Skip to main content

Karl Ameriks, RIP


From the history of ancient philosophy that we discussed yesterday we now turn to the history of modern philosophy, because a distinguished intellectual historian concerned with the latter subject, and associated with the University of Notre Dame, passed away recently and we should note the fact.

Karl Ameriks is best known for his work interpreting Immanuel Kant in particular and German idealism more generally.

He is known as a critic of a strict anti-realist view of Kant (or of that broader tradition). Kant is less of an anti-realist than, say, George Berkeley, on his account.  Not just a different sort of anti-realist, but less of one. 

To explain the relative degrees of anti-realism he had in mind, Ameriks invoked a distinction between "long" arguments and "short" arguments for idealism.  Here is a short argument:

Any experience I have must be an experience of mine.

That which is mine is subjective -- i.e. it depends upon me.

Therefore, any experience I have is subjective.

That is, on one possible reading of Berkeley, a key argument of that thinker.  Kant, on the other hand, offers long arguments for idealism, not because he is a long-winded guy, but they are better suited for a more modest, less global sort of idealism. 

In a review of one of his books in NOTRE DAME PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEWS, in 2004, Rachel Zuckert, of Rice University, said, "And though these interpretations will not persuade all Kantians, Ameriks provides an invaluable service to Kant scholarship, a deeply and notoriously partisan field, in warning against the dangers of reconstructive distortion."

Hale and farewell, then.    

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more