Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:49:24.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2023

Gabriele Gava
Gabriele Gava
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Torino, Italy
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and the Method of Metaphysics , pp. 270 - 281
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allais, Lucy. 2015. Manifest Reality: Kant’s Idealism and His Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allais, Lucy. 2017. ‘Empirical Concepts, the Role of Intuition, and the Poverty of Conceptual Truth’. Studi Kantiani 30: 99–114.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E. 1986. ‘The Concept of Freedom in Kant’s “Semi-Critical” Ethics’. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 68 (1): 96–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry E. 2004. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E. 2015. Kant’s Transcendental Deduction: An Analytical–Historical Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ameriks, Karl. 1978. ‘Kant’s Transcendental Deduction as a Regressive Argument’. Kant-Studien 69 (1–4): 273–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameriks, Karl. 2000. Kant’s Theory of Mind: An Analysis of the Paralogisms of Pure Reason. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ameriks, Karl. 2003. Interpreting Kant’s Critiques. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. Lanier. 2015. The Poverty of Conceptual Truth: Kant’s Analytic/Synthetic Distinction and the Limits of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. Lanier. 2017. ‘On the Two-Step Interpretation of Kant’s Dialectical Strategy in Theoretical Philosophy: Replies to Allais, Hanna, and Motta’. Studi Kantiani 30: 129–51.Google Scholar
Bacin, Stefano. 2002. ‘Sul rapporto tra riflessione e vita morale in Kant: Le Dottrine del metodo nella filosofia pratica’. Studi Kantiani 15: 65–91.Google Scholar
Bacin, Stefano. 2010. ‘The Meaning of the “Critique of Practical Reason” for Moral Beings: The Doctrine of Method of Pure Practical Reason’. In Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide, edited by Reath, Andrews and Timmermann, Jens, 197–215. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barale, Massimo. 1988. Kant e il metodo della filosofia. I. Sentire e intendere. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.Google Scholar
Bird, Alexander. 2007. ‘Inference to the Only Explanation’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (2): 424–32.Google Scholar
Bird, Alexander. 2010. ‘Eliminative Abduction: Examples from Medicine’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (4): 345–52.Google Scholar
Bird, Graham. 2006a. ‘The Neglected Alternative: Trendelenburg, Fischer, and Kant’. In A Companion to Kant, edited by Bird, Graham, 486–99. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bird, Graham. 2006b. The Revolutionary Kant: A Commentary on the Critique of Pure Reason. 1st ed. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Brandt, Reinhard. 1991. Die Urteilstafel: Kritik der reinen Vernunft A 67–76; B 92–101. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Brandt, Reinhard. 1992. ‘Review of Kant: Der Durchbruch von 1769, by Lothar Kreimendahl’. Kant-Studien 83 (1): 100–11.Google Scholar
Bröcker, Walter. 1970. Kant über Metaphysik und Erfahrung. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Caimi, Mario. 1995. ‘Über eine wenig beachtete Deduktion der Regulativen Ideen’. Kant-Studien 86 (3): 308–20.Google Scholar
Caimi, Mario. 2000. ‘Einige Bemerkungen über die Metaphysische Deduktion in der Kritik Der Reinen Vernunft’. Kant-Studien 91 (3): 257–82.Google Scholar
Callanan, John J. 2006. ‘Kant’s Transcendental Strategy’. Philosophical Quarterly 56 (224): 360–81.Google Scholar
Callanan, John J. 2019. ‘Methodological Conservativism in Kant and Strawson’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 27 (2): 422–42.Google Scholar
Capozzi, Mirella. 2002. Kant e la logica. Vol. 1. Napoli: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
Capozzi, Mirella. 2013. ‘The Quantity of Judgments and the Categories of Quantity: A Problem in the Metaphysical Deduction’. In Kant und die Philosophie in weltbürgerlicher Absicht: Akten des XI. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, edited by Bacin, Stefano, Ferrarin, Alfredo, Rocca, Claudio La and Ruffing, Margit, 2:65–76. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capozzi, Mirella. 2018. ‘La Prima antinomia di Kant: questioni logiche’. Studi Kantiani 31: 11–42.Google Scholar
Carboncini, Sonia, and Finster, Reinhard. 1982. ‘Das Begriffspaar Kanon-Organon: Seine Bedeutung für die Entstehung der kritischen Philosophie Kants’. Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 26 (1): 25–59.Google Scholar
Carl, Wolfgang. 1988. ‘Review of Hume in der Deutschen Aufklärung. Umrisse einer Rezeptionsgeschichte, by Günter Gawlick and Lothar Kreimendahl’. Philosophische Rundschau 35 (3): 207–14.Google Scholar
Carl, Wolfgang. 1989. Der schweigende Kant: Die Entwürfe zu einer Deduktion der Kategorien vor 1781. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Carl, Wolfgang. 1992. Die Transzendentale Deduktion der Kategorien in der ersten Auflage der Kritik der reinen Vernunft: Ein Kommentar. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Cassam, Quassim. 1987. ‘Transcendental Arguments, Transcendental Synthesis and Transcendental Idealism’. Philosophical Quarterly 37 (149): 355–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chance, Brian A. 2011. ‘Sensibilism, Psychologism, and Kant’s Debt to Hume’. Kantian Review 16 (3): 325–49.Google Scholar
Chance, Brian A. 2012. ‘Scepticism and the Development of the Transcendental Dialectic’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (2): 311–31.Google Scholar
Chance, Brian A. 2015. ‘Kant and the Discipline of Reason’. European Journal of Philosophy 23 (1): 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chignell, Andrew. 2007. ‘Belief in Kant’. Philosophical Review 116 (3): 323–60.Google Scholar
Chignell, Andrew. 2014. ‘Rational Hope, Possibility, and Divine Action’. In Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, edited by Michalson, Gordon, 98–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chignell, Andrew. 2017. ‘Knowledge, Discipline, System, Hope: The Fate of Metaphysics in the Doctrine of Method’. In Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, edited by O’Shea, James R., 259–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chignell, Andrew. Forthcoming. Knowledge and Belief in Kant: Making Room for Practical Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Conant, James. 2016. ‘Why Kant Is Not a Kantian’. Philosophical Topics 44 (1): 75–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conant, James. 2017. ‘Kant’s Critique of the Layer-Cake Conception of Human Mindedness in the B Deduction’. In Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: A Critical Guide, edited by O’Shea, James R., 120–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Boer, Karin. 2019. ‘Kant’s Response to Hume’s Critique of Pure Reason’. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 101 (3): 376–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Boer, Karin. 2020. Kant’s Reform of Metaphysics: The Critique of Pure Reason Reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Jong, Willem R. 1995. ‘How Is Metaphysics as a Science Possible? Kant on the Distinction between Philosophical and Mathematical Method’. The Review of Metaphysics 49 (2): 235–74.Google Scholar
Dyck, Corey W. 2014. Kant and Rational Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Stephen. 1994. ‘The Transcendental Deduction and Skepticism’. Journal of the History of Philosophy 32 (3): 359–80.Google Scholar
Ertl, Wolfgang. 2002. ‘Hume’s Antinomy and Kant’s Critical Turn’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 10 (4): 617–40.Google Scholar
Falkenstein, Lorne. 1995. Kant’s Intuitionism: A Commentary on the Transcendental Aesthetic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Ferrarin, Alfredo. 1995. ‘Construction and Mathematical Schematism: Kant on the Exhibition of a Concept in Intuition’. Kant-Studien 86 (2): 131–74.Google Scholar
Ferrarin, Alfredo. 2015. The Powers of Pure Reason: Kant and the Idea of Cosmic Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrarin, Alfredo. 2019. ‘Method in Kant and Hegel’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 27 (2): 255–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonnesu, Luca. 2015. ‘Kant on Private Faith and Public Knowledge’. Rivista Di Filosofia 106: 361–90.Google Scholar
Förster, Eckart. 2018. Die 25 Jahre der Philosophie. 3rd revised edition. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Forster, Michael N. 2008. Kant and Skepticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Frierson, Patrick R. 2013. What Is the Human Being? Kant’s Questions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Frierson, Patrick R. 2014. Kant’s Empirical Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fugate, Courtney. 2019. ‘Kant’s World Concept of Philosophy and Cosmopolitanism’. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 101 (4): 535–83.Google Scholar
Gava, Gabriele. 2014. ‘Kant’s Definition of Science in the Architectonic of Pure Reason and the Essential Ends of Reason’. Kant-Studien 105 (3): 372–93.Google Scholar
Gava, Gabriele. 2015. ‘Kant’s Synthetic and Analytic Method in the Critique of Pure Reason and the Distinction between Philosophical and Mathematical Syntheses’. European Journal of Philosophy 23 (3): 728–49.Google Scholar
Gava, Gabriele. 2016. ‘The Fallibilism of Kant’s Architectonic’. In Pragmatism, Kant and Transcendental Philosophy, edited by Stern, Robert and Gava, Gabriele, 46–66. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gava, Gabriele. 2018a. ‘Kant, Wolff, and the Method of Philosophy’. Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy 8: 271–303.Google Scholar
Gava, Gabriele. 2018b. ‘Sind die regulativen Ideen ein doktrinaler Glaube? Über die Rechtfertigung des regulativen Gebrauchs der Ideen im Anhang zur transzendentalen Dialektik’. In Natur und Freiheit: Akten des XII. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, edited by Waibel, Violetta, Ruffing, Margit, and Wagner, David, 2:1207–16. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gava, Gabriele. 2019a. ‘C. I. Lewis, Kant, and the Reflective Method of Philosophy’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 27 (2): 315–35.Google Scholar
Gava, Gabriele. 2019b. ‘Kant and Crusius on Belief and Practical Justification’. Kantian Review 24 (1): 53–75.Google Scholar
Gava, Gabriele.2019c. ‘Kant, the Third Antinomy and Transcendental Arguments’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 100 (2): 453–81.Google Scholar
Gava, Gabriele, and Willaschek, Marcus. Forthcoming. ‘The Doctrine of Method’. In The Kantian Mind, edited by Baiasu, Sorin and Timmons, Mark. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gawlick, Günter, and Kreimendahl, Lothar. 1987. Hume in der Deutschen Aufklärung: Umrisse einer Rezeptionsgeschichte. Stuttgart: Fromann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah. 2008. ‘Was Kant a Nonconceptualist?’ Philosophical Studies 137 (1): 65–77.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Nathaniel Jason. 2004. ‘Do Principles of Reason Have Objective but Indeterminate Validity?’ Kant Studien 95 (4): 405–25.Google Scholar
Golob, Sacha. 2016. ‘Why the Transcendental Deduction Is Compatible with Nonconceptualism’. In Kantian Nonconceptualism, edited by Schulting, Dennis, 27–52. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Goy, Ina. 2007. Architektonik oder die Kunst der Systeme: Eine Untersuchung zur Systemphilosophie der Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Paderborn: mentis.Google Scholar
Grier, Michelle. 2001. Kant’s Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grüne, Stefanie. 2009. Blinde Anschauung: Die Rolle von Begriffen in Kants Theorie sinnlicher Synthesis. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 1987. Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 2000. Kant on Freedom, Law, and Happiness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 2008. Knowledge, Reason, and Taste: Kant’s Response to Hume. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 2010. ‘Introduction’. In The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, edited by Guyer, Paul, 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Bryan. 2011. ‘A Dilemma for Kant’s Theory of Substance’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (1): 79–109.Google Scholar
Hanna, Robert. 2011a. ‘Beyond the Myth of the Myth: A Kantian Theory of Non-Conceptual Content’. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (3): 323–98.Google Scholar
Hanna, Robert. 2011b. ‘Kant’s Non-Conceptualism, Rogue Objects, and The Gap in the B Deduction’. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (3): 399–415.Google Scholar
Hanna, Robert. 2017. ‘Richer than You Think: Kant, Conceptual Truth, and the Discursive Structure of the Manifest World’. Studi Kantiani 30: 115–22.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary. 2001. ‘The Prolegomena and the Critiques of Pure Reason’. In Kant und die berliner Aufklärung: Akten des IX. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, edited by Gerhardt, Volker, Horstmann, Rolf-Peter, and Schumacher, Ralph. 1:185–208. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary. 2003. ‘What Were Kant’s Aims in the Deduction?’ Philosophical Topics 31 (1/2): 165–98.Google Scholar
Heimsoeth, Heinz. 1966–1971. Transzendentale Dialektik: Ein Kommentar zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. 4 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 1969. ‘The Proof-Structure of Kant’s Transcendental Deduction’. The Review of Metaphysics 22 (4): 640–59.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 1989. ‘Kant’s Notion of a Deduction and the Methodological Background of the First Critique’. In Kant’s Transcendental Deductions, edited by Förster, Eckart, 29–46. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoeppner, Till. 2011. ‘Kants Begriff der Funktion und die Vollständigkeit Der Urteils- und Kategorientafel’. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 65 (2): 193–217.Google Scholar
Hoeppner, Till. 2021. Urteil und Anschauung: Kants metaphysische Deduktion der Kategorien. Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Horstmann, Rolf-Peter. 1989. ‘Why Must There Be a Transcendental Deduction in Kant’s Critique of Judgment?’ In Kant’s Transcendental Deductions, edited by Förster, Eckart, 157–76. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Höwing, Thomas. 2016a. ‘Kant on Opinion, Belief, and Knowledge’. In The Highest Good in Kant’s Philosophy, edited by Höwing, Thomas, 201–22. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Höwing, Thomas, ed. 2016b. The Highest Good in Kant’s Philosophy. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, Paul. 2013. Systematicity: The Nature of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 2007. David Hume: A Treatise of Human Nature. 2 vols, edited by Norton, David Fate and Norton, Mary J.. Clarendon Hume Edition Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Janiak, Andrew. 2016. ‘Kant’s Views on Space and Time’. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, Edward N., Winter 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/kant-spacetime/.Google Scholar
Jauernig, Anja. 2021. The World According to Kant: Appearances and Things in Themselves in Critical Idealism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kemp Smith, Norman. 1918. A Commentary to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline. 1998. ‘The Conative Character of Reason in Kant’s Philosophy’. Journal of the History of Philosophy 36 (1): 77–97.Google Scholar
Klemme, Heiner. 1996. Kants Philosophie des Subjekts: Systematische und entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Selbstbewusstsein und Selbsterkenntnis. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Klimmek, Nikolai. 2005. Kants System der transzendentalen Ideen. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kraus, Katharina T. 2018. ‘The Soul as the “Guiding Idea” of Psychology: Kant on Scientific Psychology, Systematicity, and the Idea of the Soul’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 71: 77–88.Google Scholar
Kraus, Katharina T., and Sturm, Thomas. 2017. ‘“An Attractive Alternative to Empirical Psychologies Both in His Day and Our Own”? A Critique of Frierson’s Kant’s Empirical Psychology’. Studi Kantiani 30: 203–23.Google Scholar
Kreimendahl, Lothar. 1990. Kant: Der Durchbruch von 1769. Cologne: Dinter.Google Scholar
Kuehn, Manfred. 1983. ‘Kant’s Conception of “Hume’s Problem”’. Journal of the History of Philosophy 21 (2): 175–93.Google Scholar
La Rocca, Claudio. 2003. Soggetto e mondo. Studi su Kant. Venezia: Marsilio.Google Scholar
La Rocca, Claudio. 2011. ‘Formen des Als-Ob bei Kant’. In Über den Nutzen von Illusionen: Die regulativen Ideen in Kants theoretischer Philosophie, edited by Dörflinger, Bernd and Kruck, Günter, 29–45. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Land, Thomas. 2014. ‘Spatial Representation, Magnitude and the Two Stems of Cognition’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 44 (5–6): 524–50.Google Scholar
Land, Thomas. 2015. ‘Nonconceptualist Readings of Kant and the Transcendental Deduction’. Kantian Review 20 (1): 25–51.Google Scholar
Land, Thomas. 2021. ‘Epistemic Agency and the Self-Knowledge of Reason: On the Contemporary Relevance of Kant’s Method of Faculty Analysis’. Synthese 198: 3137–54.Google Scholar
Leirfall, Anita. 2004. ‘Kant’s Metaphysical Exposition: On Philosophical Expositions Considered as Analysis of Given Concepts’. SATS 5 (2): 34–46.Google Scholar
Leitner, Heinrich. 1994. Systematische Topik: Methode und Argumentation in Kants kritischer Philosophie. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice. 1998. Kant and the Capacity to Judge: Sensibility and Discursivity in the Transcendental Analytic of the Critique of Pure Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice. 2006. ‘Kant on A Priori Concepts: The Metaphysical Deduction of the Categories’. In The Cambridge Companion to Kant and Modern Philosophy, edited by Guyer, Paul, 129–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lu-Adler, Huaping. 2018. Kant and the Science of Logic: A Historical and Philosophical Reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Manchester, Paula. 2003. ‘Kant’s Conception of Architectonic in Its Historical Context’. Journal of the History of Philosophy 41 (2): 187–207.Google Scholar
Manchester, Paula. 2008. ‘Kant’s Conception of Architectonic in Its Philosophical Context’. Kant-Studien 99 (2): 133–51.Google Scholar
Marwede, Florian. 2016. ‘Kant on Happiness and the Duty to Promote the Highest Good’. In The Highest Good in Kant’s Philosophy, edited by Höwing, Thomas, 51–70. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Marwede, Florian. 2018. Das höchste Gut in Kants deontologischer Ethik. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCain, Kevin. 2008. ‘The Virtues of Epistemic Conservatism’. Synthese 164 (2): 185–200.Google Scholar
McGoldrick, P. M. 1985. ‘The Metaphysical Exposition: An Analysis of the Concept of Space’. Kant-Studien 76 (1–4): 257–75.Google Scholar
McLear, Colin. 2015. ‘Two Kinds of Unity in the Critique of Pure Reason’. Journal of the History of Philosophy 53 (1): 79–110.Google Scholar
McQuillan, J. Colin. 2016. Immanuel Kant: The Very Idea of a Critique of Pure Reason. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
McQuillan, J. Colin. 2017a. ‘Does Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason Belong to the Tradition of Modern Logic’. In La Modernidad En Perspectiva, edited by Garcia, Roberto Casales and Manzana, Martin Castro, 45–54. Granada: Editorial Comares.Google Scholar
McQuillan, J. Colin. 2017b. ‘Kant on the Science of Aesthetics and the Critique of Taste’. Kant Yearbook 9 (1): 113–32.Google Scholar
McQuillan, J. Colin. 2017c. ‘Wolff’s Logic, Kant’s Critique, and the Foundations of Metaphysics’. In 300 Years of Christian Wolff’s German Logic: Sources, Significance and Reception, edited by Pelletier, Arnaud and de Boer, Karin, 217–39. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Meer, Rudolf. 2019. Der transzendentale Grundsatz der Vernunft: Funktion und Struktur des Anhangs zur Transzendentalen Dialektik der Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Meier, Georg Friedrich. 1752a. Auszug auf die Vernunftlehre. Halle.Google Scholar
Meier, Georg Friedrich. 1752b. Vernunftlehre. Halle.Google Scholar
Melnick, Arthur. 2006. ‘The Second Analogy’. In A Companion to Kant, edited by Bird, Graham, 169–81. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mensch, Jennifer. 2013. Kant’s Organicism: Epigenesis and the Development of Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merritt, Melissa McBay. 2010. ‘Kant on the Transcendental Deduction of Space and Time: An Essay on the Philosophical Resources of the Transcendental Aesthetic’. Kantian Review 14 (2): 1–37.Google Scholar
Merritt, Melissa McBay. 2015. ‘Varieties of Reflection in Kant’s Logic’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 23 (3): 478–501.Google Scholar
Messina, James. 2014. ‘Kant on the Unity of Space and the Synthetic Unity of Apperception’. Kant-Studien 105 (1): 5–40.Google Scholar
Messina, James. 2015. ‘Conceptual Analysis and the Essence of Space: Kant’s Metaphysical Exposition Revisited’. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 97 (4): 416–57.Google Scholar
Møller, Sofie. 2020. Kant’s Tribunal of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, Adrian W. 2010. ‘The Transcendental Doctrine of Method’. In The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, edited by Guyer, Paul, 310–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Motta, Giuseppe. 2017. ‘One Step? Two Steps? Reflections on R. L. Anderson’s The Poverty of Conceptual Truth’. Studi Kantiani 30: 123–28.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka. 2018. Truth-Seeking by Abduction. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Onof, Christian, and Schulting, Dennis. 2015. ‘Space as Form of Intuition and as Formal Intuition: On the Note to B160 in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason’. Philosophical Review 124 (1): 1–58.Google Scholar
O’Shea, James R. 1997. ‘The Needs of Understanding: Kant on Empirical Laws and Regulative Ideals’. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 5 (2): 216–54.Google Scholar
Pasternack, Lawrence. 2011. ‘The Development and Scope of Kantian Belief: The Highest Good, the Practical Postulates and the Fact of Reason’. Kant-Studien 102 (3): 290–315.Google Scholar
Pasternack, Lawrence. 2014. ‘Kant on Opinion: Assent, Hypothesis, and the Norms of General Applied Logic’. Kant-Studien 105 (1): 41–82.Google Scholar
Pereboom, Derk. 2019. ‘Kant’s Transcendental Arguments’. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, Edward N., Spring 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/kant-transcendental/.Google Scholar
Pollok, Konstantin. 2001. Kants metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft: Ein kritischer Kommentar. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Pollok, Konstantin. 2008. ‘“An Almost Single Inference” – Kant’s Deduction of the Categories Reconsidered’. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 90 (3): 323–45.Google Scholar
Proops, Ian. 2003. ‘Kant’s Legal Metaphor and the Nature of a Deduction’. Journal of the History of Philosophy 41 (2): 209–29.Google Scholar
Rauscher, Frederick. 2010. ‘The Appendix to the Dialectic and the Canon of Pure Reason: The Positive Role of Reason’. In The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, edited by Guyer, Paul, 290–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reath, Andrews. 1988. ‘Two Conceptions of the Highest Good in Kant’. Journal of the History of Philosophy 26 (4): 593–619.Google Scholar
Reich, Klaus. 1986. Die Vollständigkeit der Kantischen Urteilstafel. 3rd ed. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Reinhold, Karl Leonhard. 1791. Über das Fundament des philosophischen Wissens. Jena.Google Scholar
Renaut, Alain. 1998. ‘Transzendentale Dialektik, Einleitung und Buch I (A293/B349–A338/B396)’. In Immanuel Kant: Kritik der reinen Vernunft, edited by Willaschek, Marcus and Mohr, Georg, 353–70. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1979. Cognitive Systematization: A Systems-Theoretic Approach to a Coherentist Theory of Knowledge. Oxford: Backwell.Google Scholar
Rohlf, Michael. 2010. ‘The Ideas of Pure Reason’. In The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, edited by Guyer, Paul, 190–209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosefeldt, Tobias. 2016. ‘Closing the Gap: A New Answer to an Old Objection against Kant’s Argument for Transcendental Idealism’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 116 (2): 181–203.Google Scholar
Rosefeldt, Tobias. 2021. ‘Kant on the Epistemic Role of the Imagination’. Synthese 198: 3171–92.Google Scholar
Schmucker, Josef. 1990. Das Weltproblem in Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
Schönecker, Dieter. 2005. Kants Begriff transzendentaler und praktischer Freiheit: Eine entwicklungsgeschichtliche Studie. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schulting, Dennis. 2018a. Kant’s Deduction from Apperception: An Essay on the Transcendental Deduction of the Categories. 2nd ed. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schulting, Dennis. 2018b. ‘The Current Status of Research on Kant’s Transcendental Deduction’. Revista de Estudios Kantianos 3 (1): 69–88.Google Scholar
Schultz, Johann. 2000 [1785]. ‘Institutiones Logicae et Metaphysicae by Johann August Heinrich Ulrich’. In Kant’s Early Critics: The Empiricist Critique of the Theoretical Philosophy, edited by Sassen, Brigitte, 210–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schulze, Gottlob Ernst. 1792. Aenesidemus: oder, Über die Fundamente der von dem Herrn Prof. Reinhold in Jena gelieferten Elementar-Philopsophie. Helmstedt.Google Scholar
Serck-Hanssen, Camilla. 2013. ‘The Significance of Infinite Judgment’. In Kant und die Philosophie in weltbürgerlicher Absicht: Akten des XI. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses 2010, 2:409–20. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Shabel, Lisa. 2006. ‘Kant’s Philosophy of Mathematics’. In The Cambridge Companion to Kant and Modern Philosophy, edited by Guyer, Paul, 94–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smit, Houston. 1999. ‘The Role of Reflection in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 80 (2): 203–23.Google Scholar
Specht, Andrew. 2014. ‘F. A. Trendelenburg and the Neglected Alternative’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 22 (3): 514–34.Google Scholar
Stan, Marius, and Watkins, Eric. 2014. ‘Kant’s Philosophy of Science’. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, Edward N., Fall 2014. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/kant-science/.Google Scholar
Stang, Nicholas F. 2012. ‘Kant on Complete Determination and Infinite Judgement’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (6): 1117–39.Google Scholar
Stapleford, Scott. 2008. Kant’s Transcendental Arguments: Disciplining Pure Reason. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert. 2004. ‘Does “Ought” Imply “Can”? And Did Kant Think It Does?’ Utilitas 16 (1): 42–61.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert. 2006. ‘Metaphysical Dogmatism, Humean Scepticism, Kantian Criticism’. Kantian Review 11: 102–16.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert. 2019. ‘Transcendental Arguments’. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, Edward N., Summer 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entriesranscendental-arguments/.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Leslie. 2003. ‘Opinion, Belief or Faith, and Knowledge’. Kantian Review 7: 72–101.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. 2014. The Secret Connexion: Causation, Realism, and David Hume. Revised ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter. 1966. The Bounds of Sense: An Essay on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Sturm, Thomas. 2009. Kant und die Wissenschaften vom Menschen. Paderborn: mentis.Google Scholar
Tolley, Clinton. 2012. ‘The Generality of Kant’s Transcendental Logic’. Journal of the History of Philosophy 50 (3): 417–46.Google Scholar
Tonelli, Giorgio. 1994. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason within the Tradition of Modern Logic. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Vahid, Hamid. 2004. ‘Varieties of Epistemic Conservatism’. Synthese 141 (1): 97–122.Google Scholar
Vaihinger, Hans. 1881–1892. Commentar zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Verlag von W. Spemann and Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Vaihinger, Hans. 1911. Die Philosophie des Als Ob. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, James. 1999. Problems from Kant. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van den Berg, Hein. 2011. ‘Kant’s Conception of Proper Science’. Synthese 183 (1): 7–26.Google Scholar
Vinci, Thomas C. 2015. Space, Geometry, and Kant’s Transcendental Deduction of the Categories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walden, Kenneth. 2019. ‘Reason Unbound: Kant’s Theory of Regulative Principles’. European Journal of Philosophy 27 (3): 575–92.Google Scholar
Ward, Andrew. 2001. ‘Kant’s First Analogy of Experience’. Kant Studien 92 (4): 387–406.Google Scholar
Wartenberg, Thomas E. 1979. ‘Order through Reason: Kant’s Transcendental Justification of Science’. Kant-Studien 70 (1–4): 409–24.Google Scholar
Wartenberg, Thomas E. 1992. ‘Reason and the Practice of Science’. In The Cambridge Companion to Kant, edited by Guyer, Paul, 228–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 2005. Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waxman, Wayne. 2005. Kant and the Empiricists: Understanding Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 1997. ‘Der transzendentale Idealismus und die Idealität von Raum und Zeit. Eine “lückenlose” Interpretation von Kants Beweis in der “Transzendentalen Ästhetik”’. Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung 51 (4): 537–64.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 1998. ‘Phaenomena/Noumena und die Amphibolie der Reflexionsbegriffe (A235/B294–A292/B349)’. In Immanuel Kant: Kritik der reinen Vernunft, edited by Mohr, Georg and Willaschek, Marcus, 325–51. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 2010. ‘The Primacy of Pure Practical Reason and the Very Idea of a Postulate’. In Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide, edited by Reath, Andrews and Timmermann, Jens, 168–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 2016. ‘Must We Believe in the Realizability of Our Ends? On a Premise of Kant’s Argument for the Postulates of Pure Practical Reason’. In The Highest Good in Kant’s Philosophy, edited by Höwing, Thomas, 223–44. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 2018. Kant on the Sources of Metaphysics: The Dialectic of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus, and Watkins, Eric. 2020. ‘Kant on Cognition and Knowledge’. Synthese 197: 3195–213.Google Scholar
Williams, Jessica J. 2018. ‘Kant on the Original Synthesis of Understanding and Sensibility’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 26 (1): 66–86.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian. 1965 [1754]. Vernünftige Gedanken von den Kräften des menschlichen Verstandes und ihrem richtigen Gebrauche in Erkenntnis der Wahrheit. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Wolff, Michael. 1995. Die Vollständigkeit der kantischen Urteilstafel: Mit einem Essay über Freges Begriffsschrift. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Wolff, Michael. 2018. ‘Freiheit und Natur: Zu Kants arkitetonischem Programm von Philosophie’. In Natur und Freiheit: Akten des XII. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, edited by Waibel, Violetta, Ruffing, Margit, and Wagner, David, 1:133–56. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wolff, Robert Paul. 1963. Kant’s Theory of Mental Activity: A Commentary on the Transcendental Analytic of the Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wolff-Metternich, Brigitta-Sophie von. 1995. Die Überwindung des mathematischen Erkenntnisideals: Kants Grenzbestimmung von Mathematik und Philosophie. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. 2020. Kant and Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wundt, Max. 1924. Kant als Metaphysiker: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der deutschen Philosophie im 18. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: F. Enke.Google Scholar
Young, J. Michael. 1992. ‘Functions of Thought and the Synthesis of Intuitions’. In The Cambridge Companion to Kant, edited by Guyer, Paul, 101–22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yovel, Yirmiyahu. 1980. Kant and the Philosophy of History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ypi, Lea. 2011. ‘Practical Agency, Teleology and System in Kant’s Architectonic of Pure Reason’. In Politics and Metaphysics in Kant, edited by Baiasu, Sorin, Pihlström, Sami, and Williams, Howard, 134–52. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Ypi, Lea. 2017. ‘The Transcendental Deduction of Ideas in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 117 (2): 163–85.Google Scholar
Ypi, Lea. 2021. The Architectonic of Reason: Purposiveness and Systematic Unity in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zocher, Rudolf. 1958. ‘Zu Kants transzendentaler Deduktion der Ideen der reinen Vernunft’. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 12 (1): 43–58.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Gabriele Gava, Università degli Studi di Torino, Italy
  • Book: Kant's <I>Critique of Pure Reason</I> and the Method of Metaphysics
  • Online publication: 11 May 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009172127.016
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Gabriele Gava, Università degli Studi di Torino, Italy
  • Book: Kant's <I>Critique of Pure Reason</I> and the Method of Metaphysics
  • Online publication: 11 May 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009172127.016
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Gabriele Gava, Università degli Studi di Torino, Italy
  • Book: Kant's <I>Critique of Pure Reason</I> and the Method of Metaphysics
  • Online publication: 11 May 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009172127.016
Available formats
×