Noumenal Freedom and Kant's Modal Antinomy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Kant states in §76 of the third Critique that the divine intuitive intellect would not represent modal distinctions. Kohl (2015) and Stang (2016) claim that this statement entails that noumena lack modal properties, which, in turn, conflicts with Kant's attribution of contingency to human noumenal wills. They both propose resolutions to this conflict based on conjectures regarding how God might non-modally represent what our discursive intellects represent as modally determined. I argue that (i) these proposals fail; (ii) the viable resolution consists in recognizing that we modalize human noumenal wills as a merely regulative-practical principle in our judgements of imputation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalKantian Review
StateAccepted/In press - 2021

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Philosophy


Dive into the research topics of 'Noumenal Freedom and Kant's Modal Antinomy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this