Kant’s Transcendentalism as Metaphysics of Possible Experience and its Realistic Interpretation in Analytical Philosophy

Cover Page

Cite item


In the “Critique of Pure Reason” and subsequent “Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics...”, “Metaphysical Principles of Natural Science”, “Opus Postumum” Kant develops one of the modes of his transcendentalism, the metaphysics of possible experience, whose task is to study the transcendental conditions for the possibility of our (cognition), which, according to Kant, has a priori character. P. Strawson calls this mode of metaphysics ‘ descriptive metaphysics ’ and connects it with the analyzing the ‘conceptual structure’ of our thinking about the world. The contemporary realistic trend (primarily within the framework of the analytical philosophical tradition) in the interpretation of Kant’s transcendental philosophy is associated with the modern theory of “two aspects” (80s of the 20th century), which replaced the classical theory of “two objects/worlds” (compare also with the opposition “ theory of appearance vs. theory of appearances ”). Within the framework of this theory, the Kantian ‘appearance’ receives an objectified status, it is not our mental representation, but corresponds (as its signs) to really existing things, or Kantian ‘objects of experience’. The article traces the formation of the historical and conceptual background of the ‘ metaphysics of experience ’ (H. Paton's original expression). Historically, the metaphysics of experience inherits the neo-Kantian approach to interpreting Kant's transcendentalism as a ‘theory of experience’ (H. Cohen, E. Cassirer), then it develops in logical positivism/empiricism (H. Reichenbach, R. Carnap; further in post-posivivism: the theory of I. Lakatos and T. Kuhn), analytical philosophy of science (W. Sellars, G. Buchdal, H. Putnam), and at present the metaphysics of experience is developing in a number of contemporary works of an analytical orientation (P. Strawson, K. Ameriks, L. Allais and etc.).

About the authors

Sergey L. Katrechko

State Academic University of the Humanities (GAUGN)

Author for correspondence.
Email: skatrechko@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2884-7719

Candidate of Sc. in Philosophy, Associate Professor, Faculty of Philosophy, State Academic University of the Humanities (GAUGN); editor-in-chief of “Studies in Transcendental Philosophy”; President of the “Foundation for the Humanities”

