Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense

by Henry E. Allison

This landmark book is now reissued in a new edition that has been vastly rewritten and updated to respond to recent Kantian literature. It includes a new discussion of the Third Analogy, a greatly expanded discussion of Kant’s Paralogisms, and entirely new chapters dealing with Kant’s theory of reason, his treatment of theology, and the important Appendix to the Dialectic.

Praise for the earlier edition:

“Probably the most comprehensive and substantial study of the Critique of Pure Reason written by any American philosopher.... This is a splendid book.” —Lewis White Beck

“This masterful study ... will most certainly join the canon of required reading for future interpreters of Kant’s theoretical philosophy. Superbly organized and lucidly written.” —Garrett Green, Journal of Religion

Genres: Philosophy, Metaphysics, Nonfiction, Germany

560 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1983

Reviews

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Allison here has written one of the most important pieces of Kant scholarship in the last century. In my view, this book should serve as the starting point for any new inquiry or research into Kantian philosophy. It exposes the severe weaknesses of what Allison refers to as the 'standard picture of Kant', or in other words, the mainstream perception and narratives surrounding Kant's philosophy. He seeks to address to the main misinterpretations and objections to transcendental idealism, with a focus on modern commentators. This is done with admirable depth, textual support and clarity. Although Allison is not alone in voicing these rebuttals, with other writers such as Beiser also pointing out such lazy misconceptions, this book remains useful for its compactness and explicit goal of addressing such problems.

The book is split into several sections, including a general sketch of modern Kant scholarship and Kantian philosophy, with particular focus, unsurprisingly, on the Critique of Pure Reason. There are a total of 15 chapters in four sections. These sections are 'the nature of transcendental idealism', 'human knowledge and its conditions', categories, schemata, and experience', and 'the phenomenal, noumenal, and the self'.

Of particular value here is Allison's discussion of Kant's distinction between transcendental idealism and transcendental realism, and the further distinction between transcendental and empirical versions of ideality and reality. These distinctions often ignored by Kant commentators, and much of their criticism results from a misunderstanding of these distinctions. An example I'll touch on is the work of H.A Prichard.

Prichard's influential critique of Kant involves an attack on Kant's view of appearances, stating that since Kant believes we only know appearances, he is forced, in virtue of his doctrine of the ideality of space and time, either to say that space is an illusion, or the appearances themselves are spatial. Since Kant wants to safeguard empirical realism, he is forced to say that appearances themselves are spatial, which is absurd. However, this is a complete neglect of the different standpoints Kant takes when discussing appearances - the transcendental and empirical. Prichard's claim is only true if we take Kant to be talking about appearances in the empirical sense, but if we see it from the transcendental perspective, as Kant wanted us to, then this claim is false. Taken transcendentally, spatiality is considered as a defining characteristic of how things appear, not as a property attributed to sensation itself.

Another interesting point about Allison's interpretation of Kant is that he takes transcendental idealism not to be a simple metaphysical or epistemological philosophy, but also what he calls a meta-philosophical or meta-methodological viewpoint. The critique, it can be claimed, is dealing with the question of whether we can isolate a set of conditions of the possibility of knowledge of things from the possibility of the existence of those things themselves. The standard picture of Kant does not even address this question, and so, is forced to take a psychologistic reading of the Kantian project, which entails untenable conclusions.

Other valuable discussions that take place involve an in depth analysis of the thing in itself, and the associated criticisms of the affection theory.

This is a very rewarding read for anyone interested in Kantian philosophy and in my opinion presents the most complete and accurate exposition of transcendental idealism. A much more coherent account than the typical strawman's of Kant that are presented and accepted in the 'common knowledge' of the philosophical community.

