David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Kantian Review 15 (2):118-137 (2010)
James Van Cleve has argued that Kant’s Transcendental Deduction of the categories shows, at most, that we must apply the categories to experience. And this falls short of Kant’s aim, which is to show that they must so apply. In this discussion I argue that once we have noted the differences between the first and second editions of the Deduction, this objection is less telling. But Van Cleve’s objection can help illuminate the structure of the B Deduction, and it suggests an interesting reason why the rewriting might have been thought necessary.
|Keywords||Kant Transcendental Deduction Categories Critique of Pure Reason|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Henry E. Allison (2004). Kant's Transcendental Idealism. Yale University Press.
Immanuel Kant (2007/1991). Critique of Pure Reason. In Elizabeth Schmidt Radcliffe, Richard McCarty, Fritz Allhoff & Anand Vaidya (eds.), Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Blackwell Pub. Ltd. 449-451.
Béatrice Longuenesse (1998). Kant and the Capacity to Judge: Sensibility and Discursivity in the Transcendental Analytic of the "Critique of Pure Reason". Princeton University Press.
James Van Cleve (1999). Problems From Kant. Oxford University Press.
Karl Ameriks (2000). Kant and the Fate of Autonomy: Problems in the Appropriation of the Critical Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Colin McLear (2014). The Kantian (Non)‐Conceptualism Debate. Philosophy Compass 9 (11):769-790.
Similar books and articles
Dennis Schulting (2012). Kant's Deduction and Apperception. Palgrave Macmillan.
Dennis Schulting (2012). Kant's Deduction and Apperception. Explaining the Categories. Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
Philip Dwyer (2010). Necessity and Possibility: The Logical Strategy of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (Review). Journal of the History of Philosophy 48 (3):402-403.
Nathan Bauer (2010). Kant's Subjective Deduction. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 18 (3):433-460.
Peter Thielke (2006). Fate and the Fortune of the Categories: Kant on the Usurpation and Schematization of Concepts. Inquiry 49 (5):438 – 468.
Michael Barker (2001). The Proof Structure of Kant's A-Deduction. Kant-Studien 92 (3):259-282.
Melissa McBay Merritt (2006). Science and the Synthetic Method of the Critique of Pure Reason. Review of Metaphysics 59 (3):517-539.
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.
Paul Guyer (2010). The Deduction of Categories: The Metaphysical and Transcendental Deductions. In The Cambridge Companion to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge University Press
Aaron M. Griffith (2012). Perception and the Categories: A Conceptualist Reading of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (2):193-222.
Frederick Rauscher (2014). The Second Step of the B‐Deduction. European Journal of Philosophy 22 (3):396-419.
Ian Proops (2003). Kant's Legal Metaphor and the Nature of a Deduction. Journal of the History of Philosophy 41 (2):209-229.
Paul Guyer (1987). Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2010-09-27
Total downloads176 ( #8,415 of 1,725,443 )
Recent downloads (6 months)16 ( #47,089 of 1,725,443 )
How can I increase my downloads?