Kant: Concepts

This paper contains a critical analysis of the interpretation of Kant's second edition version of the Transcendental Deduction offered by Béatrice Longuenesse in her recent book: Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Though agreeing with much of Longuenesse's analysis of the logical function of judgment, I question the way in which she tends to assign them the objectifying role traditionally given to the categories. More particularly, by way of defending my own interpretation of the Deduction against some of her criticisms, (...) I argue that Longuenesse fails to show how either part of the two-part proof may be plausibly thought to have established the necessity of the categories (as opposed to the logical functions). Finally, I question certain aspects of her 'radical' interpretation of the famous footnote at B160-1, where Kant distinguishes between 'form of intuition' and 'formal intuition'. (shrink)

R. Lanier Anderson presents a new account of Kant's distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments, and provides it with a clear basis within traditional logic. He reconstructs compelling claims about the syntheticity of elementary mathematics, and re-animates Kant's arguments against traditional metaphysics in the Critique of Pure Reason.

Martin offers an intriguing account of nineteenth century challenges to the traditional theory of judgment as a synthesis of subject and predicate (the synthesis theory)--criticisms motivated largely by the problem posed by existential judgments, which need not have two terms at all. Such judgments led to a theory of "thetic" judgments, whose essential feature is to "posit" something, rather than to combine terms (as in synthetic judgment). I argue, however, that Kant's official definition of judgment already implicitly recognizes the importance (...) of positing, and that its (otherwise confusing) abstract generality actually affords Kant's own logic an adequate way to accommodate existential judgments within the traditional synthesis theory. Preservation of a synthetic account of judgment is also found to be independently important for Kant's larger aims in the theory of cognition. (shrink)

I defend Kant’s definition of analyticity in terms of concept “containment”, which has engendered widespread scepticism. Kant deployed a clear, technical notion of containment based on ideas standard within traditional logic, notably genus/species hierarchies formed via logical division. Kant’s analytic/synthetic distinction thereby undermines the logico-metaphysical system of Christian Wolff, showing that the Wolffian paradigm lacks the expressive power even to represent essential knowledge, including elementary mathematics, and so cannot provide an adequate system of philosophy. The results clarify the extent to (...) which analyticity sensu Kant can illuminate the problem of a priori knowledge generally. (shrink)

Officially, for Kant, judgments are analytic iff the predicate is "contained in" the subject. I defend the containment definition against the common charge of obscurity, and argue that arithmetic cannot be analytic, in the resulting sense. My account deploys two traditional logical notions: logical division and concept hierarchies. Division separates a genus concept into exclusive, exhaustive species. Repeated divisions generate a hierarchy, in which lower species are derived from their genus, by adding differentia(e). Hierarchies afford a straightforward sense of containment: (...) genera are contained in the species formed from them. Kant's thesis then amounts to the claim that no concept hierarchy conforming to division rules can express truths like '7+5=12.' Kant is correct. Operation concepts ( ) bear two relations to number concepts: and are inputs, is output. To capture both relations, hierarchies must posit overlaps between concepts that violate the exclusion rule. Thus, such truths are synthetic. (shrink)

I argue for a basically Sartrean approach to the idea that one's self-concept, and any form of knowledge of oneself as an individual subject, presupposes concepts and knowledge about other things. The necessity stems from a pre-conceptual structure which assures that original self-consciousness is identical with one's consciousness of objects themselves. It is not a distinct accomplishment merely dependent on the latter. The analysis extends the matter/form distinction to concepts. It also requires a distinction between two notions of consciousness: one (...) relates to the employment of already formed concepts, the other to the structures of imaginative apprehension that help to constitute (empirical) concepts from the start. We need to see that (1) so far as objects are only conceptualized appearances, the material through which we apprehend them must be reflected in that apprehension itself; (2) the corresponding material consists of a manifold of pre-conceptually active anticipations and retentions concerning the course of one's own experience. The resultant structure imposes an orientation on the world of appearances that does not derive from a concept of oneself as an individual in it, but that nevertheless provides the only possible basis for such a concept. One's self-concept, at least as empirical subject, is simply that ofwhatever subject is indicated, in an appropriate way, by that orientation. (shrink)