[Erik · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good middle of the road interpretation of the K.d.r.V. Allison's book is a good corrective to the ridiculously negative interpretations of Strawson, Bennett and others, who seem to have missed the point completely. The Anglo-Saxon way is to think that if an idea is not stated in a clear English tone of voice, in a practical, visually concrete way, stripped of all nuance, it isn't an idea. Hence the history of philosophy ends with Hume and starts again with Russell. Rubbish! German philosophy has its faults, clarity among them, but it is not trivial or irrelevant. People now understand this and Allison's book was helpful in refuting these misinterpretations. I have two quibbles: the thing in itself is not just things considered as they are or would be in themselves, i.e. by using the understanding without experiential input as pure thought. Hegel and others, Prauss most recently, held this. But consider that Kant says, quite clearly, in the Schematism that the matter of things in themselves is sensation, the pure strobe-like impressions of sense. He also says that these force-like impressions are also met with in nature. It is only their form that is unknown, for the same sensory impressions and moments of force in nature could be ordered in various non-spatial and temporal ways in addition to the way our understanding orders them. The schematism of snapshots of time depends on this. I published an article in Kant Studien in 2005 claiming this and nobody has contradicted me. (Perhaps no one has read it either.) Second, his take on the causality argument is generally good (by which I mean I agree with it). The kind of causality is strictly whatever would support a representation of space and time. Calling it a causal law is too strong. Consider that space and time representation would be possible strictly on a token particular to token particular form of causation. Not my idea of law, by any means. Finally, I think there are two notions of space and time operative in Kant. The a priori forms are like snapshots, or the space and time of individual frames of experience, like polaroid photos. The understanding plays no role as yet. They still have not been ordered into a representation of space and time to an observer. For example, you have several views of a coffee cup taken from different positions around a room. They are spatial and temporal in an instantanous sense, as snap shots, but they are not representations of an object until someone orders them into observations of an object to an observer, say someone walking around the room ordering his intuitions in time and in space. I think Allison is saying this too, but I didn't think he was as clear as he could be on the separation between the instantaneous snapshot space and time of sensibility, and the tracing out of space and time representation by the understanding under the categories. Nor do I think he realizes the inverse relaion between categories considered as rules for ordering snapshots into classes and objects, and the logical use of the categories to decompose these classes in judgments. The logical functions are just analytical in nature, they just take apart what the understanding has assembled in synthesis. In short, I agree with Allison in general and think this is a good read of the K.d.r.V. In the details, disagreements begin to surface.

[Catachresis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Allison is that extreme rarity - a top class scholar who can also write like syrup.

I also recommend his collection of essays, Idealism and Freedom, and Sebastian Gardner's commentary (Routledge) to the same critique.

Allison has a unique writing style - soft superiority blended with polite sarcasm regarding other scholars - which borders on the hilarious at times in its combination of intellect, grace and serrated politeness.

Very clear and detailed, one of the standards of reference for this incredibly complex work.

[N Perrin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I do not know if it is possible to read Kant any other way after Allison. He's just that good.

No other interpreter of a philosopher that I have come across can hold a candle to the breadth, sympathy, and productive analysis of Henry Allison. I can only hope that in time this will become the definitive reading that undergrads are taught.

[Jesse · Rating 5 out of 5]

Indispensable.

[Tijmen Lansdaal · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an impressive, coherent and stimulating interpretation of Kant. It presents much of its tenets as claims to be taken seriously. Overall however, I'm not quite convinced: much still stands in need of explanation, and for the most part one gets the impression that Kant's works provide one with ample source to amend the theory. I must admit I think Husserl has more fruitful ideas on transcendental structures, so any critical remarks from my end should be taken with a pinch of salt (I can't really elaborate them in a Goodreads review anyways). It still seems to me that one can hardly countenance specifically Kantian 'criticism', but perhaps that's more of a challenge than a charge. Certainly, any endeavour to understand the most influential, but perhaps also one of the most complex philosophers, Immanuel Kant, should start with working through this. Very helpful and interesting.

[Jamey · Rating 4 out of 5]

I confess I only got halfway through this. One difficult book. But it does shed some light on the damn difficult Critique of Pure Reason. I wish this came easy to me, but it doesn't. I admit: Kant's transcendental idealism does not come easily to me. There, I've said it. I feel so much better. A little mournful, but that's cool.

[Bahar Beizaei · Rating 4 out of 5]

Absolutely necessary read for anyone interested in Kant's first Critique. Lucid exegesis of all arguments. Defends the text against all stereotypical criticisms addressed to Kant. Must read for anyone with patience and a desire to truly understand--at the level of content and structure--how the text works before launching into tearing it apart into pieces.(less)

[Jerry Zhang · Rating 5 out of 5]

Comprehensive defense of Kant's transcendental idealism against common interpretations, definitely worth a read. Although this is an "advanced" commentary. Sebastian Gardner, Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason would be a good mid-range commentary according to https://www.bernsteintapes.com/lectur...

