|KANT IN THE CLASSROOM Materials to aid the study of Kant’s lectures|
Descriptions of the Notes (click below):
|Anthropology||Encyclopedia||Geography||Logic||Mathematics||Metaphysics||Moral Phil.||Nat. Law||Pedagogy||Physics||Nat. Theology|
Introduction: The Student Notes
We study Kant’s life as a professor because of his importance as a philosopher, and the main point of contact here are his lecture notes. These notes offer a great wealth of material that spans his teaching career from the Herder notes of the 1760s to the Vigilantius notes of the mid-1790s. While fragments from other disciplines remain unpublished, all but the notes from physical geography have been published in the Academy edition of Kant’s writings, and a large number of translations into English have recently become available in the Cambridge edition of Kant’s works.[see] (A list of published notes can be found here; a combined list of all the known sets of notes can be found here.)
These notes are useful for several reasons:
• They clarify or develop points made in his major published writings.
• They consider topics not discussed in any of the published writings.
• They provide much of the philosophical context against which these writings were to be understood.
• They offer a new perspective into Kant’s intellectual development.
Before using these notes, however, one needs to consider three nested questions:
(1) How reliable are the Academy edition transcriptions [see] of the various sets of notes?
(2) Assuming reliable transcriptions, how reliable are these notes in reflecting what Kant said in the lectures?
(3) Assuming reliable notes, when did Kant say these things? That is, for any given set of notes (or with compilations, for any given passage in a set of notes) what is the source-lecture?
If we cannot trust the Academy edition transcription of the notes, for instance, or if we are not sure how accurately these notes reflect what Kant said in the classroom or in what semester he said them, then we are hard pressed to make much use of the notes at all.
The Academy edition (or translations based on it) is generally one’s only access to these notes (but see the lists of published and still unpublished notes). As regards the reliability of its transcriptions, we need to distinguish between those volumes prepared by the late editor, Gerhard Lehmann (namely, vols. 24, 27, 28, and 29) and the more recent work by Reinhard Brandt and Werner Stark. The latter is a model of careful and well considered scholarship; the former is more problematic. The Academy volumes prepared by Lehmann are reliable insofar as they do not grossly misrepresent what can be found in the manuscripts, and reading these volumes will provide a rough sense of what is actually in the notes. Unfortunately, there are so many errors in transcription and presentation that a detailed use of the notes is often problematic — see the discussions of the individual sets of notes (here the metaphysics notes have received the most detailed treatment).
Descriptions of the Notes
In a world without limits of time or space, one might expect a more thorough description of each of the manuscripts than is provided in the lists of disciplines above. What is found instead is work-to-date — already too detailed for the tastes and needs of many, but still suffering from important gaps.
Descriptions of the notes are grouped by discipline (Anthropology, Encyclopedia, etc.) and ordered alphabetically within each discipline. Please consult the Composite List for an overview of all the manuscripts, or click on one of the disciplines (above) for a list of the notes in that discipline.
Each manuscript is given an entry with the following kinds of information (when available or appropriate):
(1) Other names or designations of the manuscript used by previous scholars (knowing this is critical when making use of older literature; these have been collected into a list of Variant Names);
(2) A physical description and history of the manuscript (what it looks like, where it came from);
(3) Information on its location (either present, or the last known location — giving the city, the library or archive, and the cataloging signature when appropriate), as well as the location of copies or films that we know about;
(4) Publication information (transcriptions as well as translations — here the bibliography must be consulted for a full citation);
(5) Dating (the best guess of current scholarship on when the source lecture occurred); and
(6) Contents (which topics are covered in the notes, as well as their completeness, and whether the manuscript is ancestrally related to other notes).
In the overview tables of the various sets of notes, a publication of a set of notes is listed as a “fragment” whenever it includes only a minor portion of the available manuscript; it makes no claims as to the extent of the manuscript itself (some manuscripts appear to cover the semester material quite thoroughly; others are quite brief) or of the available text (in the case of reprints and translations).