Maurizio Ferraris’ Goodbye Kant! Cosa resta oggi della Critica della ragion pura has been a notable success in the field of popular philosophical writing in Italy. With refreshing irreverence and wit, the book mounts a sustained attack on the supposed confusions of Kant’s first Critique, and bemoans their influence on later philosophy. In particular, Ferraris argues that by attempting to found the necessary features of experience on physics, Kant confuses experience and ontology with science and epistemology and arrives at the (...) implausible conclusion that our experience and knowledge, and perhaps even the existence, of things depend on how our minds are structured. Unsurprisingly, Goodbye Kant! has provoked strong reactions from Kant scholars. Alfredo Ferrarin’s Congedarsi da Kant? collects four particularly considered responses, along with a reply from Ferraris himself. (shrink)

Abstract Both parties in the active philosophical debate concerning the conceptual character of perception trace their roots back to Kant's account of sensible intuition in the Critique of Pure Reason. This striking fact can be attributed to Kant's tendency both to assert and to deny the involvement of our conceptual capacities in sensible intuition. He appears to waver between these two positions in different passages, and can thus seem thoroughly confused on this issue. But this is not, in fact, the (...) case, for, as I will argue, the appearance of contradiction in his account stems from the failure of some commentators to pay sufficient attention to Kant's developmental approach to philosophy. Although he begins by asserting the independence of intuition, Kant proceeds from this nonconceptualist starting point to reveal a deeper connection between intuitions and concepts. On this reading, Kant's seemingly conflicting claims are actually the result of a careful and deliberate strategy for gradually convincing his readers of the conceptual nature of perception. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

En las discusiones modernas sobre la posibilidad de las proposiciones sintéticas a priori, la teoría de la definición tiene una importancia capital, porque la mayoría de las teorías sostiene que los juicios analíticos están lógicamente implicados en una definición explícita (lo que restringe los enunciados de una definición completa y precisa a juicios de este tipo). Sin embargo, para Kant -el primer autor en señalar la distinción entre proposiciones analíticas y sintéticas-muchos juicios analíticos son obtenidos mediante análisis de conceptos que (...) no precisan ser determinados previamente por una definición. Por otro lado, para él no todo conocimiento a priori es analítico. La afirmación de que no todo juicio analítico se deriva de una definición y la posibilidad del conocimiento sintético a priori indican que Kant no consideraba, contrariamente a las teorías modernas sobre el juicio analítico, que la definición sea un fundamento esencial del conocimiento. In the modern discussions about possibility of synthetic a priori propositions, the theory of definition has a fundamental importance, because the most definition's theories hold that analytic judgments are involved by explicit definition (it limits sentences of complete and precise definition to this kind of judgments). However, for Kant -first author who pointed out the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions-many analytic judgments are made by analysis of concepts which need not first be established by definition. Moreover, for him not all a priori knowledge is analytic. The statement that not all analytic judgment is derived from definition and possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge, indicates Kant didn't believe, contrary to modern theories about analytic judgment, the definition is an essential ground of knowledge. (shrink)

Cet article cherche à reconstituer la thèse de Christian Wolff sur l’évidence (Deutlichkeit) des principes métaphysiques, dans un article de 1729 sur les « Notions directrices et le véritable usage de la première science », qui offre une référence centrale (et méconnue aujourd’hui) aux répondants du concours de 1762-1763, dont Kant. Wolff affirme en effet que la métaphysique est susceptible d’une certitude égale voire supérieure à celle des mathématiques et qu’elle diffuse cette certitude à travers toutes les autres disciplines ; (...) c’est cette thèse forte qu’il s’agira précisément de questionner en 1763. Une lecture plus attentive de l’article de Wolff permet d’en dégager certaines prémisses. La thèse de Wolff sur la certitude mathématique de la métaphysique est fondée sur un renversement de l’ordre de priorité entre métaphysique (ontologie) et mathématiques. Selon Wolff qui, dans son débat avec les mathématiques, s’appuie notamment sur la géométrie euclidienne, ce sont des notions métaphysiques qui fondent la validité des règles mathématiques et logiques. Des notions comme « identité », « chose », « possibilité », etc., possèdent en effet un statut « directeur » ou méthodique, dirigeant l’esprit sur le chemin de la connaissance et, sous une forme systématisée, composent une ontologie moderne et « architectonique ». La restitution de ce cadre permet de mieux voir la continuité méthodologique entre Wolff et Kant. En effet, même si Kant conteste la validité de quelques-uns de ces concepts, les modalités de leur systématisation et l’équation entre science architectonique et ontologie, sa Recherche sur l’évidence des principes s’inscrit à l’intérieur du programme, esquissé par Wolff, de la fondation d’une métaphysique architectonique contenant un tableau de concepts directeurs. De ce point de vue, Kant s’avère plus tributaire de la méthode wolffienne qu’il n’est supposé communément, et leur débat gagne en profondeur. (shrink)