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Henry Allison is one of the best American Kant scholars going, and this is one of his best works. He does an incredible job defending the Kantian project in a way that is both philosophically rigorous and epistemologically compelling.

[Zelai Xu · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is like a CPR answer book. Absolute respect for great Henry Allison!!

[Anmol · Rating 3 out of 5]

Strongly prefer this over Strawson's interpretation: Allison is more reverential to Kant, and so he actually tries to defend him even on issues where he is constantly attacked (most prominently, the transcendental ideality of space and time, which Allison rightly recognises to be crucial to Kant's theory). So thankfully, you won't find much denunciations of Kant's arguments as "disastrous" in a book meant to explain such ideas here. Allison also begins by putting forward his central argument: that things-in-themselves are to be interpreted as being beyond our epistemic conditions for interpreting things (space and time being one such epistemic condition). This makes Kant slightly easier to understand, while also clearly distinguishing him from Berkeleyan idealism (although I'd say that a close reading of Berkeley reveals that even he was concerned primarily with epistemic conditions - we cannot know matter in the abstract, and so how could material things exist?). All in all, I'd recommend this and the first 300 pages of Beiser's German Idealism to all fellow students of Kant who want to read something which actually takes Kant seriously, and not "what can still be salvaged from" Kant.

[Lucas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read the conceptualists instead

[Onuro · Rating 4 out of 5]

nadal nie mam pojęcia na czym polega dialektyka

[Brian Beakley · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first edition of this book was a useful addition to the literature: a highly informed and sympathetic reading of Kant's philosophy. The second edition is still highly informed and sympathetic, but more cluttered (and therefore more confusing) than the first edition. The chapter on the Transcendental Deduction, in particular, just suddenly stops -- it's like watching a movie with the last reel missing.

And a stylistic point: Allison should be legally barred from using the words "former" and "latter". They require, in effect, a variable look-up before the reader can understand the sentence, and Allison uses them hundreds of times through the book. (I notice that Kant also frequently uses these terms, or their German counterparts, which may be where Allison picked up this verbal tic. But Kant should be nobody's stylistic role model.)

[Dan DalMonte · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very important book and a must read for any Kant scholar. It popularized a two-aspect approach to transcendental idealism that avoid any metaphysical commitment to a thing in itself. The appearance/thing in itself distinction is here merely formal. I do not think this distinction provides a resolution to the Antinomies, since reason can still be in conflict with itself if we just adopt a stance of epistemological modesty. Also, Allison modifies the notion of absolute freedom to a merely practical perspective that is thoroughly anti-realist. Nevertheless, this is a seminal book that will point you in many fruitful directions and provide a very interesting source of nourishment for your thought on Kant.

[S. Kallahan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great stuff - read it alongside the Critique of Pure Reason.

[Seyed · Rating 4 out of 5]

A sympathetic reading of Kant's Critique that unpacks many of his arguments for Transcendental Idealism.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Kant commentary that's as hard to read as Kant.

[Clay Kallam · Rating 2 out of 5]

As a newcomer to Kant who wanted an introduction to transcendental idealism (as opposed to reading the notoriously difficult Kant himself), I did some on-line research and opted for Henry Allison's "Kant's Transcendental Idealism."

Now, one would assume that at some point Allison, or any author, would define the primary term in the title and the text, but he never does. Nowhere in this 331-page book is there a summary of what transcendental idealism means or its overall structure. Allison is obviously very, very knowledgeable and completely immersed in Kant's many works, but couldn't someone have pointed out to him that step one would be to describe what the book is about?

Instead, Allison assumes a tremendous amount of familiarity with Kant's work, believing the reader will understand what references to the Three Antinomies mean, or the difference between the First and Second Editions. And as an another example of a mysteriously unexplained reference, Allison discusses Kant's categories through which human beings grasp the world -- but never once lists what those categories are.

