No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Explaining Synthetic A Priori Knowledge: The Achilles Heel of Transcendental Idealism?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 April 2022
Abstract
This article considers an apparent Achilles heel for Kant’s transcendental idealism, concerning his account of how synthetic a priori knowledge is possible. The problem is that while Kant’s distinctive attempt to explain synthetic a priori knowledge lies at the heart of his transcendental idealism, this explanation appears to face a dilemma: either the explanation generates a problematic regress, or the explanation it offers gives us no reason to favour transcendental idealism over transcendental realism. In the article, I consider G. E. Moore’s version of the problem, which I argue has not yet received an adequate response. Instead, I offer a way out of this dilemma by focusing on the normativity rather than the metaphysics of the mind.
Keywords
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Kantian Review
References
Allais, Lucy (2010) ‘Kant’s Argument for Transcendental Idealism in the Transcendental Aesthetic’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 110, 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balanovskiy, Valentin (2018) ‘What is Kant’s Transcendental Reflection?’. Proceedings of the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy, 75, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan (1966) Kant’s Analytic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, Graham (2006) The Revolutionary Kant: A Commentary on the ‘Critique of Pure Reason’. Chicago and LaSalle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Bonjour, Laurence (1998) In Defense of Pure Reason: A Rationalist Account of A Priori Justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boer, De, Karin (2020) Kant’s Reform of Metaphysics: The ‘Critique of Reason’ Reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108897983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, René (1964–76) OEuvres de Descartes. Ed. Adam, Charles and Tannery, Paul. Revised edition. Paris: Vrin/CNRS.Google Scholar
Forster, Michael N. (2008) Kant and Skepticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (1987) Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutton, James (2019) ‘Epistemic Normativity in Kant’s “Second Analogy”’. European Journal of Philosophy, 27, 593–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1783/1997) Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. Trans. Hatfield, Gary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1785/2019) Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. Bennett, Christopher, Saunders, Joe and Stern, Robert. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1787/1998) Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. and ed. Guyer, Paul and Allen, W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1999) Correspondence. Trans. and ed. Zweig, Arnulf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511527289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Patricia (1994) Kant’s Transcendental Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McWherter, Dustin (2016) ‘The Moore-Walker Dilemma: A Critique of Transcendental Idealism’. The Philosophical Forum, 47, 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Colin (2014) ‘Does Kant Demand Explanations for All Synthetic A Priori Claims?’ Journal of the History of Philosophy, 52, 549–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merritt, Melissa McBay (2015) ‘Varieties of Reflection in Kant’s Logic’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 23, 478–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millican, Peter (2017) ‘Hume’s Fork, and his Theory of Relations’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 95, 3–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1903–4) ‘Kant’s Idealism’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 4, 127–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1886/1966) Beyond Good and Evil. Trans. Kaufmann, Walter. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
O’Shea, James R. (2019) ‘On Sellars’ Exam Question Trilemma: Are Kant’s Premises Analytic, or Synthetic A Priori, or A Posteriori?’ British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 27, 402–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereboom, Derk (1990), ‘Kant on Justification in Transcendental Philosophy’. Synthese, 85, 25–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollok, Konstantin (2017) Kant’s Theory of Normativity: Exploring the Space of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Jay (2005) Accessing Kant: A Relaxed Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand (1961) History of Western Philosophy. 2nd edition. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Schafer, Karl (2021) ‘Transcendental Philosophy as Capacities-First Philosophy’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 103, 661–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smit, Houston (1999) ‘The Role of Reflection in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason
’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 80, 203–23.10.1111/1468-0114.00080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolley, Clinton (2006) ‘Kant on the Nature of Logical Laws’. Philosophical Topics, 34, 371–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R. (2004) Kant’s Transcendental Proof of Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar