Introduction

It is, we think, fair to say that scholarship on post-Kantian philosophy¹ has traditionally tended to focus on theoretical philosophy (epistemology and metaphysics) rather than on practical philosophy (moral, legal, and political philosophy). Where attention has been given to practical philosophy, it has often been restricted to ‘canonical’ figures such as Fichte and Hegel.² This neglect is regrettable, for at least three reasons. First, the post-Kantians developed innovative and distinctive positions on law, morality, and politics that are of philosophical interest in their own right. Secondly, an appreciation of the practical philosophy of the post-Kantians can shed light on their commitments in theoretical philosophy. Thirdly, since almost all of the post-Kantians conceived of themselves as developing or responding to Kant’s practical philosophy, an understanding of their views can provide valuable insight into the reception of Kant’s work.

In the last few years, scholars have begun to turn their attention towards post-Kantian practical philosophy, and there is now a burgeoning body of research on the topic. This research has been supported and stimulated by two projects. The first is a series of translations in the British Journal for the History of Philosophy of essays by early post-Kantian philosophers. To date, translations of essays by Johann Benjamin Erhard, Salomon Maimon, August Wilhelm Rehberg, and Theodor Anton Heinrich Schmalz have been published.³ The second is the AHRC international research network “Reason, Right, and Revolution: Practical Philosophy between Kant and Hegel”, which ran from 2017 to 2019. The network brought together scholars from around the world to explore early post-Kantian practical philosophy through a series of workshops. The network culminated in the edited collection Practical Philosophy from Kant to Hegel: Freedom, Right, and Revolution⁴ and this special issue.

The special issue aims to deepen our understanding of the development of post-Kantian practical philosophy by looking at a diversity of figures and themes. The first paper, by Michael L. Gregory, explores Kant’s and Rehberg’s views on theory and practice, and complements Gregory’s translation of Rehberg’s essay on theory and practice in volume 29, issue 6 of this journal. Gregory frames Rehberg’s critique of Kant in terms of “two problems of political matter” and reconstructs Kant’s responses to these problems. In the second paper, Michael Nance draws upon P.J.A. Feuerbach’s legal philosophy to examine the different conceptions of the relationship between right and morality that were developed by the early post-Kantians. Nance argues that Feuerbach’s distinction between two ways in which the concept of right can be derived leads to a dilemma for Fichte’s position in the 1796/7 Foundations of Natural Right. The third and fourth papers deal, respectively, with Fichte’s philosophy of right and moral philosophy. David James’ paper scrutinizes and defends the coherence of Fichte’s theory of punishment in the Foundations of Natural Right, arguing that Fichte’s theory reconciles two apparently conflicting aims of punishment. Timothy Brownlee’s paper engages critically with the scholarly debate over the nature and role of conscience in Fichte’s moral philosophy and argues for an interpretation that distinguishes between conscience and conviction. The fifth and sixth papers consider, respectively, the work of Goethe and Karoline von Günderrode, two figures who are often not regarded as philosophers. Dalia Nassar’s paper explores a neglected aspect of Goethe’s thought – his account of scientific Bildung – and discusses its ethical implications for our relationship to nature. Anna Ezekiel’s paper reconstructs Günderrode’s account of revolution and argues that it is based on a vitalist metaphysics. The seventh paper, by Jeffery Kinlaw, examines the nature and role of individual rights in Schleiermacher’s political theory and defends Schleiermacher’s conception of rights against recent criticism. In the eighth and final paper, Andreja Novakovic and Oksana Maksymchuk illuminate Hegel’s account of ethical education and its political conditions by drawing on his engagement with Plato.

Each paper makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of the ideas and arguments of one or more philosophers. Taken together, the papers provide an insight into the richness, diversity, and sophistication of post-Kantian practical philosophy. It is our hope and expectation that they will stimulate further research on the topic.

Notes

1 The term ‘post-Kantian philosophy’ refers to the work of 18th and early 19th German philosophers who were influenced by Kant’s Critical Philosophy. The post-Kantians include figures such as J.B. Erhard, J.G. Fichte, G.W.F. Hegel, Novalis, K.L. Reinhold, F.W.J. Schelling, and F. Schlegel.

2 Notable exceptions are: Beiser, Enlightenment, Revolution, and Romanticism and Maliks, Kant’s Politics.

3 See the bibliography for information.

4 Clarke and Gottlieb, Practical Philosophy from Kant to Hegel: Freedom, Right, and Revolution.