All of this makes "Kant's Transcendental Idealism" a nasty and difficult read. I remember distinctly that on page 182, I finally sort of understood what Allison was talking about, which made the second part go much more quickly. But even so, confusion abounds as Allison rightfully points out the flaws and missing pieces in Kant's deductions, and, in what I find less legitimate, offers up his own explanations and arguments when Kant's are found wanting. Obviously, Allison is very intelligent, but it would seem to this amateur philosopher that a book about Kant, even a defense of Kant, should rely on Kant's thoughts and words for the defense, not something made up nearly 200 years later.

All that said, I did surface from the book with a clearer grasp of the issues involved in the familiar distinction between the phenomenon (that which we can perceive through our limited senses) and the noumenon (that which actually is the case). One way to look at it is that if indeed there are 11 dimensions, as quantum mechanics and string theory suggest, the seven we cannot access could complete Kant's noumenons, and our four plus those seven are things as they are in themselves.

As this was my first real engagement with Kant, I may have been a lot further behind than most who read this book, but nonetheless I don't think it unreasonable to expect an author to discuss the primary idea of his work before going into deep and complex detail about its proofs and arguments. "Kant's Transcendental Idealism" may be well suited to those who have read many of Kant's own works, but it is far from the introductory text that such an influential thinker deserves.

[Edmundo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good as an alternative to the, perhaps unfairly, critical text on Kant by Strawson. This is an excellent defense of Kant in many ways. Although, it is obvious when the Kantian arguments are weak, in that they force Allison into very tenuous defenses. Where Allison clears up misunderstandings of Kant by other commentators, he is excellent. The rest is hit and miss. When he tries to steel-man Kant, he does not always succeed to make Kant's arguments clearer or better (although in most cases he does make improvements on Kant by using Kant in a very admirable way).

I would be very curious to see how he handles the transcendental critiques of people like Husserl and Hegel (like he alludes to in the end of the book). Kant's methodology is what, to me, makes him a genius. And it is only by a total overhauling of the system that we can move beyond Kant, not really by nitpicking arguments here and there. Although in key points, I suppose evaluations of arguments can have a great effect on the over all tenability of a philosophy.

Excellent book, in any case. I am happy I read it. Made me re-evaluate Strawson's reading of Kant. It also was effective in establishing the distinct transcendental nature of Kant's philosophy. Allison did make this point clear. We cannot read Kant as a skeptic or idealist, he does genuine have something different to offer. While this is clear from reading Kant, since he explicitly says that his philosophy is different, oftentimes when reading Kant you get the idea that he is merely saying this, and that he then does something entirely different. Allison gives textual support for why, in spite of Kant, it is a mistake to view him as anything but a uniquely critical (sensu Kant) philosopher.

[Arran · Rating 5 out of 5]

An indispensable work that is arguably essential reading for anyone wanting to understand Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Allison offers a deep, authoritative analysis of both Kant’s writing and a broad spectrum of secondary literature, and it is clear throughout that his goal is to help the reader understand what Kant meant, as opposed to either undermining the Critique to score philosophical points or to use Kant as a way of furthering one’s own philosophical stances.

I would particularly recommend the first sections where Allison discusses the Transcendental Idealism / Realism divide and shows them to be metaphilosophical standpoints as opposed to metaphorical ones, soemthing I feel is crucial to get a grasp on if engaging with the Critique. It also serves as the perfect pushback to Kant’s many critiques, with Allison not being afraid to either expose obvious misunderstandings or take on the more serious challenges.

[Joe Sabet · Rating 1 out of 5]

Found myself scratching my head often reading this. Not even close to the clarity offered by Schopenhauer when he writes on Kant. I don't understand why people recommend this when starting with kant because it didnt help me much. I actually had to stop a quarter of the way through and go straight to Kant's short works that explain his philosophy

[Julian Gress · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this in part. I didn't finish because I did not find it insightful. Oh well.

[Karim Kadry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Controversial but interesting

[Plato · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing Kant scholarship. R.I.P :'(

[vr reads · Rating 4 out of 5]

excoriating.

quite a difficult book, and very unlikely that your opinion and conception of Kant's project will remain unchanged on the other side.

[Donald · Rating 4 out of 5]

The only thing better than Kant is NeoKant. That is all.