Works Citing my Research

Kant on the Material Ground of Possibility: From the Only Possible Argument to the Critique of Pure Reason

  • Kerslake, C. (2009). Immanence and the Vertigo of Philosophy: From Kant to Deleuze. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Chignell, A. (2012). Kant, Real Possibility, and the Threat of Spinoza. Mind,121(483), 635-675.
  • Nachtomy, O. (2012). Leibniz and Kant on Possibility and Existence. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 20(5), 953-972.
  • Gottlieb, M. (2011). Faith and freedom: Moses Mendelssohn’s theological-political thought. Oxford University Press.
  • Insole, C. J. (2013). Kant and the creation of freedom: a theological problem. Oxford University Press.
  • Insole, C. (2011). Intellectualism, Relational Properties and the Divine Mind in Kant’s Pre-Critical Philosophy. Kantian Review, 16(03), 399-427.
  • Boehm, O. (2014). Kant’s critique of Spinoza. Oxford University Press, USA.
  • Newlands, S. (2013). Leibniz and the Ground of Possibility. Philosophical Review, 122(2), 155-187.
  • Pollok, K. (2014). From the clarity of ideas to the validity of judgments: Kant’s farewell to epistemic perfectionism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 44(1), 18-35.
  • Leech, J. F. (2011). The varieties of modality: Kantian prospects for a relativist account.
  • Yong, P. (2014). God, Totality and Possibility in Kant’s Only Possible Argument.Kantian Review, 19(01), 27-51.
  • Sdrolia, C. (2014). Signifying nature: semeiosis as the foundation of post-critical cosmology in Charles S. Peirce (Doctoral dissertation).
  • Rukgaber, M. (2014). Kant’s Criticisms of Ontological and Onto-theological Arguments for the Existence of God.
  • Abaci, U. (2014). Kant’s Only Possible Argument and Chignell’s Real Harmony.Kantian Review, 19(01), 1-25.
  • Adams, R. M. (2000). God, Possibility, and Kant. Faith and Philosophy, 17(4), 425-440.
  • Schönfeld, M. (2000). The philosophy of the young Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kant’s Explanatory Natural History

  • Ameriks, K. (2012). Kant’s Elliptical Path. Oxford University Press.
  • Mensch, J. (2013). Kant’s organicism: epigenesis and the development of critical philosophy. University of Chicago Press.
  • Huneman, P. (2014). Purposiveness, necessity, and contingency. Kant’s philosophy of biology. de Gruyter, Berlin, 185-202.
  • Gambarotto, A. (2014). Vital forces and organization: Philosophy of nature and biology in Karl Friedrich Kielmeyer. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 48, 12-20.
  • Fisher, M. (2014). Metaphysics and Physiology in Kant’s Attitude towards Theories of Preformation. Kant’s Theory of Biology, 25.
  • Zammito, J. (2011). Should Kant have Abandoned the “Daring Adventure of Reason”? The Interest of Contemporary Naturalism in the Historicization of Nature in Kant and Idealist Naturphilosophie. Philosophie und Wissenschaft/Philosophy and Science:[Print+ Online], 8, 130.
  • Mensch, J. (2014). Kant and the problem of form: theories of animal generation, theories of mind. Estudos Kantianos [EK], 2(02).

Organisms and Teleology in Kant’s Natural Philosophy

  • Watkins, E. (2009). The antinomy of teleological judgment. Kant yearbook,1(2009), 197-221.
  • Watkins, E., & Goy, I. (2014). Kant’s Theory of Biology.