About Erich Adickes' dating problem  (Ak XIV, pp. XIV - LXV)

Some proposals for a solution and the utility of the DscD in such proposals.

§ 2

The dating of the RR by Erich Adickes has been discussed since its publication by the Academy (1911 and followings). Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the use of the RR in accordance with the mentioned dating has to be made very carefully. Since we cannot fully trust in the use of these RR, can it be made partially or to a certain level? This should be decided in connection with:

1. Kant's chronological news about the evolution process of his thought (§ 3),
2. The RR, following their chronological index, according to Adickes' dating included in the DscD (§ 4),
3. Comparison between the information we have of Kant himself and of the whole collection of RR (§ 5),
4. Parallel places in Kant's work (§ 6),
5. Division of the RR into periods as made by Benno Erdmann (§ 7) and
6. Secondary bibliography by using the intertextual network of the Database for scientific Documentation (§ 8)

Consequently we propose the following tasks in order to determine the correction degree of Adickes' dating:

  § 3

1. Establishment of conclusions about the origin and subsequent elaboration of Kant's thought starting from his own news about his datation -news which are included both in the published and the posthumous works.

Admitting that those news are completely reliable documents, 

for Kant affirmed that: "Everything I say is true, but I do not say all the truth." R 2217 y? = 1780-1789? (u-c? = 1776-1779?), Ak XVI, p. 274, L 25'. Zu L §. 100 and "Certainly I think with very clear conviction and much satisfaction many things tat I would never dare to say; but I will never say what I do not think." Letter to  Moses Mendelssohn, 8^th April 1766, Ak X, p. 69 _23-26

such news can be taken as criteria in order to come to secure conclusions about the origin's dating and evolution of his way of thinking.  

Those conclusions should be drawn as a whole as the starting point and necessary condition but not as enough, to decide the correction degree which the RR' dating requires.

  § 4

2. Settlement of provisional conclusions regarding the evolution of Kant's thoughts starting from the RR and considering Adickes' dating of the RR.

These conclusions could not be made definitively. In fact, on their own, they would not allow concluding in what order the development has exactly taken place, considering the questionable character of the dating itself. They are mere hypothesis which should be confirmed by other sources (first of all the above mentioned conclusions). That is why they are provisional.

Evidently if Adickes' dating was denied just because of the fact of its own variety or because of the refusal of the parameters in use, it would not have any sense to pull conclusions out from the RR, regarding the dating. But by rejecting in such a way, we arrive to a petitio principii. What is indeed questioned is the use of those parameters to carry out a correct dating (including consequently its variability in 33 phases and the distinction among the secure dating and 9 different degrees of probability).  

To obtain these conclusions you have to use the chronological reflections index of DscD as explained in the reasons exposed in § 1 of this introduction.

  § 5

3. The first approach to determine the degree of correction made by Adickes regarding the dating of RR and possibilities of setting the real order of the process of working out the KrV by comparing definitive conclusions of § 3 (1.) and the provisional conclusions of § 4 (2.).

The question of the utility of the criteria used by Adickes to carry out a correct dating continues open until now. In part because the announced volume XXI of the Nachlass-Abtheilung was never published (Cf. Einleitung in die Abtheilung des handscriftlichen Nachlasses, p. XLIV. In: Ak XIV. Also the Vorwort of Adickes to Ak XVII p. IX ff.). And also due to the definitive disappearance of the original texts at the end of the second world war.

This volume should 

"offer an accurate description of the whole manuscript, arranged according to its origin. Indicate which reflections are to be found on every losen Blatt and compendium page, which signs of certain or probable situation are to be found according to the sequence in which they were written. These pages (sc. those of the announced volume) will contain a rich and extraordinarily important material for the chronological determination of the Reflexionen and phases: they offer strictly objective criteria against which any attempt of dating would fail" (Ak XIV, p. XLIV).

To considerer, in case of obtaining a certain degree of concordance between 1 and 2, we might conclude that this dating can be considered correct at least in part.

  § 6

4. Establishment of those places in Kant's work which are parallel (cf. § 8) to the RR with a view to determine the order in which the thought were developed, using mainly the correctly dated RR (cf. § 2).

If with the above mentioned comparison in § 5 (3.) there cannot be established any relation to those datings, one could try to look up the parallel locations:

In addition to these four items we add two tasks which are essential in the research regarding the degree of correction of Adickes' dating:

  § 7

5. Comparing Adickes' dating that is considered correct (together with the parallel locations mentioned in § 6) with the division of the reflections into periods made by Benno Erdmann in his introduction to the second volume of his edition of 1884: Die Entwicklungsperioden von Kants theoretischer Philosophie (pp. XIII-LX). Periods that "in general do not fix the time of origin, but the time of validity" (Vorwort to mentioned volume, p. VI and quoted by Hinske in his Einleitung zur Neuausgabe... , p. 9. 

  § 8

6. Considering the existing connection between the secondary bibliography and the reflections. In this regard, we have to consider the treatment of the RR by the Kant-Forschung.

As Norbert Hinske says in his Einleitung zur Neuausgabe, I. In: Reflexionen Kants zur kritischen Philosophie. Aus Kants handschriftlichen Aufzeichnungen herausgegeben von Benno Erdmann. Neudruck der Ausgabe Leipzig 1882/1884. Neu herausgegeben und mit einer Einleitung versehen von Norbert Hinske. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1992, p. 7:  

"The influence that started form it (sc.: of the publication of the Reflexionen Kants zur Kritischen Philosophie edited by B. Erdmann) is already visible in the linguistic use: from and through Erdmann the expression of 'Reflections' or of 'posthumous reflections' has become within the Kantforschung something comprehensible in itself. Exactly with this edition begins really the deep interest in Kant's posthumous work that has changed essentially our idea about Kant's philosophy" (the cursive letters are ours).

In an E-Mail of May 1999 to Juan Luis Meliá, Lothar Kreimendahl says "that it will certainly be a useful information for the users (sc.: of the index of Kant's 'Reflexionen') to indicate some 'Reflexionen' particularly" insofar as "some datings are simply wrong and some of them are very questionable... for example R 3716". This R caused an discussion between Norbert Hinske (against this dating) and Josef Schmucker (in favour of it).

As a result, in addition to the use of the chronological index of the 'Reflexionen', we have to considerer the question state of the RR within the Kant-Forschung.

In fact, the intertextual network of the Database for scientific Documentation includes the relation between places of many authors' works (of more or less importance in the Kant-Forschung) and the RR (selection example: R 5037). This relation might provide the documentation about the progress which has been made in the Kant-Forschung regarding the solution of dating problems.