The Story of a Phantom Conflict: The Dispute over Leibniz’s Philosophy in the Second Round of the Kant-Eberhard Controversy

Abstract The controversy involving Eberhard is almost always studied from Kant’s point of view, with its second round largely neglected following Kant’s publication of “On a Discovery” in 1790. Yet, far from the rhetorical struggle to reappropriate the Leibnizian heritage that dominated the first round, Eberhard’s replies after 1790 seek to challenge Kant’s characterization of dogmatic philosophy, to which those who called themselves dogmatic philosophers did not subscribe. In particular, Eberhard challenges Kant’s claims that Leibniz made no preliminary investigation into the power of a priori knowledge and thus made an unlimited use of reason. Through this confrontation, Eberhard intends to show that Kant is mistaken about the status of geometrical propositions and that his conception of a priori intuition stems from a confusion between the content and the mode of access to the proposition. For Eberhard, there is no such thing as an a priori intuition; moreover, there is a sense in which one can have cognition, though limited, of things-in-themselves. Despite all his efforts to show that Kant was inciting a phantom conflict with a strawman Leibniz, Eberhard recognized that in the end, he had no effect on Leibniz’s reception and had thus started a phantom conflict of his own.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Kant-Studien
Published
2025-11-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1515/kant-2025-2029
Primary Topic
Historical Philosophy and Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Story of a Phantom Conflict: The Dispute over Leibniz’s Philosophy in the Second Round of the Kant-Eberhard Controversy

Arnaud Pelletier
Kant-Studien
Historical Philosophy and Science
article

The Story of a Phantom Conflict: The Dispute over Leibniz’s Philosophy in the Second Round of the Kant-Eberhard Controversy

Arnaud Pelletier
article en

Abstract

Abstract The controversy involving Eberhard is almost always studied from Kant’s point of view, with its second round largely neglected following Kant’s publication of “On a Discovery” in 1790. Yet, far from the rhetorical struggle to reappropriate the Leibnizian heritage that dominated the first round, Eberhard’s replies after 1790 seek to challenge Kant’s characterization of dogmatic philosophy, to which those who called themselves dogmatic philosophers did not subscribe. In particular, Eberhard challenges Kant’s claims that Leibniz made no preliminary investigation into the power of a priori knowledge and thus made an unlimited use of reason. Through this confrontation, Eberhard intends to show that Kant is mistaken about the status of geometrical propositions and that his conception of a priori intuition stems from a confusion between the content and the mode of access to the proposition. For Eberhard, there is no such thing as an a priori intuition; moreover, there is a sense in which one can have cognition, though limited, of things-in-themselves. Despite all his efforts to show that Kant was inciting a phantom conflict with a strawman Leibniz, Eberhard recognized that in the end, he had no effect on Leibniz’s reception and had thus started a phantom conflict of his own.

Kant-StudienVol. 116(4)
Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 58%
Historical Philosophy and Science
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.