 A few caveats regarding this table: First, the numbers are generous, and include fragments and selections as well as complete manuscripts. Second, if a manuscript is presented as a set of variant readings to a second manuscript, then it is included in the number of published manuscripts. Consult the individual descriptions ordered under the different disciplines for a closer account of both of these points. Third, the Göttingen Academy of Sciences is currently preparing a volume of lecture notes on physical geography — volume 26 of Kant’s gesammelte Schriften, and the last of the originally planned volumes in this century-long endeavor — thus the relatively low number of published geography notes. Fourth, there is no guarantee that all of these manuscripts are numerically distinct; among those lost, there is the possibility that two or more references are to one and the same manuscript. For instance, in surveying the more than forty anthropology manuscripts, Brandt and Stark [1997, cxxxii] note that there is reason to suspect that an-Fernow, an-Reicke 2, and an-Reimarus are either closely identical in content or even a single manuscript (similarly with an-Reinhold and an-Starke 2). Finally, Vollmer, who illicitly published a version of Kant’s physical geography notes, also claims to have possessed multiple sets of notes from other subjects. I include all three sets of physical geography notes that he mentioned (since they may all well have contributed to the publication), but count only one manuscript in his possession for logic (instead of the five he claims) and one for moral philosophy (instead of four).
 Adickes [1896, 580] writes: [see]
[T]he lectures, and the later in particular, appear to possess a certain value even now, on account of their happy formulation of detached thoughts, and as constituting an easy introduction to the Kantian philosophy.
 Glasenapp [1954, xii] offers us an example of this: [see]
For the great number of remarks that Kant made on the Orient, and that are preserved not in his books but rather only in the lecture notes, clearly shows that a comprehensive knowledge of Kant’s life work cannot be won from Kant’s published writings alone, and that our picture of his activity must be necessary incomplete without a close consideration of the notes from his lectures. This is just one factor that can also be of fundamental importance in the assessment of the notes from Kant’s philosophical lectures.
 For instance, the names of other philosophers and the titles of books appear in the notes far more frequently than they do in the published writings or letters.
 As Dilthey wrote in the preface to vol. 1 of the Academy edition of Kant’s writings:
From the time when Herder was [Kant’s] most ardent student, until the last years of [Kant’s] academic career, the lecture notebooks accompany the development of the critical philosophy. [1902; AA 1:xiv]
 A preliminary third question might also be asked: Even if the notes accurately reflect the words that Kant said, did Kant actually believe what he said? This question precedes the question of dating, since the date of the lecture is rather less important if Kant was merely mouthing the conventional dogma during his many years of teaching and so offering us little indication of his intellectual development.
Rosenkranz [1838, vol. 3, vii-viii] first raised this possibility with his suggestion (made in the context of the Jäsche Logic) that Kant was living a “double life”: expressing traditional beliefs in the classroom, censoring his actual beliefs that finally made their way into his writings [see].
Heinze [1894, 658] remarked how Kant never shook free from the outline of Baumgarten’s Metaphysica, and that the lectures in general share this conservative character, even after the Critique of Pure Reason. Did Kant really believe what he was saying in class? Heinze suggested that Kant was being cautious, but not deceitful, with his students:
I gladly admit that Kant was more cautious in his lectures, out of consideration for strengthening his morally and religiously formative students, than in his published writings, such that he perhaps did not say everything that he held to be true. But I cannot square with his unquestionable and sublime truthfulness that he would say anything other to his students than his own opinion as to what at that moment was his innermost conviction. There is much that certainly sounds quite dogmatic, where he does not always add the critical limitations; but then he was also inwardly drawn to this dogmatic propositions. In general it appears to me that he said directly in his oral lectures what was in his writings, that he lectured to the students that which moved and motivated him most deeply, what was the main intention by his philosophizing, namely, the strengthening of morality and religion. Thus the rational psychology and the theology.