26 Maronovsky Lane, Moscow, 119049, Russian Federation


  1. Kant I. Critique of Pure Reason. In: Works in Russian and German languages. Vol. 2. Pt. 1, Pt. 2. Moscow: Nauka publ.; 1994—2006. (In Russian).
  2. Höffe O. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason: the Foundation of Modern Philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010.
  3. Foucault M. The order of discourse. In: The will to truth. Moscow: Kastal publ.; 1996. (In Russian).
  4. Strawson PF. The Bounds of Sense: An Essay on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. London and New York: Routledge; 1966.
  5. Allison H. Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, Revised and Enlarged Edition; 2004.
  6. Katrechko S. Kant's "Idea [project] of Transcendental Philosophy. Studies in Transcendental Philosophy. 2020;1(1). Available from: https://transcendental.su/ S123456780008967-4-1 (accessed: 15.04.2023). (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18254/ S271326680008967-4
  7. Kant I. Prolegomena to any future metaphysics that may appear as a science. In: Works in 8 vols. Vol. 4. Moscow: Choro publ.; 1994. (In Russian).
  8. Kant I. Letters. In: Works in 8 vols. Vol. 8. Moscow: Choro publ.; 1994. (In Russian).
  9. Kant I. Kants Gesammelte Schriften. Akademie Ausgabe. Vol. 29. Berlin: G. Reimer [later W. de Gruyter]; 1900ff.
  10. Kant I. The Form and Principles of the Sensible and Intelligible World. In: Works in 8 vols. Vol. 2. Moscow: Choro publ.; 1994. (In Russian).
  11. Hinske N. Ontology or Analytic of Understanding? Kant’s Long Farewell to Ontology. In: Historical and philosophical yearbook 2011. Moscow: Kanon+ publ.; 2012. (In Russian).
  12. Strawson PF. Individuals. An essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. Kaliningrad: Izd-vo RGU im. I. Kanta publ.; 2009. (In Russian).
  13. Paton HJ. Kant’s metaphysic of experience. London: Methuen and Co; 1936.
  14. Allais L. Manifest Reality: Kant’s Idealism and His Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
  15. Ameriks K. Kant's idealism on a moderate interpretation. In: Shulting В, Verburgt J, editors. Kant’s Idealism: New Interpretations of a Controversial Doctrine. Dordrecht: Springer; 2011. P. 29—53.
  16. Katrechko S. Is the Kantian Transcendentalism Idealism? Kant's Conceptual Realism. Studies in Transcendental Philosophy. 2021;2(1). Available from: https://transcendental.su/s271326680016082-0-1/ (accessed: 20.04.2023). (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18254/S271326680016082-0
  17. Bird G. The Revolutionary Kant: A Commentary on the Critique of Pure Reason. Chicago and La Salle: Open Court; 2006.
  18. Allison HE. From Transcendental Realism to Transcendental Idealism. The Nature and Significance of Kant’s ‘Transcendental Turn’. In: Gardner S., Grist M., editors. The Transcendental Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press Uk; 2015. P. 20—34.
  19. Katrechko SL. Kantian “Copernican Revolution”: Synthesis of Empirical Realism and Transcendental Idealism. Voprosy Filosofii. 2022;6(6):131—141. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2022-6-131-141
  20. Katrechko S. Kant's Copernican revolution as an altered method of thinking [in metaphysics]: its structure and status in the system of transcendental philosophy. Studies in Transcendental Philosophy. 2022;3(1—2). Available from: https://transcendental.su/s271326680020991-0-1/ (accessed: 21.04.2023). (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18254/S271326680020991-0
  21. Barker SF. Appearing and appearances in Kant. The Monist. 1967;51(3):426—441. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist196751326
  22. Katrechko SL. The Nature of Appearance in Kant’s Transcendentalism: A Semantico-Cognitive Analysis. Kantian Journal. 2018;37(3):31—55. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2018-3-2
  23. Katrechko SL. Kant’s Appearance as an Objective—Objectual Representation. Con—Textos Kantianos. 2018;(7):44—59. Available from: https://zenodo.org/record/1298600 (accessed: 22.04.2023).
  24. Katrechko SL. The Ambivalent Character of the Kantian Notion of the Appearance: Objective—Objectual (‘gegenständlich’) Nature of the Appearances as “Objects of Experience”. In: Serck-Hanssen C., editor. Proceedings of the 13th International Kant Congress ‘The Court of Reason’. Vol. 1. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter; 2021. P. 319—328.
  25. Burge Т. Origins of Objectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
  26. Whitehead AN. Symbolism. Its Meaning and Effect. Tomsk: Aquarius publ.; 1999. (In Russian).
  27. Husserl E. Works. Vol. 3 (1). The Logical Investigations. Vol. II (1). Moscow: Gnozis, Dom intellektual'noiy knigi publ.; 2001. (In Russian).
  28. Gibson JJ. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Moscow: Progress publ.; 1988. (In Russian).
  29. Katrechko SL. Are things in themselves cognizable (Kant vs. Husserl)? The problem of the objectivity of knowledge. In: Katrechko SL, editor. Transcendental Turn in Modern Philosophy (5): Transcendental Metaphysics, Phenomenology, Epistemology, Transcendental Philosophy of Science and Theory of Consciousness, Aesthetics: Proceedings of the Annual International Scientific Seminar "Transcendental Turn in Modern Philosophy — 5". Moscow: Izd-vo GAUGN—Press publ.; 2020. P. 5—14. (In Russian).

Copyright (c) 2023 Katrechko S.L.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies