KANT IN THE CLASSROOM     Materials to aid the study of Kant’s lectures

Bibliography
Kant’s Writings
Academy Edition
Glossary
Biographies
Kant’s Life

Universities
Students
Professors

Introduction
Describing the Notes
Production of the Notes
Dating the Notes
Lists: [Published Notes] [Unpublished Notes]
Lists: [Composite] [Variant Names] [Menzer 1912] [Locations]

Descriptions of the Notes (click below):

Kant’s Lectures

> The Student Notes

Anthropology Encyclopedia Geography Logic Mathematics Metaphysics Moral Phil. Nat. Law Pedagogy Physics Nat. Theology

Past Evaluations of the Notes

[This is the rudimentary beginning of a collection...]

Karl Rosenkranz (1805-1879)

Rosenkranz, in the “Preface” of his edition of Kant’s collected writings, had the following to say of those lecture notes published after Kant’s death:

Thus there remain excluded: (1) the detailed description of Kant’s on physical geography put out by Vollmer, (2) the lectures on the philosophical doctrine of religion edited by Pölitz first in 1817 and then again in 1831, (3) the lectures on metaphysics edited by the same in 1821, (4) the philosophical anthropology edited by Friedrich Christian Starke in 1831 from handwritten lecture notes. We do not deny the worth of these writings; especially the lectures on metaphysics appear to give us a quite accurate picture of Kant’s lecturing. But these writings still essentially contain nothing which does not appear in the other writings, or they betray visible traces of foreign matter which, through a deficient comprehension of the heard lecture and a presumed completion through later interpolation, were mixed in. The great mass of facts which distinguishes the Vollmer and the Rink Geographies; the more milk [check?] form in which the philosophy of religion lectures present the main thoughts of the Religion within the Bounds of Pure Reason; the frequent falling back to definitions from the Wolffian school, and the naive liveliness of the tone, by which the lectures on metaphysics differ from the Critique of Pure Reason; the trusting popularity and entrance of many, on the average, world-known [translation?] examples and rules, which differ the Menschenkunde from the Anthropology; — all of that does not appear adequate to us to justify the special admission of these lecture notebooks into a collected edition. [Immanuel Kant’s sämtliche Werke. Ed. von Karl Rosenkranz und Friedr. Wilh. Schubert, Leipzig 1838, vol. 1, Preface, p. x-xi]

Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911)

The Berlin Academy concluded, in opposition to all past collected editions of Kant’s works, to also publish the lectures in a critical edition. Wilhelm Dilthey says in the preface to this edition:

The edition arranged by the Königliche-Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften [Royal Prussian Academy of the Sciences] includes under the title Kants gesammelte Schriften all the geistige Hinterlassenschaft: the writings, the correspondence, the handwritten remains, and the lectures the summation of what can serve the cognition of his life work. [1902; AA 1:xiv]

The lectures are of importance according to Dilthey, for three reasons:

They serve the edition by that in the lectures that amplify what is contained in the printed writings of Kant’s in the context of his system… At the same time this division [of the lectures] offers an essential enrichment of the material for the developmental history of Kant… Finally one can attain through this long series of lectures an intuitive picture of Kant’s teaching activity, his lectures, and the pedagogical side of his influence on the circle of his auditors.

The misgivings which can be raised against this kind of source he summarized in the following way:

The most important among them is the uncertainty of this kind of transmission; never can such a notebook be seen as an authentic document of Kant’s spoken word. It can also never be inferred, according to the pedagogical aims of lectures over which he himself quite emphatically declared, that he completely expressed his attained standpoint in the flow of the development of grasped thinkers in his lectures.… And this is all the more necessary given the uncertainty of the time from which the material of the then published lectures arose, and over the accuracy of its reproduction.

Jakob Sonderling (1878-1964)

In his comparison of an-Jäsche (as published in Jäsche [1800]) with the textbook used in Kant's logic lectures (Meier [1760]), Sonderling wrote:

On the other hand, however, it must not be forgotten that, even in the critical period, Kant held a variety of positions in the lectures that were superceded by the critical writings; that he led, to a certain extent, a double life in his teaching activity and in his writing. [Sonderling 1903, 6f.

Anderseits aber darf nicht vergessen werden, daß Kant auch in den Vorlesungen der kritischen Zeit noch vielfach Anschauungen vertrat, die in den kritischen Schriften überwunden sind, da er in Lehrtätigkeit und Schriftsellerei gewissermaßen ein Doppelleben führte.

Max Wundt (1879-1963)

Wundt criticises Paulsen’s [1899] use of the Pölitz metaphysics lectures, raising questions regarding their use in general: How much we can we trust the copyist [Nachschreiber]? Does he give us everything? Does he leave out the more difficult material (it’s easier to understand and write down dogmatic claims rather than methodological points, so the latter are more likely to be under-emphasized); the close connection of the lectures to the Baumgarten text is bound to give them a more dogmatic cast. Wundt feels the same towards the Dohna notes published by Kowalewski: “that the notebooks of a fifteen-year old student could not reveal to us any surprising new insights in Kant’s theory is self-explanatory.”)

And further, with these lectures we are everywhere dependent upon the insight, diligence, and care of the notetaker, unknown quantities of which we do not know how to take into account....  The lectures on metaphysic in particular seem rather carelessly written down.  We never know how far we should trust the notetaker.  Does he offer us everything?  Does he omit the more difficult discussions? Sometimes one almost gets the impression that certain dogmatic doctrines are being offered to us for which, however, the connected critique of Kant’s was omitted as too difficult.  In general, it is easier to follow the description of some definite content than it is its justification.  Because of this the lectures attain without doubt a more dogmatic stamp than was the intention of the lecturer.  But, in addition to that, and despite all our troubles, we cannot determine the time these notes were written — or better, times, for there are certainly several notes produced at different times and then worked together. [1924, 5-6, 9-10]

Copyright ©2006 Steve Naragon (Manchester University)
Last modified: 4/3/2006
Please send comments and questions to: ssnaragon@manchester.edu