Deduction of Freedom vs Deduction of Experience in Kant’s Metaphysics

Kantian Journal 38 (1):55-80 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

My aim is to demonstrate the specificities and differences between transcendental deduction of concepts and deduction of the fundamental principles of pure practical reason in Kant’s metaphysics. First of all it is necessary to examine Kant’s attitude to the metaphysics of his time and the problem of its new justification. Kant in his philosophy explicated not only the theoretical world of cognition, but also the practical world of freedom. Accordingly, the fundamental means of proving metaphysics’ claims are the deduction of pure concepts of understanding and the deduction of the principles of pure practical reason. The underlying premises of the Kantian project of reviving metaphysics, “the Copernican Turn”, the critical methods and basic principles of transcendental idealism also provide the methodological basis of transcendental deduction, a new method of proving the claims of metaphysics in various spheres of human being. Proceeding from the above, I analyse the essence, structure and the peculiarities as well as the differences between the deduction of experience and the deduction of freedom. I single out the following features of the two types of deduction. First, theoretical use of reason is aimed at objects while practical reason is aimed at noumena, the foundations of will and freedom. Second, the transcendental deduction of space and time, as well as the deduction of categories, is preceded by transcendental reduction, which is absent in the deduction of freedom. Third, Kant orients the methodological movement of deductions in opposite directions. Theoretical deduction proceeds from pure forms of sensible intuition to concepts of understanding and thence to fundamental principles. Practical deduction proceeds from a priori principles to the concepts of the metaphysics of morals and thence to moral feelings. Fourth, deduction in the theoretical sphere forbids speculative reason to go beyond experience. Practical deduction has pointed to the intelligible world and has proved its “legitimacy”.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,610

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Two Steps of the B-Deduction.Markku Leppäkoski - 1998 - Kantian Review 2:107-116.
Kant, Hume, and Problems of the Deduction of the Categories.V. V. Vasil'ev - 1996 - Russian Studies in Philosophy 34 (4):51-65.
Kant’s Non-Conceptualism, Rogue Objects, and The Gap in the B Deduction.Robert Hanna - 2011 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (3):399 - 415.
The Proof Structure of Kant's A-Deduction.Michael Barker - 2001 - Kant Studien 92 (3):259-282.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-12-08

Downloads
21 (#732,808)

6 months
4 (#776,340)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Kant-Bibliographie 2019.Margit Ruffing - 2021 - Kant Studien 112 (4):623-660.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Critique of Pure Reason.I. Kant - 1787/1998 - Philosophy 59 (230):555-557.
The Proof-Structure of Kant's Transcendental Deduction.Dieter Henrich - 1969 - Review of Metaphysics 22 (4):640-659.
Kant and the Claims of Knowledge.Henry E. Allison - 1989 - Journal of Philosophy 86 (4):214-221.

View all 10 references / Add more references