Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T00:25:02.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inferentialism and the Transcendental Deduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

David Landy
David Landy
Affiliation:
San Francisco State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One recent trend in Kant scholarship has been to read Kant as undertaking a project in philosophical semantics, as opposed to, say, epistemology, or transcendental metaphysics. This trend has evolved almost concurrently with a debate in contemporary philosophy of mind about the nature of concepts and their content. Inferentialism is the view that the content of our concepts is essentially inferentially articulated, that is, that the content of a concept consists entirely, or in essential part, in the role that that concept plays in a system of inferences. By contrast, relationalism is the view that this content is fixed by a mental or linguistic item's standing in a certain relation to its object. The historical picture of Kant and the contemporary debate about concepts intersect in so far as contemporary inferentialists about conceptual content often cite Immanuel Kant not only as one of the founding fathers of a tradition that leads more or less straightforwardly to contemporary inferentialism, but also as the philosopher who first saw the fatal flaws in any attempt to articulate the content of our concepts relationally.

Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 1 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Kantian Review 2009

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

Bennett, J. (1971) Locke, Berkeley, Hume: Central Themes (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Brandom, R. (1994) Making It Explicit (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Brandt, R. (1995) The Table of judgements: Critique of Pure Reason A67–76; B92–101, trans. E., Watkins (Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Company).Google Scholar
Brittan, G. (1978) Kant's Theory of Science (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. (1983) ‘On concept and object’, Theoria, 49: 49–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, R. (1984) The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, volume 2, trans. J., Cottingham, R., Stoothoff and D., Murdoch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Everson, S. (1988) ‘The difference between feeling and thinking’, Mind, 37: 401–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (2003) Hume Variations (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Gibson, M. (2004) From Naming to Saying: The Unity of the Proposition (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, R. (2001) Kant and the Foundations of Analytic Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Henrich, D. (1989) ‘Kant's notion of a deduction and the methodological background of the First Critique’, in E., Förster (ed.), Kant's Transcendental Deductions (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1978) A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. Selby-Bigge, L. A. (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Hume, D.. (2000) A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. D., Norton and M., Norton (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1998) Critique of Pure Reason, trans. P., Guyer and A., Wood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, C. (2000) ‘Two meanings of the term “idea”: acts and contents in Hume's “Treatise”’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 61: 675–90.Google Scholar
Landy, D. (2006) ‘Hume's impression-idea distinction’, Hume Studies, 32: 119–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landy, D. (2007) ‘A (Sellarsian) Kantian critique of Hume's theory of concepts’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 88: 445–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landy, D. (2008) ‘Hegel's account of rule-following’, Inquiry, 51: 169–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landy, D. (2009a) ‘Sellars on Hume and Kant on representing complexes’, European Journal of Philosophy, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landy, D. (2009b) ‘The premise that even Hume must accept’, in Jim O'Shea and Eric Rubenstein (eds), Self, Language, and World: Essays to celebrate the work of jay F. Rosenberg, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Linsky, L. (1992) ‘The problem of the unity of the proposition’, Journal of the History of Philosophy, 30: 243–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longuenesse, B. (1998) Kant and the Capacity to Judge, trans. Wolfe, Charles T. (Princeton: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, W. (2004) Locke's Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Pippin, R. (1982) Kant's Theory of Form (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Rosenberg, J. (2005) Accessing Kant: A Relaxed Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, J. (2007) Wilfrid Sellars: Fusing the Images (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid (1963a) Science, Perception and Reality (Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Company).Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid (1963b) ‘Empiricism and abstract entities’, in Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolph Carnap (LaSalle, IL: Open Court).Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid (1964) ‘Induction as vindication’, Philosophy of Science, 31: 197–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid (1967) Science and Metaphysics (Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Company).Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid (1979) Naturalism and Ontology (Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Company).Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid (1988) ‘On accepting first principles’, Philosophical Perspectives, 2: 301–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid (2002) ‘Towards a theory of the Categories’, in Kant's Transcendental Metaphysics (Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Company), pp. 321–40.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1959) Individuals (London: Methuen).Google Scholar
Wiggins, D. (1984) ‘The sense and reference of predicates: a running repair to Frege's doctrine and a plea for the copula’, Philosophical Quarterly, 34: 311–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar