Kant’s Definition of Science in the Architectonic of Pure Reason and the Essential Ends of Reason

Abstract:

The paper analyses the definition of science as an architectonic unity, which Kant gives in the Architectonic of Pure Reason. I will show how this definition is problematic, insofar as it is affected by the various ways in which the relationship of reason to ends is discussed in this chapter of the Critique of Pure Reason. Kant sometimes claims that architectonic unity is only obtainable thanks to an actual reference to the essential practical ends of human reason, but he also identifies disciplines that do not make this reference as scientific. In order to find a solution to this apparent contradiction, I will first present Kant’s distinction between a scholastic and a cosmic concept of philosophy. This distinction expresses Kant’s foreshadowing of his later insistence on the priority of practical philosophy within a true system of philosophy. Then, I will present a related distinction between technical and architectonic unity and show how Kant seems to use two different conceptions of science, one simply attributing systematic unity to science, the other claiming that science should consider the essential practical ends of human beings. I will propose a solution to this problem by arguing that, if we give a closer look to Kant’s claims, the unity of scientific disciplines can be considered architectonic without taking into consideration the essential practical ends of human reason. In fact, it is only philosophy, as a particular discipline which aims to become a science, that cannot develop into a systematic whole without considering those essential practical ends. It is thus only in philosophy that we cannot reach scientificity without considering these ends.