Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-09T15:14:16.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kant’s Transcendental Idealism and his Transcendental Deduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2015

Justin B. Shaddock
Justin B. Shaddock*
Affiliation:
Williams College
*
Email: jbs3@williams.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I argue for a novel, non-subjectivist interpretation of Kant’s transcendental idealism. Kant’s idealism is often interpreted as specifying how we must experience objects or how objects must appear to us. I argue to the contrary by appealing to Kant’s Transcendental Deduction. Kant’s Deduction is the proof that the categories are not merely subjectively necessary conditions we need for our cognition, but objectively valid conditions necessary for objects to be appearances. My interpretation centres on two claims. First, Kant’s method of self-knowledge consists in his determining what makes our cognitive faculty finite in contrast to God’s infinite cognitive faculty. Second, Kant’s limitation of our knowledge to appearances consists in his developing an account according to which appearances and our finite cognitive faculty are conceived of in terms of each other and in contrast to noumena in the positive sense and God’s infinite cognitive faculty.

Keywords

Kanttranscendental idealismTranscendental Deductioncategoriessubjective necessityobjective validityscepticism
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , July 2015 , pp. 265 - 288
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. (1996) ‘Transcendental Idealism: A Retrospective’. In Idealism and Freedom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, H. E. (2004) Kant’s Transcendental Idealism, 2nd edn.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allais, L. (2004) ‘Kant’s One World’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 12(4), 655–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allais, L. (2007) ‘Kant’s Idealism and the Secondary Quality Analogy’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 45(3), 383–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameriks, K. (2003) ‘Introduction: The Common Ground of Kant’s Critiques’. In Interpreting Kant’s Critiques. Oxford: Oxford University Press), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, L.W. (1978) ‘Did the Sage of Königsberg Have No Dreams’. In Essays on Kant and Hume (New Haven: Yale University Press), 38–60.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. (1966) Kant’s Analytic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engstrom, S. (1994) ‘The Transcendental Deduction and Skepticism’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 32(3), 359–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engstrom, S. (2006) ‘Understanding and Sensibility’. Inquiry, 49(1), 2–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewing, A.C. (1938) A Short Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Forster, M. N. (2008) Kant and Skepticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Franks, P. W. (2005) All or Nothing. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gomes, A. (2010) ‘Is Kant’s Transcendental Deduction of the Categories Fit for Purpose?’ Kantian Review, 15(2), 118–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (1987) Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (2003) ‘Kant’s Answer to Hume?’ Philosophical Topics, 31(1–2), 127–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, D. (1969) ‘The Proof-Structure of Kant’s Transcendental Deduction’. Review of Metaphysics, 22(4), 640–659.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1997a) Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, trans. G. Hatfield. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1997b) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. M. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1998) Critique of Pure Reason, trans. P. Guyer and A.W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (2007) Correspondence, trans. A. Zweig. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1990) Kant’s Transcendental Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (2011) Kant’s Thinker. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longuenesse, B. (1998) Kant and the Capacity to Judge, trans. C. T. Wolfe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longuenesse, B. (2005) Kant on the Human Standpoint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, J. (2009) ‘Hegel’s Idealism as Radicalization of Kant’. In Having the World in View (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 69–89.Google Scholar
Pippin, R. B. (1989) Hegel’s Idealism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaddock, J. (2014) ‘Kant and the Most Difficult Thing that Could Ever be Undertaken on Behalf of Metaphysics’. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 31(1), 41–58.Google Scholar
Stern, R. (2004) Transcendental Arguments and Scepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stroud, B. (1968) ‘Transcendental Arguments’. Journal of Philosophy, 65(9), 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1966) Bound of Sense. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1985) Skepticism and Naturalism. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Cleve, J. (1999) Problems from Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. (1978) Kant. London: Routledge.Google Scholar