The Pittsburgh Kantians: Brandom, Conant, Haugeland, and McDowell on Kant
In: History of Philosophy & Logical AnalysisAbstract
Over the last thirty years, a group of philosophers associated with the University of Pittsburgh—Robert Brandom, James Conant, John Haugeland, and John McDowell—have developed a novel reading of Kant. Their interest turns on Kant’s problem of objective purport: how can my thoughts be about the world? This paper summarizes the shared reading of Kant’s Transcendental Deduction by these four philosophers and how it solves the problem of objective purport. But I also show these philosophers radically diverge in how they view Kant’s relevance for contemporary philosophy. I highlight an important distinction between those that hold a quietist response to Kant, evident in Conant and McDowell, and those that hold a constructive response, evident in Brandom and Haugeland. The upshot is that the Pittsburgh Kantians have a distinctive approach to Kant, but also radically different responses to his problem of objective purport.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Brandom, R. 1994. Making it Explicit. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
-
Brandom, R. 2009. Reason in Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
-
Brandom, R. 2015. From Empiricism to Expressivism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
-
Brandom, R. 2020. A Spirit of Trust. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
-
Conant, J. 1991. The Search for Logically Alien Thought. Philosophical Topics 20(1), 115–180.
-
Conant, J. 2012. Two Varieties of Skepticism. In: Conant, J. & Abel, G. (eds.), Rethinking Epistemology. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1–74.
-
Conant, J. 2016. Why Kant is Not a Kantian. Philosophical Topics 44(1), 75–126.
-
Conant, J. 2020. Replies. In: Miguens, S. (ed.), The Logical Alien. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 321–1026.
-
Haugeland, J. 1976. Truth and Understanding. Berkeley: University of Berkeley Press.
-
Haugeland, J. 1982. Heidegger on Being a Person. Noûs 16(1), 15–26.
-
Haugeland, J. 1990. The Intentionality All-Stars. Philosophical Perspectives 4, 383–427.
-
Haugeland, J. 1998b. Truth and Rule-Following. In: Haugeland, J. (ed.), Having Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 305–361.
-
Haugeland, J. 2002. Authentic Inteitionality. In: Scheutz, M. (ed.), Computationalism: New Directions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 159–174.
-
Haugeland, J. 2013. Dasein Discolsed. J. Rouse (ed.) Cambridge: Harvard.
-
Haugeland, J. 2016a. Outline of Kant’s Transcendental Deduction. In: Adams, Z. & Browning, J. (eds.), Giving a Damn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 341–364. (= Outline)
-
Haugeland, J. 2016b. Two Dogmas of Rationalism. In: Adams, Z. & Browning, J. Giving a Damn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 293–309.
-
Kant, I. Critique of Pure Reason. Guyer, P. & Wood, A. W. (trs., eds.), 1998. New York: Cambridge University Press. (= CPR)
-
McDowell, J. 1996. Mind and World, with a New Introduction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
-
McDowell, J. 1998. The Woodbridge Lectures. The Journal of Philosophy 95(9), 431–492.
-
McDowell, J. 2016. Rationalism without Dogmas. In: Adams, Z. & Browning, J. (eds.), Giving a Damn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 311–328.
-
Sellars, W. 1956. Empicisim and the Philosophy of Mind. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 1, 253–329.
-
Adams, Z., & Browning, J. 2016. Introduction. In: Adams, Z. & Browning, J. (eds.), Giving a Damn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–48.
-
Bernstein, J. M. 2002. Re-enchanting Nature. In: Smith, N. (ed.), Reading McDowell. London: Routledge, 217–245.
-
Bernstein, R. J. 2002. McDowell’s Domesticated Hegelianism. In: Smith, N. (ed.), Reading McDowell. London: Routledge, 9–24.
-
Blattner, W. 2016. Anonymity, Mineness, and Agent Specificity. In: Adams, Z. & Browning, J. (eds.), Giving a Damn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 51–72.
-
Bouche, G. 2020. Reading Brandom: On a Spirit of Trust. New York: Routledge.
-
Browning, J. 2019. McDowell and the Contents of Intuition. Dialectica 73(1–2), 83–104.
-
Gauker, C. 2011. Words and Images: An Essay on the Origin of Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Golob, S. 2017. The Separability of Understanding and Sensibility: A Reply to James Conant. URL: <https://virtualcritique.wordpress.com/2017/09/18/the-separability-of-understanding-and-sensibility-a-reply-to-james-conant/#more-4400>.
-
Hacker, P. 1986. Insight and Illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Hanna, R. 2004. Kant and the Foundations of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press—Clarendon Press.
-
Hanna, R. 2011. Beyond the Myth of the Myth: A Kantian Theory of Non-Conceptual Content. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19(3), 232–298.
-
Haugeland, J. 1998a. Having Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
-
Hohwy, J. 2014. The Predictive Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
MacFarlane, J. 2014. McDowell’s Kantianism. Theoria 70(2–3), 250–265.
-
Maher, C. 2012. The Pittsburgh School. New York: Routledge Press.
-
McDowell, J. 2009. Avoiding the Myth of the Given. In J. McDowell, Having the World in View. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 256–272.
-
Miguens, S. (ed.). 2020. The Logical Alien. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
-
O’Shea, J. 2018. Sellars’s Interpretive Variations on Kant’s Transcendental Idealist Themes. In: Corti, L. & Ninziante, A. (eds.), Sellars and the History of Modern Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 79–96.
-
Pippin, R. (2002). Leaving Nature Behind. In: Smith, N. (Ed.), Reading McDowell. London: Routledge, 58–75.
-
Price, H. (1997). Review of McDowell, J. (1996). Mind and World. Harvard, Harvard University Press. Philosophical Books 38, 169–177.
-
Redding, P. (2012). McDowell’s Radicalization of Kant’s Account of Concepts and Intuitions: a Sellarsian (and Hegelian) Critique. Verifiche: Rivista Trimestrale di Scienze Umane 41(1–3), 9–37.
-
Rorty, R. (1972). The World Well Lost. Journal of Philosophy 69(19), 649–665.
-
Rosenberg, J. 2005. Accessing Kant: A Relaxed Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Rouse, J. (2017). Love and Death. In: Adams, Z. & Browning, J. (eds.), Giving a Damn. Cambridge: MIT Press, 131–158.
-
Sachs, C. (2014). Intentionality and the Myths of the Given. London: Pickering and Chatto.
-
Sachs, C. (2019). A Conceptual Genealogy of the Pittsburgh School. In: Becker, K. & Thomson, I. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Philosophy, 1945–2015. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 664–676.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 156 | 156 | 54 |
| Full Text Views | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 9 | 9 | 2 |
The Pittsburgh Kantians: Brandom, Conant, Haugeland, and McDowell on Kant
In: History of Philosophy & Logical AnalysisAbstract
Over the last thirty years, a group of philosophers associated with the University of Pittsburgh—Robert Brandom, James Conant, John Haugeland, and John McDowell—have developed a novel reading of Kant. Their interest turns on Kant’s problem of objective purport: how can my thoughts be about the world? This paper summarizes the shared reading of Kant’s Transcendental Deduction by these four philosophers and how it solves the problem of objective purport. But I also show these philosophers radically diverge in how they view Kant’s relevance for contemporary philosophy. I highlight an important distinction between those that hold a quietist response to Kant, evident in Conant and McDowell, and those that hold a constructive response, evident in Brandom and Haugeland. The upshot is that the Pittsburgh Kantians have a distinctive approach to Kant, but also radically different responses to his problem of objective purport.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 156 | 156 | 54 |
| Full Text Views | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 9 | 9 | 2 |