The view that logic is true independently of a subject matter is criticized—enlarging on Quine's criticisms and adding further ones. It is then argued apriori that full reflective understanding of logic and deductive reasoning requires substantial commitment to mathematical entities. It is emphasized that the objectively apriori connections between deductive reasoning and commitment to mathematics need not be accepted by or even comprehensible to a given deductive reasoner. The relevant connections emerged only slowly in the history of logic. But they (...) can be recognized retrospectively as implicit in logic and deductive reasoning. The paper concludes with discussion of the relevance of its main argument to Kant's question—how is apriori knowledge of a subject matter possible? (shrink)

The operation of developing a concept is a common procedure in mathematics and in natural science, but has traditionally seemed much less possible to philosophers and, especially, logicians. Meir Buzaglo's innovative study proposes a way of expanding logic to include the stretching of concepts, while modifying the principles which block this possibility. He offers stimulating discussions of the idea of conceptual expansion as a normative process, and of the relation of conceptual expansion to truth, meaning, reference, ontology and paradox, and (...) analyzes the views of Kant, Wittgenstein, Godel, and others, paying especially close attention to Frege. His book will be of interest to a wide range of readers, from philosophers to logicians, mathematicians, linguists, and cognitive scientists. (shrink)

Absicht dieser Arbeit ist, den seltsamen Satz Kants zu erklären: „Gedanken ohne Inhalt sind leer“. Der Satz ist wohlbekannt; er findet sich in der Einleitung zur Transzendentalen Logik, und macht dort einen Teil eines längeren Satzes aus, dessen zweiter Halbsatz besagt: „Anschauungen ohne Begriffe sind blind.“ Es ist aber nicht unser Vorhaben, den Sinn des Satzes, sondern nur seine merkwürdige Form zu erklären. Er gehört in einen Zusammenhang, in dem die gegenseitige Bedingtheit von Sinnlichkeit und Verstand hervorgehoben wird: Keine dieser (...) Eigenschaften ist der andern vorzuziehen. Ohne Sinnlichkeit würde uns kein Gegenstand gegeben und ohne Verstand keiner gedacht werden. Gedanken ohne Inhalt sind leer, Anschauungen ohne Begriffe sind blind. Daher ist es eben so nothwendig, seine Begriffe sinnlich zu machen , als seine Anschauungen sich verständlich zu machen . Beide Vermögen oder Fähigkeiten können auch ihre Functionen nicht vertauschen. Der Verstand vermag nichts anzuschauen und die Sinne nichts zu denken. Nur daraus, daß sie sich vereinigen, kann Er|kenntniß entspringen. Diese gegenseitige Abhängigkeit wird dann in der Transzendentalen Analytik dargestellt. An der Stelle, die hier betrachtet wird, wird sie einzig als eine Voraussetzung aufgeführt, die der weiteren Erklärung bedarf. Was uns jetzt aber interessiert, ist nicht das Verhältnis von gegenseitiger Bedingtheit zwischen Anschauungen und Begriffen bzw. zwischen Sinnlichkeit und Verstand; unsere Ansprüche sind bescheidener: Wir möchten nur die merkwürdige rhetorische Struktur des ersten Halbsatzes betrachten. (shrink)

It is often maintained that one insight of Kant's Critical philosophy is its recognition of the need to distinguish accounts of knowledge acquisition from knowledge justification. In particular, it is claimed that Kant held that the detailing of a concept's acquisition conditions is insufficient to determine its legitimacy. I argue that this is not the case at least with regard to geometrical concepts. Considered in the light of his pre-Critical writings on the mathematical method, construction in the Critique can be (...) seen to be a form of concept acquisition, one that is related to the modal phenomenology of geometrical judgement. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that Heisenberg's mature philosophy of quantum mechanics must be understood in the context of his epistemological project to reinterpret and redefine Kant's notion of the a priori. After discussions with Weizsäcker and Hermann in Leipzig in the 1930s, Heisenberg attempted to ground his interpretation of quantum mechanics on what might be termed a 'practical' transformation of Kantian philosophy. Taking as his starting point, Bohr's doctrine of the indispensability of classical concepts, Heisenberg argued that concepts such (...) as space, time and causality can be regarded as 'practically a priori', in so far as they remain the conditions for the possibility of experience and even of 'objective reality', though they are not universal and necessary in a strictly Kantian sense. We cannot avoid using classical concepts in the description of experiments in quantum theory, despite the fact that there are limits to their applicability. Such concepts are, for Heisenberg, historically contingent, yet indispensable in our time, because we have no other language through which we can describe and conceive of the interaction between 'object' and 'measuring device'. (shrink)

