ABSTRACT
This chapter demonstrates how the paradoxes referred to as ‘transitions’ in Kt9 can each be resolved and/or explained most clearly by interpreting their epistemological status in terms of analytic a posteriority. Immanuel Kant-interpreters then and ever since have tended to divide themselves into three camps based on their response to this issue: the phenomenalism or idealism of contemporaries such as Maimon, Fichte, and J. S. Beck, later defended by the ‘Marburg’ school, regarded only phenomenal affection as valid; the noumenalism of contemporaries such as J. Schulze, later defended by the ‘Heidelberg’ school, regarded only noumenal affection as valid; and later interpreters such as Vaihinger and Adickes regarded both as valid, and therefore devised the infamous theory of ‘double affection’ as an interpretation of Kant’s view. The main focus of Kant’s attention in the sections of Kt9 dealing with the idea of God is on the philosophical implications of the phenomenon we experience as the categorical imperative.
