Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:37:17.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deduction Difficulties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2018

Robert Howell
Robert Howell*
Affiliation:
University at Albany, SUNY/Moscow State University
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I argue, contrary to Dennis Schulting in Kant’s Radical Subjectivism, that the main reasoning of Kant’s transcendental deduction of the categories is progressive, not regressive. Schulting is right, however, to emphasize that the deduction takes the object cognized to be constituted in an idealism-entailing way. But his reasoning has gaps and bypasses Kant’s most explicit deduction argument, independent of the Transcendental Aesthetic, for idealism. Finally, Schulting’s claim that Kantian discursivity itself requires idealism overlooks the fact that Kantian general judgements can be true in a domain of objects without being specifically of or about any particular ones of those objects.

Keywords

transcendental deductioncategoriestranscendental idealismobject constitutionprogressive and regressiveKantian conceptsdiscursivitything in itself
Type
Author Meets Critics
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 111 - 121
Copyright
© Kantian Review 2018 

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

Ameriks, Karl (1978) ‘Kant’s Transcendental Deduction as a Regressive Argument’. Kant-Studien, 63, 273–287.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (2008) ‘Kant’s Transcendental Idealism and the Limits of Knowledge’. In Daniel Garber and Béatrice Longuenesse (eds), Kant and the Early Moderns (Princeton: Princeton University Press), pp. 79–99.Google Scholar
Howell, Robert (1992) Kant’s Transcendental Deduction. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1992a [1762]) ‘False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures’. In David Walford and Ralf Meerbote (trans. and eds), Theoretical Philosophy 1755–1770 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 85–105.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1992b [1800]) ‘Jäsche Logic’. In Michael Young (trans. and ed.), Lectures on Logic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 517–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1998 [1781, 1787]) Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2002 [1783]) Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. Trans. Gary Hatfield. In Henry Allison and Peter Heath (eds), Theoretical Philosophy since 1781 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 50–169.Google Scholar
Pereboom, Derk (2001) ‘Assessing Kant’s Master Argument’. Kantian Review, 5, 90–102.Google Scholar
Schulting, Dennis (2013) Kant’s Deduction and Apperception. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Schulting, Dennis (2017) Kant’s Radical Subjectivism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar