Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:32:59.250Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Explanatory Structure of the Transcendental Deduction and a Cognitive Interpretation of the First Critique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Scott Edgar
Scott Edgar*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, CanadaV6T 1Z1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Consider two competing interpretations of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason: the epistemic and cognitive interpretations. The epistemic interpretation presents the first Critique as a work of epistemology, but what is more, it sees Kant as an early proponent of anti-psychologism — the view that descriptions of how the mind works are irrelevant for epistemology. Even if Kant does not always manage to purge certain psychological- sounding idioms from his writing, the epistemic interpretation has it, he is perfectly clear that he means his evaluation of knowledge to be carried out independently of psychology. In contrast, the cognitive interpretation presents the first Critique as a description of the operation of human cognitive faculties — sensibility, the understanding, and reason. Whatever else the first Critique might be on this interpretation, it is at least Kant's articulation of a theory of mind.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 285 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2010

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

Allison, H. 1983. Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ameriks, K. 1978 (1998). ‘Kant's Transcendental Deduction as a Regressive Argument.’ Reprinted in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason: Critical Essays, Kitcher, P. ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Anderson, R.L. 2001. ‘Synthesis, Cogntive Normativity, and the Meaning of Kant's Question, “How are synthetic cognitions a priori possible?”’ European Journal of Philosophy 9 (2001) 275–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J. 1966. Kant's Analytic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brook, A. 1994. Kant and the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1994. Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, H. 1997 (1871/1885). Kants Theorie der Erfahrung. Edel, G. ed. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Guyer, P. 1992. ‘The Transcendental Deduction of the Categories.’ In The Cambridge Companion to Kant, Guyer, P. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. 2006. Kant. Oxford: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkenstein, L. 1995. Kant's Intuitionism: A Commentary on the Transcendental Aesthetic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Fichte, J.G. 1982 (1794). The Science of Knowledge, Heath, P. and Lachs, J. eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hatfield, G. 1990. The Natural and the Normative. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hatfield, G. 2003. ‘What Were Kant's Aims in the Deduction?’ Philosophical Topics 31 (2003) 165–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1990 (1929). Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, Taft, R. ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C.G. 1965. ‘Aspects of Scientific Explanation.’ In Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, D. 1969. ‘The Proof-Structure of Kant's Transcendental Deduction.’ Review of Metaphysics 22 (1969) 640–59.Google Scholar
Henrich, D. 1989. ‘Kant's Notion of the Deduction and the Methodological Background of the First Critique.’ In Kant's Transcendental Deductions, Förster, E. ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Horstmann, R.P. 1981. ‘The Metaphysical Deduction in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.’ The Philosophical Forum 13 (1981) 32–4.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1997 (1781/1787). Critique of Pure Reason, P., Guyer and Wood, A eds. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 2002 (1786). Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. trans. Friedman, M.. In Theoretical Philosophy after 1781, Allison, H. and Heath, P. eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kemp Smith, N. 1962 (1918). A Commentary on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1990. Kant's Transcendental Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuehn, M. 1987. ‘Kant's Transcendental Deduction: a Limited Defense of Hume.’ In New Essays on Kant, Ouden, B. den and Moen, M. eds. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lange, F.A. 1950 (1873). A History of Materialism, Thomas, E.C. ed. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Paton, H.J. 1936. Kant's Metaphysics of Experience. London: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Reinhold, K.L. 1790/1792. Briefe über die kantische Philosophie. Leipzig: Georg Joachim Goschen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. 1966. The Bounds of Sense. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Waxman, W. 1991. Kant's Model of the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar