Kant’s Deduction From Apperception

Schulting, Dennis

doi:10.1515/9783110584301

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The main argument is regressive (pp. 73–4, 77–8; Schulting 2013: 61ff., 212). Kant assumes we cognize robust spatiotemporal objects.…”

Section: The Deduction: Progressive? Regressive?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kant’s ‘modest aim’ (p. 213) is not to refute sceptics but to analyse such cognition and show how it is possible (pp. 58, 301, 297; Schulting 2013: 211).…”

Section: The Deduction: Progressive? Regressive?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This regressive argument does not, however, give philosophical legitimacy to the conclusion that the (robust) objects here cognized are category-subsumed. This conclusion must be proved ‘valid according to a rationally insightful method, which lends it apodicticity … and universal generality’ (Schulting 2013: 212; cf. 2017: 57–8).…”

Section: The Deduction: Progressive? Regressive?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The remaining sections, particularly §§24 and 26, then apply the §§16–20 progressive results to the specific case of human perceptual cognition (pp. 214, 302–3; also Schulting 2013: 67, 206). Other sections are surely non-regressive.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In Kant’s Radical Subjectivism , Dennis Schulting considers aspects of the transcendental deduction of the categories not discussed in his (2013). He also amplifies points from that earlier volume – for example, his claim that the deduction derives each individual category directly from apperception, and his view that the deduction argues both progressively and regressively.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Deduction Difficulties

Howell

2018

Kantian rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I argue, contrary to Dennis Schulting inKant’s Radical Subjectivism, that the main reasoning of Kant’s transcendental deduction of the categories is progressive, not regressive. Schulting is right, however, to emphasize that the deduction takes the object cognized to be constituted in an idealism-entailing way. But his reasoning has gaps and bypasses Kant’s most explicit deduction argument, independent of the Transcendental Aesthetic, for idealism. Finally, Schulting’s claim that Kantian discursivity itself requires idealism overlooks the fact that Kantian general judgements can be true in a domain of objects without being specificallyofor about any particular ones of those objects.

show abstract

“…The main argument is regressive (pp. 73–4, 77–8; Schulting 2013: 61ff., 212). Kant assumes we cognize robust spatiotemporal objects.…”

Section: The Deduction: Progressive? Regressive?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kant’s ‘modest aim’ (p. 213) is not to refute sceptics but to analyse such cognition and show how it is possible (pp. 58, 301, 297; Schulting 2013: 211).…”

Section: The Deduction: Progressive? Regressive?mentioning

confidence: 99%