Dreams of a Spirit-Seer and Kant’s Critical Method
Comments on Stephen R. Palmquist’s Kant and Mysticism
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20510321 |
|---|---|
| Authors | J Colin Mcquillan (St. Mary's University, Texas, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 113-117 |
| Publication date | 2021-03-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Kantian Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1369-4154 • E-ISSN: 2044-2394 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s1369415420000461 |
| OpenAlex | W3111358013 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 1 |
In his new book, Kant and Mysticism, Stephen Palmquist argues that Kant had already formulated his critical method by the mid-1760s and that it emerged from his reflections on Swedenborg’s mystical visions. In order to evaluate these claims, I consider Kant’s correspondence with Charlotte von Knobloch and Moses Mendelssohn before and after the publication of Dreams of a Spirit-Seer ; the context in which Kant published Dreams ; and the method he employs when he discusses Swedenborg’s visions in that work. I conclude that Kant’s critical method was not well-formed during the 1760s and did not emerge from Kant’s reflections on Swedenborg
Epistemology · Mysticism · Theology · Vision · Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology · Historical Philosophy and Science · Philosophy
| Highly cited | No |
|---|