Kant’s Doctrine of Definitions and the Semantic Background of the Transcendental Analytic
-
Bianca Ancillotti
Abstract
In this paper I argue that Kant’s doctrine of definitions, as it is developed in the Transcendental Doctrine of Method (TDM) and in the lectures on logic, lays down the semantic background of the problem of the objective reality of the categories and of the solution Kant provides for it in the Transcendental Analytic. The distinction between nominal and real definitions introduces a two-dimensional element in Kant’s theory of concepts, and this, I argue, provides a compelling explanation for the assumption Kant makes in §13 that it is possible to possess a concept without knowing the conditions of its legitimate application. This view is supported by the parallels between Kant’s discussion of empirical, mathematical, and philosophical concepts in §13 and in the TDM. And, it allows clarifying the sense in which the arguments that prove the objective reality of the categories are, at the same time, counterfactual reflections that give us (incomplete) insight into their real definitions.
References
Allison, H. E. 2004. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism—An Interpretation and Defense. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.10.2307/j.ctt1cc2kjcSearch in Google Scholar
Ancillotti, B. forthcoming “Kant’s Transcendental Proofs: Progressive, Ambitious, and Presuppositionless.” In The Palgrave Handbook of German Idealism and Analytic Philosophy, edited by J. Conant, and J. Held. London: Palgrave MacMillan.Search in Google Scholar
Ancillotti, B. 2022. “Kant’s Proof of the Existence of the Outer World.” History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis 25 (1): 163–89. https://doi.org/10.30965/26664275-bja10020.Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, L. R. 2015. The Poverty of Conceptual Truth—Kant’s Analytic-Synthetic Distinction and the Limits of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198724575.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Beck, L. W. 1956. “Kant’s Theory of Definitions.” Philosophical Review 65 (2): 179–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/2182830.Search in Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 1966. Kant’s Analytics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Capozzi, M. 2002. Kant e la Logica. Napoli: Bibliopolis.Search in Google Scholar
Callanan, J. J. 2014. “Kant on the Acquisition of Geometrical Concepts.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 44 (5–6): 580–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2014.982746.Search in Google Scholar
Carson, E. 1999. “Kant on the Method of Mathematics.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 37 (4): 629–52. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2008.0905.Search in Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1985. “Kant’s Theory of Geometry.” Philosophical Review 94 (4): 455–506. https://doi.org/10.2307/2185244.Search in Google Scholar
García-Carpintero, M., and J. Macià. 2006. Two-Dimensional Semantics. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199271955.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Gendler, T. S., and J. Hawthorne. 2002. “Introduction.” In Conceivability and Possibility, edited by T. S. Gendler, and J. Hawthorn, 1–70. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198250890.003.0001Search in Google Scholar
Guyer, P. 1992. “The Transcendental Deduction of the Categories.” In The Cambridge Companion to Kant, edited by P. Guyer, 123–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CCOL0521365872.005Search in Google Scholar
Henrich, D. 1989. “Kant’s Notion of a Deduction and the Methodological Background of the First Critique.” In Kant’s Transcendental Deductions—The Three Critiques and the Opus Postumum, edited by E. Förster, 29–46. Stanford: Stanford University Press.10.1515/9781503621619-006Search in Google Scholar
Heis, J. 2014. “Kant (vs. Leibniz, Wolff and Lambert) on Real Definitions in Geometry.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 44 (5–6): 605–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2014.971689.Search in Google Scholar
de Jong, W. R. 1995. “Kant’s Analytic Judgments and the Traditional Theory of Concepts.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 33 (4): 613–41. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.1995.a225894.Search in Google Scholar
Kant, I. 2010/1781/1787. Kritik der reinen Vernunft, edited by J. Timmermann. Hamburg: Meiner.Search in Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason, trans. P. Guyer, and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511804649Search in Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1992. Lectures on Logic, trans. J. M. Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511810039Search in Google Scholar
Kant, I. 2002. Theoretical Philosophy after 1781, trans. G. Hatfield, M. Friedman, H. E. Allison, and P. Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kroon, F., and R. Nola. 1987. “Kant, Kripke and Gold.” Kant-Studien 78 (4): 442–58.Search in Google Scholar
Møller, S. C. 2020. Kant’s Tribunal of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Nidditch, P. H., ed. 1975. John Locke—An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Norton, D. F., and M. J. Norton, eds. 2007. David Hume—A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Nunez, T. 2014. “Definitions of Kant’s Categories.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 44 (5/6): 631–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2014.974469.Search in Google Scholar
Proops, I. 2003. “Kant’s Legal Metaphor and the Nature of a Deduction.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 41 (2): 209–29. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2003.0019.Search in Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1975. “The Meaning of Meaning.” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7: 131–93.10.1017/CBO9780511625251.014Search in Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” Philosophical Review 60 (1): 20–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/2181906.Search in Google Scholar
Shabel, L. 2003. Mathematics in Kant’s Critical Philosophy—Reflections on Mathematical Practice. New York, London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Stuhlmann-Laeisz, R. 1976. Kants Logik—Eine Interpretation auf der Grundlage von Vorlesungen, veröffentlichten Werken und Nachlass. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110862058Search in Google Scholar
Vanzo, A. 2018. “Leibniz on Innate Ideas and Kant on the Origin of the Categories.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 100 (1): 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2018-0002.Search in Google Scholar
Warnock, G. J. 1948. “Concepts and Schemata.” Analysis 9 (5): 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/9.5.77.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- The Roles of Kant’s Doctrines of Method
- Research Articles
- The Method of Belief: The Unity of Kant’s Reflection in the Canon of Pure Reason
- Kant’s Doctrine of Definitions and the Semantic Background of the Transcendental Analytic
- Two Models of Kantian Construction
- The Dissatisfied Skeptic in Kant’s Discipline of Pure Reason
- How to Become a Good Artist – Kant on Humaniora and the ‘Propaedeutic for All Beautiful Art’
- Virtue, Wide Duties, and Casuistry. On why there is a Doctrine of Method in Kant’s Doctrine of Virtue
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- The Roles of Kant’s Doctrines of Method
- Research Articles
- The Method of Belief: The Unity of Kant’s Reflection in the Canon of Pure Reason
- Kant’s Doctrine of Definitions and the Semantic Background of the Transcendental Analytic
- Two Models of Kantian Construction
- The Dissatisfied Skeptic in Kant’s Discipline of Pure Reason
- How to Become a Good Artist – Kant on Humaniora and the ‘Propaedeutic for All Beautiful Art’
- Virtue, Wide Duties, and Casuistry. On why there is a Doctrine of Method in Kant’s Doctrine of Virtue
