Philosophical Studies 174 (2):425-442 (2017)

Roberto Horácio De Pereira
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
In this paper, I propose a new nonconceptual reading of the B-Deduction. As Hanna correctly remarks :399–415, 2011: 405), the word “cognition” has in both editions of the first Critique a wide sense, meaning nonconceptual cognition, and a narrow meaning, in Kant’s own words “an objective perception”. To be sure, Kant assumes the first meaning to account for why the Deduction is unavoidable. And if we take this meaning as a premise of the B-Deduction, then there is a gap in the argument since the categories are certainly not conditions for non-conceptual cognition. Still, I believe it is not this wide meaning but rather the narrow one that figures in any premise of the B-Deduction. Thus, in the reading that I am proposing, categories are not conditions for representing something, or even conditions for representing something objectively. Instead, they are conditions for the recognition that what we represent through the senses exists mind-independently. In the first step of the B-Deduction, this cognition in the narrow sense takes the form of the propositional thinking that the nonconceptually represented object of the sensible intuition exists objectively. In contrast, in the second step of the B-Deduction, this cognition in the narrow sense takes the form of the apprehension of what our human senses represent nonconceptually as existing objectively.
Keywords Non-conceptual content  Object  Objectivity  B-Deduction, cognition
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-016-0690-7
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,903
External links

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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Complete Issue.Nicolas Lindner - 2017 - Abstracta 10.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Proof Structure of Kant's A-Deduction.Michael Barker - 2001 - Kant-Studien 92 (3):259-282.
Kant's Subjective Deduction.Nathan Bauer - 2010 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 18 (3):433-460.
A Deduction From Apperception?Andrew Stephenson - 2014 - Studi Kantiani 27:77-86.
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.
Is There a Gap in Kant’s B Deduction?Stefanie Grüne - 2011 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (3):465 - 490.
The Second Step of the B‐Deduction.Frederick Rauscher - 2014 - European Journal of Philosophy 22 (3):396-419.
Apperception and Objectivity.Ralf Meerbote - 1987 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 25 (S1):115-130.


Added to PP index

Total views
70 ( #146,075 of 2,426,557 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #347,395 of 2,426,557 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes