arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Immanuel Kant’s Anthropology and Ernest Gellner’s Critique of the Modern Social Sciences

Roey Reichert

Philosophy of the Social Sciences2025https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931251327325article
ABDC B
Weight
0.37

What the paper says

I examine the profound influence of Immanuel Kant’s philosophical anthropology on Ernest Gellner’s social theory. Exploring how Kant’s attempt to preserve human agency in the face of mechanical explanations of nature shaped Gellner’s approach to the social sciences, I trace certain key concepts from Kant through to Gellner, including the “exception,” disenchantment, and mechanical dehumanization. I analyze Gellner’s expansion of the Kantian critique, in particular his historicization of Kant’s universal claims and his concept of the “Rubber Cage.” The essay concludes by considering the ongoing relevance of this Kantian-Gellnerian perspective for the contemporary social sciences.

1 citation

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931251327325

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{roey2025,
  title        = {{Immanuel Kant’s Anthropology and Ernest Gellner’s Critique of the Modern Social Sciences}},
  author       = {Roey Reichert},
  journal      = {Philosophy of the Social Sciences},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931251327325},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Immanuel Kant’s Anthropology and Ernest Gellner’s Critique of the Modern Social Sciences

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.