Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:18:42.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dennis Schulting, Kant’s Deduction and Apperception: Explaining the Categories Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012 Pp. xiv+300 ISBN 9780230358829 (hbk) £69.00

Review products

Dennis Schulting, Kant’s Deduction and Apperception: Explaining the Categories Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012 Pp. xiv+300 ISBN 9780230358829 (hbk) £69.00

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2018

Thomas Land
Thomas Land*
Affiliation:
Ryerson University
*
email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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
Book Reviews
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 145 - 151
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, 69 (3), 273–287.Google Scholar
Brandt, Reinhard (1991) Die Urteilstafel: Kritik der reinen Vernunft A67–76; B92–101. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (1987) Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1998) Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. and ed. P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice (1998) Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Trans. C. Wolfe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, John (2016) ‘Rationalism without Dogmas’. In Z. Adams and J. Browning (eds), Giving a Damn: Essays in Dialogue with John Haugeland (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 311–328.Google Scholar
Reich, Klaus (1986) Die Vollständigkeit der Kantischen Urteilstafel. 3rd edition, Hamburg: Felix Meiner (1st edition 1932).Google Scholar
Smit, Houston (1999) ‘The Role of Reflection in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason ’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 80, 203–223.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter (1966) The Bounds of Sense: An Essay on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Wolff, Michael (1995) Die Vollständigkeit der kantischen Urteilstafel: Mit einem Essay über Freges Begriffsschrift. Frankfurt a. M.: Klostermann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar