published on May 7, 2025

Two Defenses of Kant against the Neglected Alternative Objection

Graham Bird and Wayne Waxman have defended Kant against the neglected alternative objection. This objection alleges that the Critique of Pure Reason¡¯s dismissal of the possibility that things-in-themselves are spatiotemporal is unjustified. Proponents of the neglected alternative typically argue that Kant¡¯s thesis that things-in-themselves are not spatiotemporal is inconsistent with his thesis that things-in-themselves are unknowable. Bird and Waxman attempt to demonstrate both that Kant is not inconsistent on this score and that his denial that things-in-themselves might be spatiotemporal is justified. I argue that their defenses of Kant fail and that Kant is indeed inconsistent in holding both that things-in-themselves are not spatiotemporal and that things-in-themselves are unknowable.