Kuhn’s Kantian Dimensions

Two questions need to be considered when assessing the Kantian dimensions of Kuhn’s thought. First, was Kuhn himself a Kantian of some sort? There are Neo-Kantian traditions, French and German, from which Kuhn could have drawn, and there are more complicated possible influences. In order to assess Kuhn’s “Kantian” influences, then, we need to figure out whether Kant, Kantians, or Neo-Kantians have had an influence on his work, directly or indirectly. A second question is whether Kuhn had an influence on the Kantian and Neo-Kantian thought that came after him. Here, rather than looking at sources and influences, we consider a reception tradition. While both questions are significant to the current project, it is crucial to distinguish them from each other. In particular, as I will argue, making clear distinctions here will allow us to see how recent assessments of Kuhn can be correct, within their own domain, but incorrect when applied outside it (Kant scholars will recognize this move from the Antinomies!). More and more scholars are working on Kuhn’s influences, scholarly development, and reception. For instance, we might look at the competing assessments of Pihlström and Siitonen (2005) and Mayoral de Lucas (2009). Pihlström and Siitonen argue that