Ich gebe gerne zu, dass Kant mit Rücksicht auf seine zu bildenden, moralisch und religiös zu festigenden Zuhörer in seinen Vorlesungen mehr Vorsicht gebraucht hat, als in seinen veröffentlichten Schriften, so dass er vielleicht nicht immer Alles was er für wahr hielt, vorgetragen haben mag; aber das kann ich mit seiner über allen Zweifel erhabenen Wahrhaftigkeit nicht vereinigen, dass er etwas Anderes seinen Zuhörern scheinbar als seine Meinung kundgab, als was im Augenblick seine innerste Überzeugung war. Manches klingt da allerdings recht dogmatisch, da er die kritische Einschränkung nicht stets beifügt; aber dann neigt er innerlich auch diesen dogmatischen Sätzen zu. Überhaupt scheint es mir, dass er sich in seinem mündlichen Vortrag unmittelbarer giebt, als in seinen Schriften, dass er vor den Studenten das, was ihn am tiefsten bewegte und trieb, was die Hauptabsicht bei seinem Philosophieren war, die Befestigung von Moral und Religion, besonders stark hervortreten liess. Darum die ausgeführte rationale Psychologie, die ausgeführte Theologie. [Heinze 1894, 658]
Heinze then lifted this as another virtue of these student lecture notes: they offer us a glimpse of a Kant never revealed in the published works:
We become better acquainted in the lectures with Kant in his deepest work, in his striving towards something positive, but also in his wobbling, than any view of himself that he offers in his published works. It is not seldom that he airs his heart with some pregnant expression arising from his innermost conviction. Precisely because of this clearer emergence of Kant's whole personality are the lectures not to be undervalued.
Wir lernen ihn so aus den Vorlesungen in seiner innersten Arbeit, in seinem Drange nach etwas Positivem, aber auch in seinem Schwanken besser kennen als aus seinen von ihm selbst heraus gegebenen Werken. Nicht selten kommt ein prägnanter Ausdruck der innersten Überzeugung, durch den er seinem Herzen dann Luft macht, zu Tage. Schon wegen dieses deutlicheren Hervortretens der ganzen Persönlichkeit Kants sind die Vorlesungen von nicht zu unterschätzendem Werthe. [Heinze 1894, 658]
Heinze was responding to comments made by Emil Arnoldt [1892, 402f.; summarized by Vaihinger 1895, 428-29], who believed that Kant was simply accomodating his students in his lectures, but that he did not actually believe some of what he said. Vaihinger [1895, 429], for his part, sides with Heinze, writing that:
two souls lived in Kant’s breast, one negative-critical and one positive-dogmatic, with the latter never entirely overcome by the former. I think that whoever ignores this latter side of Kant will never possess the full and complete Kant.
in Kants Brust wohnten zwei Seelen, eine negativ-kritische und eine positiv-dogmatische, welch letztere durch die erstere niemals ganz überwunden worden ist. Ich meine, dass, wer die letztere Seite bei Kant nicht beachtet, niemals den vollen und ganzen Kant besitzen wird.
Reviewing the metaphysics lectures in AA 28, Rudolf Malter wrote that everything speaks against the thesis of Kant’s “intellectual schizophrenia” [1974, 217-18]; and see Stark [1987a, 139-40]. Kant himself offers a strong testimony against this suggestion of a “double life” in a draft of his public notice regarding Hippel’s authorship [see].
 Vol. 25, devoted to the anthropology lectures, was published in 1998; part one of vol. 26, on the physical geography notes, was published in July 2009, and part two of that volume is in preparation.
 For assessments of AA 24 (logic), see Hinske [1989, xxx-xxxvii] and Oberhausen ; of AA 27 (moral philosophy), see Schwaiger ; of AA 28-29 (metaphysics), see Naragon ; of AA 29.1, see Stark [1984c, 1985b].
Copyright ©2006 Steve Naragon (Manchester University)
Last modified: 28 Apr 2015
Please send comments and questions to: email@example.com