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.
Comments
Post a Comment