Reply to Michael Friedman

 

HENRY E. ALLISON | Kant’s Transcendental Deduction. An Analytical-Historical Commentary | Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015


 

By Henry Allison

I wish to thank Michael Friedman for both his extraordinarily rich discussion, which amounts to a commentary of his own on the B-Deduction, and his generous comments about the import of my own work. Given the detailed nature of his reading of the text, with much of which I am in agreement, I shall not here attempt to comment on his account as a whole, since that would require a reply of almost equal length to his. Instead, I shall focus first on what he suggests is our major point of disagreement, namely, the conceptual-non-conceptual issue, and then consider some of our more specific differences.  

In recent years, the contrast between conceptualist and non-conceptualist readings has become the great divide in interpretations of the Transcendental Deduction. And, as Friedman notes, the focal point of the dispute is the note that Kant attaches to the first paragraph of §26 of the B-Deduction. It reads: Read more

Advertisements

A Discussion of Henry Allison’s “Kant’s Transcendental Deduction”

 

HENRY E. ALLISON | Kant’s Transcendental Deduction. An Analytical-Historical Commentary | Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015


 

By Alison Laywine

The new book by Henry Allison, under discussion here, is the result of an engagement over more than forty years with Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. It is Allison’s first book-length treatment of the Transcendental Deduction: most welcome, indeed, because it is an opportunity for him to elaborate his understanding of the Deduction beyond the smaller compass of Part Two of Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: an Interpretation and Defense (2004). He carefully examines not just the presentation of the Deduction in the second edition of the Critique from 1787, but also that of the first edition from 1781. He supplements his examination with a careful review of Kant’s writings relevant to the Deduction in the six years between the two editions: not just the Prolegomena, but also Reflexionen 5923–35 and the famous note about the Deduction in the preface to the Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft.

Read more

On Henry Allison’s “Kant’s Transcendental Deduction”

 

HENRY E. ALLISON | Kant’s Transcendental Deduction. An Analytical-Historical Commentary | Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015


 

By Lucy Allais

Henry Allison’s monumental commentary aims to provide a critical analysis and evaluation of the Transcendental Deduction of the Categories, using both analytical and historical approaches. The Transcendental Deduction is the notoriously difficult, complex core of the Critique of Pure Reason, an argument so controversial that there is not even agreement in the literature on what its conclusion and premises are supposed to be, never mind on how the argument is supposed to work. The core of Allison’s book consists of a detailed, sentence by sentence analysis of the text of the Deduction. Before getting into the Deduction itself, Allison carefully discusses the development of Kant’s thought prior to the Critique with respect to issues relevant to the topic of the Deduction—what Allison calls Kant’s analytic metaphysics as well as his model of cognition—with the aim of showing what illumination can be found by tracing the path Kant followed in developing his position.

Read more

Henry Allison and the B-Deduction

 

HENRY E. ALLISON | Kant’s Transcendental Deduction. An Analytical-Historical Commentary | Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015


 

By Michael Friedman

Henry Allison’s new book on Kant’s Transcendental Deduction (2015) is a masterpiece, the best of all the excellent books that he has produced.[1] It is, as its subtitle asserts, a true “analytical-historical commentary”, beginning with Kant’s work in the 1760s, continuing with the period of the Inaugural Dissertation, proceeding with the ‘silent decade’ of the 1770s, following with the A-Deduction and the relevant intervening writings between the two editions of the Critique, and concluding with two detailed and substantial chapters on the B-Deduction corresponding to its now generally accepted division into two parts, §§15–20 and §§21–7 respectively. There is nothing like it in the literature, and it is as illuminating as it is comprehensive.
Read more