To a first approximation, analytic truths are those sentences that are true solely based on, or capable of being known by, semantic facts. The bulk of this dissertation is an investigation into how analyticity relates to the philosophical works of Descartes, Frege, Carnap, Quine, and Williamson. I also discuss some prima facie constraints on analyticity, and provide a survey of the relevant literature on the concept. Erde suggests that Descartes took "cogito ergo sum" to be analytically true on the basis (...) of conceptual containment. I argue that Erde's thesis is false for several reasons, one of which is that if Erde's interpretation were correct, "cogito ergo sum" would have no more import than "I am walking, therefore I exist," but clearly Descartes thought that it does. Katz argued that though Descartes had a sense of the fact that "cogito ergo sum" is analytic, since Descartes did not have access to the true linguistic theory in which its justification can be formulated, Descartes's epistemology was provided as an ersatz alternative. I argue that Descartes's epistemology leaves no room for any amendments from linguistics. In short, Descartes held that "cogito ergo sum" is (1) true solely because it was made true by God, and (2) can be known to be true solely because God gave us the ability to intuit truths; however, Descartes did not appreciate that this account could not convince a skeptic. Finally, for the same reasons that undermined Katz' view, Díaz failed to show that Descartes's ontological argument involves analyticity. Nevertheless, I argue that since Descartes held that (1) the idea of God contains necessary existence and that (2) the understanding of words commits us to having the ideas signified by those words, we can know that "God exists" is true simply based on understanding those words. Though Kant's subject-predicate containment account of analyticity is superficially different from Frege's account involving only logic and definitions, I argue that the two are relevantly similar for the following reasons: Kant held a liberal view on what counts as subject-predicate sentences, maintained that analytic judgments ought to increase our knowledge, and advocated logical analysis as the way to determine which judgments are analytic. The substantive difference between Kant and Frege is whether analyticity is grounded in logical analysis based on concepts or definitions. Unlike Kant, who seems to have assumed that none of our concepts are vague, Frege called attention to the vagueness in ordinary language, and recommended that in formal contexts, vagueness be removed by "fruitful" stipulative definitions. In contrast with the later work of Wittgenstein, Frege thought that ordinary language was flawed for various reasons, the major one of which is that ordinary words, with their vague senses, rarely have perspicuous referents, and hence fail to be capable of capturing the definiteness of truth. Stipulations can ensure perspicuous referents, but such definitions must not invalidate any propositions already commonly accepted or affirm any that are already commonly not accepted, on pain of changing the legitimate subject associated with those words. Carnap and Quine initially agreed on the characterization of analyticity as only involving rule-governed symbol manipulation, but even this characterization tacitly imported the semantics of logical terms, and Carnap subsequently was convinced that widespread toleration of semantics could generate fruitful results. Quine argued that accepting semantics in this fashion leads to an incorrect account of ontology. Carnap's view on ontology was "pluralistic" in the sense that ontology varied by language, and languages varied by which sentences were taken to be analytic by the language formulators. Quine's famous case against analyticity amounts to the insistence that (1) "analytic" is in need of a scientifically respectable explanation, since it is a term of art, and that (2) there is no antecedently clear sense of "analytic" on the basis of which Carnap could use the word, or provide an explication for it. However, I show that Quine eventually gave this objection up and gave an explication of his own. The lasting disagreement between Carnap and Quine was over the usefulness of analyticity. Williamson's two main arguments against analytic and synthetic truths being true in different senses are reductios. According to him, if "true" were ambiguous, then the standard disquotational principles for true and false sentences, and the truth-tables for sentential logical connectives, would have to incorporate these distinct senses, but it is not possible to do so while keeping the alleged senses of "true" distinct. I argue that in the case of the disquotational principles, Williamson offers an inadequate disambiguation, and when appropriately disambiguated, the correct statuses of the disquotational principles can be demonstrated. In the case of compositional semantics, while Williamson is correct that characteristic truth-tables cannot be generally disambiguated, what is important is that the same problem does not apply to particular applications of truth-tables. (shrink)

This book intends to show that we should re-think and re-evaluate our dogmatic commitment to a cognitivistic attitude. Our high regard for knowledge is due to the fact that we expect that it will help us satisfy not only our practical needs but also guide us toward a meaningful and fulfilled life. A careful examination of the nature and limits of knowledge reveals that both expectations cannot be satisfied. Following Kant, Cicovacki comes to the conclusion that, although our knowledge of (...) reality seems to be reliable and true, at the same time it seems to be one-sided and very narrowly oriented. Our practical purposes seem to be served quite well, but it is dubious whether our knowledge helps us understand and find our own place and role in reality. Those pursuing science and analytic philosophy do not seem to realize that our knowledge of reality is at the same time reliable and true, and yet distorting and damaging. Cicovacki focuses on Kant's question: ^D< "What is man?" as the ultimate question of philosophy. He invites a new interpretation of Kant since the question indicates that, for Kant, a broadly construed philosophical anthropology, rather than metaphysics, or epistemology, or ethics, is the most fundamental philosophical discipline. "The real philosopher," Kant tells us, is "the teacher of wisdom through doctrine and example." Contents: Prelude; PART I: A Knowledge of Knowledge; The Epistemological Project; Cognition, Recognition, and Cognitive Interest; Concepts as Rules; Concepts as Norms; PART II: A Knowledge of Ignorance; Striving for Truth: The Problem of Criterion; Dreams and Reality: On the Existential Presupposition of Cognitive Experience; The Real and the Preceived; Healing the Wound; Bibliography; Index. (shrink)

Introduction and translation into Portuguese of Kant's Reflection 5923 (AA 18: 385-7).

A recent debate in Kant scholarship concerns the role of concepts in Kant's theory of perception. Roughly, proponents of a conceptualist interpretation argue that for Kant, the possession of concepts is a prior condition for perception, while nonconceptualist interpreters deny this. The debate has two parts. One part concerns whether possessing empirical concepts is a prior condition for having empirical intuitions. A second part concerns whether Kant allows empirical intuitions without a priori concepts. Outside of Kant interpretation, the contemporary debate (...) about conceptualism concerns whether perception requires empirical concepts. But, as I argue, the debate about whether Kant allows intuitions without empirical concepts does not show whether Kant is a conceptualist. Even if Kant allows intuitions without empirical concepts, it could still be that a priori concepts are required. While the debate could show that Kant is a conceptualist, I argue it does not. Finally, I sketch a novel way that the conceptualist interpreter might win the debate—roughly, by arguing that possessing a priori concepts is a prior condition for having appearances. (shrink)

Subjectivists, taking the “collapse” of the observation-interpretation contrast much too seriously, are led to imagine that even perceptual knowledge is active. And therefore subject dependent. Turning the tables on this popular trend, I argue that even conceptual knowledge is passive. Kant’s epistemology is conceptual. But if also active, then incoherent. If synthetic a priori truths are to follow upon our mental activity, they were neither true nor, far less, a priori before that activity. “A priori” and “active” are contradictory attributes (...) of knowledge. As, indeed, are “a priori” and “subject-dependent” to begin with. Nothing a priori can be dependent on anything except itself, and least of all on the human subject. Kant does consider the active aspect of thought. The difference is that for him the more active it becomes, the less it is to be trusted. For we are no longer in the province of the Understanding, and its necessary truths, but in the realm of Pure Reason and its dialectical antinomies. Cognition activists who take a liking to Kant have simply mistaken Reason for the Understanding. And Reason is to Kant “the seat of all transcendental illusion”. (shrink)

I argue that Kant's and Frege's refutations of the ontological argument are more similar than has generally been acknowledged. As I clarify, for both Kant and Frege, to say that something exists is to assert of a concept that it is instantiated. With such an assertion one expresses that there is a particular relation between the instantiating object and a rational subject - a particular mode of presentation for the object in question. By its very nature such a relation cannot (...) be the property of an object and thus cannot be included in the concept of that object. Thus the ontological argument, which takes existence to be a part of the concept of the supreme being, cannot, according to Kant and Frege, succeed. A secondary goal of the paper is to illuminate what I take to be an important affinity between Kant's and Frege's views more generally: that Frege's fundamental distinction between the sense and the referent of a proposition echoes, in an important way, Kant's distinction between concepts and the formal principles for their application to experience. (shrink)

