Kant's distinction between intuitive and discursive knowledge precludes his giving intuitions linguistic representation. Singular terms represent concepts given what kant calls a 'singular use' and are analyzable as definite descriptions. That the object described exists and that there is only one such object can be given linguistic representation only through an explicit assertion of existence and uniqueness. As an intuitionist in mathematics kant holds that mathematics proclaims the constructibility and not the existence of its objects.

Both ways of looking at the history of logic as well as some of the issues that plague contemporary disputes over the nature of logic are illustrated in three recent books. Henry Veatch's Intentional Logic turns to a medieval Aristotelian philosophy as providing the framework for an adequate account of logical subject matter. Ernest Moody's Truth and Consequence in Mediaeval Logic borrows from the technical apparatus of present-day logicians in an endeavor to reassess what was once dismissed as fourteenth century (...) logic-chopping. Benson Mates' Stoic Logic is a similar study in the logic of an earlier period. (shrink)

The word ‘category’ is commonly used as a virtual synonym for such words as ‘class’, ‘genus’, ‘type’, and ‘kind’, but in Western philosophy since Aristotle ‘category’ has had a technical use that associates it with the foundations of philosophy. Categories in this philosophical sense are not determined by empirical procedures of classification, whether those of common sense or of science. They are determined by the very conditions that determine a philosophy, and since Kant the method of determining them is often (...) called “transcendental argument.”. (shrink)

As even a cursory glance at Peirce’s Collected Papers makes apparent, he is an extremely unsystematic and difficult writer. In this paper, I want to sort out some of the main arguments that connect his verificationism with his realism and his metaphysics. I pay particular attention to his contrast between individuals and universals and its bearing on his doctrine of perceptual judgment and abductive inference. In the final section, I turn to two criticisms of Peircean realism urged by Quine and, (...) in conclusion, offer some suggestions as to what is needed for a full critical evaluation of it. (shrink)

In both editions of the Critique of Pure Reason, and in the Prolegomena, the table of the logical functions of the understanding in judgments lists under “quantity of judgments”: universal, particular, and singular; and the table of categories lists under “categories of quantity”: unity, plurality, and totality. As Kant regarded the forms of judgments as giving “the clue” to the derivation of categories and held that the two lists are “in complete agreement”, one would conclude from the tables that the (...) category of unity is derived from the universal form of judgment and the category of totality from the singular form. But this view of the derivations seems wrong. As a universal judgment pertains to all objects of a given sort and a singular judgment pertains to but one object, one would expect unity to be derived from the singular and totality from the universal form of judgment. That this second view of the derivations is what Kant really intended seems confirmed by the fact that at several places in his writings, including a passage in the Critique and one in the Prolegomena, when he is speaking of quantitative determinations, he explicitly associates the singular judgment with unity. But if this second view is what he intended, one wonders why he failed to correct the order in the tables in the Prolegomena and in the second edition of the Critique. Is this failure merely, as Jonathan Bennett has suggested, “a slip”? (shrink)