In this article I defend the traditional interpretations of Kant’s
Formula of a Law of Nature from recent attacks levelled by Faviola
Rivera-Castro, James Furner, Ido Geiger, Pauline Kleingeld and Sven
Nyholm. After a short introduction, the article is divided into four main
sections. In the first, I set out the basics of the three traditional interpretations,
the Logical Contradiction Interpretation, the Practical Contradiction
Interpretation and the Teleological Contradiction Interpretation.
In the second, I examine the work of Geiger, Kleingeld and Nyholm:
these three commentators reject the traditional interpretations entirely,
but I argue that this rejection is ill-founded. In the third and fourth, I
take a detailed look at Furner’s work, work in which he seeks to revise
(rather than reject) the traditional interpretations. I argue that, despite his
more modest aims, Furner’s revision is also ill-founded.