Kant: A Biography

"All-Crushing" Critic of Metaphysics 267

I shall never be dissuaded from my conviction that regardless of how much noise he

makes in the world man is only an infinitely tiny creature, an unnoticeable atom in

relation to the universe.... Instruments of an invisible hand, we move without knowing

what we do; statesmen and warriors are no more than puppets in the hands of provi¬

dence, which guides the world at will.^70

Kant objects to the fatalism inherent in Schulz's position, taking up Fred¬

erick's analogy and claiming that it "turns human conduct into a mere

puppet show" and completely obliterates the concept of moral obligation

{Verbindlichkeit). But

the "ought" or the imperative that distinguishes the practical law from the law of na¬

ture also puts us in idea altogether beyond the chain of nature, since unless we think

of our will as free this imperative is impossible and absurd and what is left us is only

to await and observe what sort of decision God will effect in us by means of natural

causes, but not what we can and ought to do of ourselves as authors.^71

Even the greatest skeptic or the convinced fatalist must act uas if he were
free." This is because anyone who wants to pursue "righteous conduct in
conformity with the eternal laws of duty," and not be "a plaything of his
instincts and inclinations," must presuppose it.^72 This would include
Frederick.
At the very end of the Prolegomena, Kant had dared the reviewer of the
Göttingische Anzeigen to reveal his identity. Garve took the bait and wrote to
Kant on July 13, 1783, saying that he could not call the review his because
it had been changed. Only some of his phrases had been retained, and
some things had been interpolated. Indeed, he claimed that he was at least
as angry at the review as Kant was. He also asked Kant not to make pub¬
lic use of the letter. It would be wrong to make difficulties for the editor.
Garve had forgiven the editor, and he had also given him permission to re¬
vise and shorten the review. Kant was satisfied. On August 7,1783, he an¬
swered Garve, saying that he had never believed that "a Garve" could have
written the review. He also expressed his hope that Garve would help him
in making clearer his goals to the enemies of the Critique. Just a little later,
on August 21, when he received the original review as reprinted in the All¬
gemeine deutsche Bibliothek, he was disappointed. Garve's original review was
really no better than the one that had appeared in the Göttingische Anzeigen.
It was just longer, and it did not mention Berkeley by name. Kant com¬
plained, and he felt he was being treated "like an imbecile."^73
Literary success seemed to be denied to him. Still, Kant was more suc¬
cessful in Königsberg. Hamann wrote on October 26,1783, that Kant was