It is perhaps in the functioning of the brain that we can make contextual information most prominent. Indeed, while von Neumann and others invented computers with mimicking the brain in mind, the brain does not appear to behave as a Turing Machine. Neither is it a mechanical automaton. There is no “gost in the machine”. However, nobody would doubt that brain manages information, and in a very efficient way. To my view this is a strong indication that the information we (...) describe when considering messages is a tiny part of what information is. Because we use language, built on the exchange of sequences of symbols, exactly as programs are exchanged in computers, linguists often saw the brain as a Turing Machine. But language is deeply associated to meaning, so that beside grammatical syntactic structures, there may exist a variety of superimposed contexts which transmit information mediated by channels that are not those usually considered. (shrink)

In this article I aim to clarify the nature of Kant’s transformation of rationalist metaphysics into a science by focusing on his conception of transcendental reflection. The aim of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, it is argued, consists primarily in liberating the productive strand of former general metaphysics – its reflection on the a priori elements of all knowledge – from the uncritical application of these elements to all things (within general metaphysics itself) and to things that can only be (...) thought (in special metaphysics). After considering Kant’s conception of metaphysics and his various uses of the term ‘transcendental’ I closely examine his account of logical and transcendental reflection in the section entitled ‘On the Amphiboly of the Concepts of Reflection’. Whereas commentators generally attribute the activity called transcendental reflection to Kant alone, I contend, first, that Kant regarded philosophy as such to rely on a mode of transcendental reflection and, second, that the critical mode of transcendental reflection enacted in the Critique itself yields insight into the reason why our a priori knowledge is limited to the realm of possible objects. This is illustrated by outlining the difference between Kant’s and Leibniz’ employment of the concepts of reflection. (shrink)

This paper concentrates on some aspects of the history of the analytic-synthetic distinction from Kant to Bolzano and Frege. This history evinces considerable continuity but also some important discontinuities. The analytic-synthetic distinction has to be seen in the first place in relation to a science, i.e. an ordered system of cognition. Looking especially to the place and role of logic it will be argued that Kant, Bolzano and Frege each developed the analytic-synthetic distinction within the same conception of scientific rationality, (...) that is, within the Classical Model of Science: scientific knowledge as cognitio ex principiis . But as we will see, the way the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments or propositions functions within this model turns out to differ considerably between them. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to critically review several interpretations of Kantian sensible intuition. The first interpretation is the recent construal of Kantian sensible intuition as a mental analogue of a direct referential term. The second is the old, widespread assumption that Kantian intuitions do not refer to mind-independent entities, such as bodies and their physical properties, unless they are brought under categories. The third is the assumption that, by referring to mind-independent entities, sensible intuitions represent objectively in the (...) sense that they represent in a relative, perspective-independent manner. The fourth is the construal of Kantian sensible intuitions as non-conceptual content. In this paper, I support the alternative view that Kantian sensible representation is to be seen as iconic de re presentation of objects without representational content. (shrink)

Kant's masterpiece, Critique of Pure Reason, is universally recognized to be among the most difficult of all philosophical writing, and yet it is required reading in almost every course that covers modern philosophy. Most students find Critique of Pure Reason impenetrable without the help of secondary sources. While there are numerous advanced scholarly works on the topic, Dicker's is the first treatment explicitly designed for undergraduates to read alongside the primary text, rendering Kant's views accessible without oversimplifying them. His book (...) will be useful to both undergraduate and graduate students tackling this notoriously difficult yet highly influential thinker in courses in modern philosophy, epistemology, and Kant. (shrink)

This paper considers Kant's understanding of conceptual representation in light of his view of geometry.

In this paper, I consider the basis for Kant's praise of Wolff's general logic as "the best we have." I argue that Wolff's logic was highly esteemed by Kant on account of its novel analysis of the three operations of the mind (tres operationes mentis), in the course of which Wolff formulates an argument for the priority of the understanding's activity of judging.

This is a critique of Michael Wolff's ideas on Kant and Aristotle. I criticize in particular his overestimation of Kant as a logician and his claim that Aristotle wants to offer proofs for his perfect syllogisms.