Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:14:19.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Two Steps of the B-Deduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2011

Markku Leppäkoski
Markku Leppäkoski
Affiliation:
University of Stockholm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the publication of Dieter Henrich's classic paper, ‘The proof structure of the transcendental deduction’, in The Review of Metaphysics 22 (1969), the transcendental deduction of the pure concepts of the understanding has been under focus in Kant studies in a very special way. The B-deduction seems to be a proof in two steps. Consequently, the focus has been on questions like, ‘What is the structure of the deduction?’, and ‘Why is the deduction carried out in two steps?’ No doubt the structure of the deduction has been the most debated exegetical issue in Kant's theoretical philosophy, and the most important too, while the answers mirror one's overall understanding of Kant.

Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 2 , March 1998 , pp. 107 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © Kantian Review 1998

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

Notes

1 For an extensive survey of the contemporary research and references see a series of papers by Baumanns, Peter, Kant-Studien, 82Google Scholar and 83, 1991–2.

2 I have dealt with these problems in a previous study. The Transcendental How; Kant's Transcendental Deduction of Objective Cognition (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1993), ch. 4. This paper presents a more considered, concise and revised interpretation.

3 Baum, Manfred, Deduktion und Beweis in Kants Transzendental-philosophie (Königstein/Ts.: Athenäum Verlag, 1986), p. 81.Google Scholar

4 By putting ‘proof’ in parenthesis I want to reiterate that the deduction is not a proof in Kant's sense of a transcendental proof. See my The Transcendental How.

5 See my ‘The Transcendental Schemata’, in Proceedings of the Eighth International Kant Congress, ed. Robinson, Hoke, vol.2/1 (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1995).Google Scholar See also Kant's Refutation of Idealism. Its premiss is ‘the empirically determinate consciousness of my own existence’ (B274).

6 This paper was partly written during the research project ‘Modal Theory’ under the auspices of the Swedish Council for Research in the Humanities and the Social Sciences (HSFR). I am grateful to Staffan Carlshamre, Marcel Quarfood and an anonymous reader of this journal for valuable comments.