Skip to main content

Moral Finitude and Ontology of Creation: The Kantian Interpretation of Gerhard Krüger

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Strauss-Krüger Correspondence

Part of the book series: Recovering Political Philosophy ((REPOPH))

Abstract

Philosophie und Moral in der Kantischen Kritik indisputably ranks among the most important interpretations of Kantianism . (Gerhard Krüger, Philosophie und Moral in der Kantischen Kritik (1931), Tübingen (Germany): Mohr Siebeck; 2nd edition 1967. Hereafter referred to as: Philosophie und Moral. This study (first published in Archives de philosophie, volume 74–1, spring 2011) has the modest goal to set out the main elements of Krüger’s interpretation, which, in our time, has become widely and somewhat unjustly forgotten. (I thank the editors for granting me the permission to republish this text.) Krüger’s book makes for an arduous and, at times, abstruse construction. Only its main motives can be taken up in this essay, which may entail ignoring other major elements, such as Kant’s moral formalism, for example. I will also refer to the article by Krüger entitled “Der Maßstab der kantischen Kritik,” Kantstudien, XXIX, 1934, pp. 156–187 (hereafter referred to as: Maßstab), which contains the better portion of the theses set out in his Kantbuch.) However, it is also a singularly disconcerting and bewildering work that offers a totally original view of Kant . According to Gerhard Krüger, Kant was the last defender of natural theology (which, in his time, was threatened by the latent if not overt atheism of the Aufklärung) rather than one of the most illustrious representatives of the Enlightenment . From this perspective, moral law and autonomy, which are without doubt the key points of Kant’s philosophy, were the essential and transformative experiences of obedience to God rather than the affirmation of a self-referring subjectivity no longer concerned with looking beyond the inherent law of its freedom . Likewise, the world was the primitive given that consecrated man’s dependence on his Creator rather than a transcendental construction.

Translated by Donald Kellough and Rachel Pagano

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Gerhard Krüger, Philosophie und Moral in der Kantischen Kritik (1931), Tübingen (Germany): Mohr Siebeck; 2nd edition 1967. Hereafter referred to as: Philosophie und Moral. This study (first published in Archives de philosophie, volume 74–1, spring 2011) has the modest goal to set out the main elements of Krüger’s interpretation, which, in our time, has become widely and somewhat unjustly forgotten. (I thank the editors for granting me the permission to republish this text.) Krüger’s book makes for an arduous and, at times, abstruse construction. Only its main motives can be taken up in this essay, which may entail ignoring other major elements, such as Kant’s moral formalism, for example. I will also refer to the article by Krüger entitled “Der Maßstab der kantischen Kritik,” Kantstudien, XXIX, 1934, pp. 156–187 (hereafter referred to as: Maßstab), which contains the better portion of the theses set out in his Kantbuch.

  2. 2.

    G. Krüger, Einsicht und Leidenschaft. Das Wesen des platonischen Denkens, Frankfurt a. M. (Germany): Klostermann, 1939; 4th edition, 1973.

  3. 3.

    Bultmann belonged to the highly disparate movement of dialectical theology whose aim was to return to the deeper meaning of Old and above all New Testament Revelation, which had become obscured by liberal theology and its unconsciously positivist approach to the text of the Bible. Liberal theology often regarded the Bible as a mere object of historical and hermeneutical investigation and interpreted this work according to a culturalist and anthropocentric perspective. By the same stroke, Christianity tended to become, quite impersonally, a yardstick of civilization. Now, for the believer, the important thing was to return to the deeper meaning of the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ. Karl Barth, the most exemplary representative of the current dialectical theology, would confront the liberal interpretation with the pre-eminence of the inexplicable “eventness” of the revelation of God in Christ. It is so pre-eminent a revelation that it precedes all our subjective desires of cognition, and even all “our” philosophies, and bids us simply to listen to the Word of God since, for Barth, “only God can speak about God.” It remains, however, that this Word must be able to be heard by us all-too-human beings. On this point, Bultmann found in the existential ontology of Heidegger a conceptuality capable of bringing the promise of Salvation into contact with the initial distress of human existence.

  4. 4.

    Philosophie und Moral, p. 8 (our translation: D.K).

  5. 5.

    The following are a few titles of books and articles of note: Kant als Metaphysiker, by Max Wundt (1925); Diesseits von Idealismus und Realismus, by Nicolai Hartmann (1924); Metaphysische Motive in der Ausbildung des kritischen Idealismus (1924) and Persönlichkeitsbewusstsein und Ding an sich in der Kantischen Philosophie, by Heinz Heimsoeth (1924); Kant als Philosoph des Unbedingten, by Johannes Volkelt (1924); and Kant und das Ding an sich, by Erich Adickes (1924). About Heimsoeth, see the article of Tinca Prunea (2013), “La conception kantienne de la philosophie dans la lecture métaphysique de Heinz Heimsoeth,” in Akten des XI. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses – Band I [Proceedings of the XI International Kant Congress (Pisa, Italy)]. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.

  6. 6.

    Philosophie und Moral, pp. 175–176.

  7. 7.

    Kant, CPR, A798/B826; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, p. 673.

  8. 8.

    Philosophie und Moral, p. 12 (our translation).

  9. 9.

    Ibid., p. 227 (our translation).

  10. 10.

    Ibid., pp. 230–231.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., p. 22.

