Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:15:22.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transcendental Concepts, Transcendental Truths and Objective Validity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2015

Chong-Fuk Lau
Chong-Fuk Lau*
Affiliation:
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kant insists that the use of concepts must be subject to empirical conditions if they are to have objective validity. This article analyses Kant’s principle of objective validity, focusing particularly on its application to transcendental concepts such as those of sensibility, understanding and transcendental apperception. It distinguishes between two orders of objective validity, based on Kant’s distinction between empirical and transcendental truths. Since transcendental concepts are pure concepts without spatio-temporal content, their objective validity is of the same second-order kind as that of unschematized categories. This characteristic of transcendental concepts implies that the cognitive powers picked out by them are not particular psychological mechanisms, but rather abstract functional structures. Transcendental concepts owe their objective validity to the realizability of the functional structures by empirical cognizers like humans. This relation in turn helps to explain the nature of transcendental truths.

Keywords

Kantverificationismfaculty of cognitionschematizationfunctionalism
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , November 2015 , pp. 445 - 466
Copyright
© Kantian Review 2015 

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. E. (1983) Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. (1966) Kant’s Analytic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J. (1974) Kant’s Dialectic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bird, G. (2006) The Revolutionary Kant: A Commentary on the Critique of Pure Reason. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Bubner, R. (1975) ‘Kant, Transcendental Arguments and the Problem of Deduction’. Review of Metaphysics, 28 (3), 453–467.Google Scholar
Fries, J. F. (1828) Neue oder anthropologische Kritik der Vernunft. Heidelberg: Christian Friedrich Winter.Google Scholar
Greenberg, R. S. (2008) Real Existence, Ideal Necessity: Kant’s Compromise and the Modalities without the Compromise. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (1987) Kant and the Claim of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (1992) ‘The Transcendental Deduction of the Categories’. In P. Guyer (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 123–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, R. (1993) ‘The Trouble with Truth in Kant’s Theory of Meaning’. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 10 (1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Hanna, R. (2001) Kant and the Foundations of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1900–) Gesammelte Schriften, ed. königlich preußische (later German) Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1992) Lectures on Logic, trans. J. M.Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1998) Critique of Pure Reason, trans. P. Guyer and A.Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1999) Correspondence, trans. A. Zweig. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1990) Kant’s Transcendental Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, C.-F. (2010) ‘Kant’s Epistemological Reorientation of Ontology’. Kant Yearbook, 2: Metaphysics, 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, C.-F. (2014) ‘Kant’s Transcendental Functionalism’. Review of Metaphysics, 68 (Dec.), 371–394.Google Scholar
Makkreel, R. (1990) Imagination and Interpretation in Kant: The Hermeneutical Import of the Critique of Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sandberg, E. C. (1989) ‘Thinking Things in Themselves’. In G. Funke and T. Seebohm (eds), Proceedings of the Sixth International Kant Congress (Lanham, MD: University Press of America), vol. 2.2, pp. 23–31.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1966) The Bounds of Sense: An Essay on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2004) Kant’s Transcendental Proof of Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. M. (1994) ‘Synthesis and the Content of Pure Concepts in Kant’s First Critique’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 32 (3), 331–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar