British Journal for the History of Philosophy 18 (3):433-460 (2010)
|Abstract||In the transcendental deduction, the central argument of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant seeks to secure the objective validity of our basic categories of thought. He distinguishes objective and subjective sides of this argument. The latter side, the subjective deduction, is normally understood as an investigation of our cognitive faculties. It is identified with Kant’s account of a threefold synthesis involved in our cognition of objects of experience, and it is said to precede and ground Kant’s proof of the validity of the categories in the objective deduction. I challenge this standard reading of the subjective deduction, arguing, first, that there is little textual evidence for it, and, second, that it encourages a problematic conception of how the deduction works. In its place, I present a new reading of the subjective deduction. Rather than being a broad investigation of our cognitive faculties, it should be seen as addressing a specific worry that arises in the course of the objective deduction. The latter establishes the need for a necessary connection between our capacities for thinking and being given objects, but Kant acknowledges that his readers might struggle to comprehend how these seemingly independent capacities are coordinated. Even worse, they might well believe that in asserting this necessary connection, Kant’s position amounts to an implausible subjective idealism. The subjective deduction ismeant to allay these concerns by showing that they rest on a misunderstanding of the relation between these faculties. This new reading of the subjective deduction offers a better fit with Kant’s text. It also has broader implications, for it reveals the more philosophically plausible account of our relation to the world as thinkers that Kant is defending – an account that is largely obscured by the standard reading of the subjective deduction.|
|Keywords||Kant subjective deduction|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Henry E. Allison (2000). Where Have All the Categories Gone? Reflections on Longuenesse?S Reading of Kant?S Transcendental Deduction. Inquiry 43 (1):67 – 80.
Dennis Schulting (2012). Kant's Deduction and Apperception. Explaining the Categories. Palgrave Macmillan.
Anil Gomes (2010). Is Kant's Transcendental Deduction of the Categories Fit for Purpose? Kantian Review 15 (2):118-137.
Stefanie Grüne (2011). Is There a Gap in Kant's B Deduction? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (3):465 - 490.
Robert Hanna (2011). Kant's Non-Conceptualism, Rogue Objects, and The Gap in the B Deduction. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (3):399 - 415.
Konstantin Pollok (2008). 'An Almost Single Inference' – Kant's Deduction of the Categories Reconsidered. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 90 (3):323-345.
Frederick Rauscher (2012). The Second Step of the B‐Deduction. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (2).
Matt McCormick (2005). Kant's Theory of Mind in the Critique of Pure Reason's Subjective Deduction. Journal of Value Inquiry 39 (3):353–381.
Michael Barker (2001). The Proof Structure of Kant's a-Deduction. Kant-Studien 92 (3):259-282.
Added to index2010-08-11
Total downloads66 ( #16,566 of 722,933 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #26,098 of 722,933 )
How can I increase my downloads?