wilhelm Windelband (1848–1915)
- Hans Vaihinger (1852–1933)
- Paul Natorp (1854–1924)
- Karl Vorländer (1860–1928)
- Heinrich Rickert (1863–1936)
- Ernst Troeltsch (1865–1923)
- Jonas Cohn (1869–1947)
- Ernst Cassirer (1874–1945)
- Emil Lask (1875–1915)
- Richard Honigswald (1875–1947)
- Bruno Bauch (1877–1942)
- Leonard Nelson (1882–1927)
- Nicolai Hartmann (1882–1950)
- Lucian Blaga (1885–1961)
- John Hick (1922–2012)
- Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy volume VII (1963), p.436, states that at the turn of the [20th] century Neo-Kantianism was the dominant academic philosophy or Schulphilosophie in the German universities. He attributes (p.361) the 'back to Kant' slogan to Otto Liebmann in 1865.
- Karl Schuhmann and Barry Smith, “Two Idealisms: Lask and Husserl”, Kant-Studien, 83 (1993), 448–466.
- Levine, Donald (ed) 'Simmel: On individuality and social forms' Chicago University Press, 1971. pxix.
References and further reading
- Hermann Cohen (1919) Religion of Reason Out of the Sources of Modern Judaism (1978, trans. New York)
- Harry van der Linden (1988) Kantian Ethics and Socialism (Hackett Publishing Company: Indianapolis and Cambridge)
- Thomas Mormann; Mikhail Katz. Infinitesimals as an issue of neo-Kantian philosophy of science. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 3 (2013), no. 2, 236-280. See http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/671348 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.1027
- Gillian Rose (1981) Hegel Contra Sociology (Athlone: London)
- Arthur Schopenhauer (1818) The World as Will and Representation (1969, trans. Dover: New York)