Practical grounds for freedom: Kant and James on freedom, experience, and an open future
Practical grounds for freedom: Kant and James on freedom, experience, and an open future
In this chapter, we compare Kant and James’ accounts of freedom. Despite both thinkers’ rejecting compatibilism for the sake of practical reason, there are two striking differences in their stances. The first concerns whether or not freedom requires the possibility of an open future. James holds that morality hinges on the real possibility that the future can be affected by our actions. Kant, on the other hand, seems to maintain that we can still be free in the crucial sense, even if none of our actions can have any effect on the future. The second difference between them is related, and concerns the location of freedom. Kant views experience as determined by natural necessity, and locates freedom outside of it, in things-in-themselves. James, on the other hand, has a richer conception of experience than Kant, and holds that we can locate our freedom within experience alone. In the end, we contend that James has a better account of how freedom relates to our experience, but this comes at a cost. For while Kant's account struggles with the relationship between freedom and experience, it has the advantage of insulating our freedom from potential empirical challenges.
155-171
Saunders, Joe
03e03f1d-fb84-4c15-815e-a34fa7444730
Williams, Neil
401e2487-a30a-4dd4-8955-55cca4c378a7
18 May 2023
Saunders, Joe
03e03f1d-fb84-4c15-815e-a34fa7444730
Williams, Neil
401e2487-a30a-4dd4-8955-55cca4c378a7
Saunders, Joe and Williams, Neil
(2023)
Practical grounds for freedom: Kant and James on freedom, experience, and an open future.
In,
Saunders, Jo
(ed.)
Freedom After Kant: From German Idealism to Ethics and the Self.
1 ed.
Bloomsbury Publishing, .
Record type:
Book Section
Abstract
In this chapter, we compare Kant and James’ accounts of freedom. Despite both thinkers’ rejecting compatibilism for the sake of practical reason, there are two striking differences in their stances. The first concerns whether or not freedom requires the possibility of an open future. James holds that morality hinges on the real possibility that the future can be affected by our actions. Kant, on the other hand, seems to maintain that we can still be free in the crucial sense, even if none of our actions can have any effect on the future. The second difference between them is related, and concerns the location of freedom. Kant views experience as determined by natural necessity, and locates freedom outside of it, in things-in-themselves. James, on the other hand, has a richer conception of experience than Kant, and holds that we can locate our freedom within experience alone. In the end, we contend that James has a better account of how freedom relates to our experience, but this comes at a cost. For while Kant's account struggles with the relationship between freedom and experience, it has the advantage of insulating our freedom from potential empirical challenges.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 18 May 2023
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 495875
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/495875
PURE UUID: 700a50d3-2aa3-4e7b-824f-e2930c279e4e
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 26 Nov 2024 17:45
Last modified: 27 Nov 2024 03:10
Export record
Contributors
Author:
Joe Saunders
Author:
Neil Williams
Editor:
Jo Saunders
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics