Sollte die Kritik der reinen Vernunft die Vollständigkeit der Urteilstafel tatsächlich (nur) „vor Augen stellen“? Allgemeine reine Logik und Transzendentalphilosophie in Kants Deduktion der reinen Verstandesbegriffe

IF 0.9 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
B. Ludwig
{"title":"Sollte die Kritik der reinen Vernunft die Vollständigkeit der Urteilstafel tatsächlich (nur) „vor Augen stellen“? Allgemeine reine Logik und Transzendentalphilosophie in Kants Deduktion der reinen Verstandesbegriffe","authors":"B. Ludwig","doi":"10.1515/kant-2023-2028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As Kant shows in A 71–76 of the First Critique, his table of the twelve “logical functions of understanding” (in A 70) is an indispensable extension of a table of four well-known logical functions that we find in a section of the Logic that was “already finished” in Aristotle’s times: The Square of Oppositions. The undisputed completeness of this special table thus warrants the completeness of Kant’s general table as well. Any further philosophical proof of completeness for Kant’s table of judgements as a whole is therefore not necessary at all. And due to the contingency of “kind and number” of human forms of intuition and functions of judgment, such a ‘proof’ would not even be possible according to Kant – and thus it is not a subject (or even a part) of his Transcendental Deduction of the Categories. A concluding evaluation of Kant’s own statements about the proof-structure of the B-Deduction as a whole supports this claim.","PeriodicalId":45952,"journal":{"name":"KANT-STUDIEN","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"KANT-STUDIEN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/kant-2023-2028","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract As Kant shows in A 71–76 of the First Critique, his table of the twelve “logical functions of understanding” (in A 70) is an indispensable extension of a table of four well-known logical functions that we find in a section of the Logic that was “already finished” in Aristotle’s times: The Square of Oppositions. The undisputed completeness of this special table thus warrants the completeness of Kant’s general table as well. Any further philosophical proof of completeness for Kant’s table of judgements as a whole is therefore not necessary at all. And due to the contingency of “kind and number” of human forms of intuition and functions of judgment, such a ‘proof’ would not even be possible according to Kant – and thus it is not a subject (or even a part) of his Transcendental Deduction of the Categories. A concluding evaluation of Kant’s own statements about the proof-structure of the B-Deduction as a whole supports this claim.
对纯粹理性的批判是否真的(仅仅)“呈现”了判断板的完整性?康德对纯粹理解概念推导中的一般纯粹逻辑与先验哲学
正如康德在《第一批判》第71-76页所指出的那样,他的12个“知性的逻辑功能”表(第70页),是我们在亚里士多德时代“已经完成”的《逻辑学》的对位方阵中所发现的4个众所周知的逻辑功能表的不可缺少的扩展。这个特殊表的完备性,因而也就证明了康德的一般表的完备性。因此,对于康德的整个判断表的完备性,无须作任何进一步的哲学证明。由于人的直观形式和判断功能的“种类和数量”的偶然性,按照康德的说法,这样的“证明”是不可能的,因此它不是他的《范畴先验演绎》的主题,甚至也不是他的一部份。对康德自己关于b演绎的证明结构的陈述的总结性评价总体上支持这一主张。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
KANT-STUDIEN
KANT-STUDIEN PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Publications in the Kant-Studien have a dual focus: firstly contributions to the interpretation, history and editorial questions of Kant"s philosophy, and secondly systematic debates on transcendental philosophy. In addition, there are investigations on Kant"s precursors and on the effects of his philosophy. The journal also contains a documentation section, in which the current state of research is indicated by means of a continually updated bibliography with reviews and references.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信