David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
European Journal of Philosophy 22 (3):396-419 (2014)
This paper offers a new interpretation of Kant's puzzling claim that the B-Deduction in the Critique of Pure Reason should be considered as having two main steps. Previous commentators have tended to agree in general on the first step as arguing for the necessity of the categories for possible experience, but disagree on what the second step is and whether Kant even needs a second step. I argue that the two parts of the B-Deduction correspond to the two aspects of a priori cognition: necessity and universality. The bulk of the paper consists of support for the second step, the universality of the categories. I show that Kant's arguments in the second half of the B-Deduction aim to define the scope of that universality for possible experience by considering the possibilities of divine intellectual intuition, of non-human kinds of sensible intuition, and of apperception of the self. In these ways Kant delimits the boundaries of the applicability of the categories and excludes any other possible experience for human beings
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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.
Aaron Bunch (2010). 'Objective Validity' and 'Objective Reality' in Kant's B-Deduction of the Categories. Kantian Review 14 (2):67-92.
A. B. Dickerson (2003). Kant on Representation and Objectivity. Cambridge University Press.
J. Claude Evans (1990). Two-Steps-in-One-Proof: The Structure of the Transcendental Deduction of the Categories. Journal of the History of Philosophy 28 (4):553-570.
Felix Grayeff (1970). Kant's Theoretical Philosophy: A Commentary to the Central Part of the 'Critique of Pure Reason'. New York, Barnes & Noble.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Konstantin Pollok (2008). 'An Almost Single Inference' – Kant's Deduction of the Categories Reconsidered. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 90 (3):323-345.
Dennis Schulting (2012). Kant's Deduction and Apperception. Palgrave Macmillan.
Anil Gomes (2010). Is Kant's Transcendental Deduction of the Categories Fit for Purpose? Kantian Review 15 (2):118-137.
Dennis Schulting (2012). Kant's Deduction and Apperception. Explaining the Categories. Palgrave Macmillan.
Michael Barker (2001). The Proof Structure of Kant's A-Deduction. Kant-Studien 92 (3):259-282.
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.
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.
Derk Pereboom (1995). Self-Understanding in Kant's Transcendental Deduction. Synthese 103 (1):1 - 42.
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.
Peter Thielke (2006). Fate and the Fortune of the Categories: Kant on the Usurpation and Schematization of Concepts. Inquiry 49 (5):438 – 468.
Nathan Bauer (2010). Kant's Subjective Deduction. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 18 (3):433-460.
Stefanie Grüne (2011). Is There a Gap in Kant's B Deduction? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (3):465 - 490.
Added to index2012-04-05
Total downloads39 ( #52,531 of 1,681,623 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #78,876 of 1,681,623 )
How can I increase my downloads?