  12. 12.

    Maßstab, p. 164.

  13. 13.

    CPR, A 238/B298; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, p. 340.

  14. 14.

    CPR, B-XXVI–XXVII; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, p. 115.

  15. 15.

    CPR, A715/B743; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, p. 631.

  16. 16.

    Maßstab, p. 175 (our translation).

  17. 17.

    Ibid., p. 181 (our translation).

  18. 18.

    Philosophie und Moral, p. 152 (our translation).

  19. 19.

    Kant, Critique of the Power of Judgment (CPJ), Ak. V, 196; Eng. trans. P. Guyer and E. Matthews, p. 82.

  20. 20.

    Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Ak. IV, 365; Eng. trans. G. Hatfield, p. 116.

  21. 21.

    Here, The History of Pure Reason, the concluding chapter of the Transcendental Doctrine of Method, is of less importance, as “this title stands here only to designate a place that is left open in the system and must be filled in the future” (CPR, A 852/B 880; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, p. 702).

  22. 22.

    CPR, A710-711/B738-739; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, p. 628, p. 629.

  23. 23.

    CPR, A736/B764; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, p. 642.

  24. 24.

    CPR, A739/B767; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, p. 644.

  25. 25.

    Prolegomena, Ak. IV, 352; Eng. trans. Hatfield, p. 103.

  26. 26.

    CPR, A773/B801; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, p. 661.

  27. 27.

    CPR, A776-777/B804-805; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, p. 662.

  28. 28.

    Philosophie und Moral, p. 192.

  29. 29.

    CPR, A796/B824; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, p. 672.

  30. 30.

    Philosophie und Moral, p. 192 (our translation).

  31. 31.

    Maßstab, p. 168 (our translation).

  32. 32.

    CPR, B XXVIII; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, p. 115.

  33. 33.

    In the Jäsche Logic, this question of hope calls forth another question: What is man? (Ak. IX, 25: Lectures on Logic (1992); Eng. trans. J. Michael Young). That is, who am I, this contingent being who lives in this world? It is an eminently destabilizing question for the ego, which is no longer the focal point, even if all philosophical questions turn out to be human questions. The gods do not philosophize, as Plato acknowledged some time ago, and philosophy is a strictly human matter, a quest for wisdom that we do not possess but to which reason aspires. Kant fits squarely with this line of thought.

  34. 34.

    CPR, A808-809/B836-837; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, p. 679.

  35. 35.

    Philosophie und Moral, p. 161 (our translation).

  36. 36.

    Maßstab, p. 170 (our translation).

  37. 37.

    CPR, A838-839/B866-867; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, pp. 694–695. N.B.: Guyer translates Weltbegriff as “cosmopolitan concept” as opposed to “cosmic concept.”

  38. 38.

    CPR, A822/B850; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, p. 686.

  39. 39.

    CPR, B XXX; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, p. 117.

  40. 40.

    Philosophie und Moral, p. 233. It could be argued that this self-knowledge of human beings acting in the world and reflecting on the place they occupy in it will be the business of the Anthropology, to which, moreover, Kant dedicated considerable attention. However, for this philosopher, the concept of this truly foundational knowledge would go unelucidated, at least until the Opus postumum, precisely because, to the end, Kant remained “in that regard, dogmatically attached to the theoretical science of nature” (Maßstab, p. 171; our translation).

  41. 41.

    CPJ, Ak. V, 180; Eng. trans. P. Guyer and E. Matthews, p. 67.

  42. 42.

    CPJ, Ak. V, 196; Eng. trans. P. Guyer and E. Matthews, p. 82.

  43. 43.

    CPR, B 165; Eng. trans. P. Guyer, p. 264.

  44. 44.

    CPJ, Ak., V, 185–186; Eng. trans. P. Guyer and E. Matthews, p. 115. See also CPR, Appendix to the Transcendental Dialectic, A642 sq./B670 sq.; Eng. translation P. Guyer, p. 590.

  45. 45.

    CPJ, First introduction, Ak. XX, 217; Eng. trans. P. Guyer and E. Matthews, p. 20.

  46. 46.

    CPJ, § 83, Ak. V, 431; Eng. trans. P. Guyer and E. Matthews, p. 298.

  47. 47.

    Philosophie und Moral, p. 42.

  48. 48.

    CPJ, Ak, V, 185–186; Eng. trans. P. Guyer and E. Matthews, p. 72.

  49. 49.

    Krüger’s Protestant interlocutors never failed to reproach him for an approach they considered as being overly rooted in metaphysics. Their position no doubt foretold of things to come, for Gerhard Krüger ultimately converted to Catholicism in 1950, following a series of intense discussions with Romano Guardini.

  50. 50.

    Metaphysics of Morals, The Doctrine of Right, § 62, Conclusion: “Every actual deed (fact) is an object in appearance (to the senses). On the other hand, what can be presented only by pure reason and must be counted among ideas, to which no object given in experience can be adequate – and a perfectly rightful constitution among human beings is of this sort – is the thing in itself” (Ak. VI, 371; Eng. translation, M. Gregor, p. 137).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Langlois, L. (2018). Moral Finitude and Ontology of Creation: The Kantian Interpretation of Gerhard Krüger. In: Shell, S. (eds) The Strauss-Krüger Correspondence. Recovering Political Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74201-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics