Kantian Fallibilism vs Kantian Infallibilism: An Analysis

null, Dario Vaccaro

Immanuel Kant is canonically interpreted as an infallibilist about knowledge: he is

said to believe that knowledge can be attained only when it is impossible for the epistemic

agent to be mistaken. Andrew Chignell has challenged this orthodoxy, advancing a fallibilist

reading of Kant’s theory of knowledge. In this paper, I aim to assess the plausibility of

Chignell’s interpretation. First, I present the strongest arguments in Chignell’s hermeneutical

toolkit. Then, I compare Chignell’s reasons with those of his harshest critic, Lawrence

Pasternack. I conclude by providing novel reasons that, together with Pasternack’s, should lead us to reject Chignell’s reading.