Kant on Nativism, Scepticism and Necessity

被引:2
作者
Callanan, John [1 ]
机构
[1] Kings Coll London, London WC2R 2LS, England
关键词
Crusius; Leibniz; nativism; preformation; scepticism;
D O I
10.1017/S136941541200026X
中图分类号
B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ;
摘要
Kant criticizes the so-called 'preformation' hypothesis - a nativist account of the origin of the categories - at the end of the B-Deduction on the ground that it entails scepticism. I examine the historical context of Kant's criticism, and identify the targets as both Crusius and Leibniz. There are two claims argued for in this paper: first, that attending to the context of the opposition to certain forms of nativism affords a way of understanding Kant's commitment to the so-called 'discursivity thesis', by contrasting the possession conditions for the categories with those for innate ideas; secondly, it provides an insight with regard to Kant's understanding of the dialectic with scepticism. Kant's claim is that a certain explanatory lacuna that attaches to Humean empiricism can be seen to apply equally to any nativist theory. The lacuna concerns the explanation of the modal purport of a priori necessity, i.e. how it is that our consciousness can even distinguish contents that are represented as necessary features of objects.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 27
页数:27
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]  
Allison Henry E, 2004, KANTS TRANSCENDENTAL, VRevised and enlarged
[2]   Synthesis, cognitive normativity, and the meaning of Kant's question, 'How are synthetic cognitions a-priori possible'? [J].
Anderson, RL .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY, 2001, 9 (03) :275-305
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1998, Critique of Pure Reason
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1992, LECT LOGIC, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511810039
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2010, The Cambridge Companion to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2002, THEORETICAL PHILOS 1
[7]  
[Anonymous], INNATE MIND FDN FUTU
[8]  
Beiser FrederickC., 2002, German Idealism: The Struggle against Subjectivism, 1781-1801
[9]  
Bennett Jonathan., 1966, Kant's Analytic
[10]  
Brandom R. B., 2009, REASON PHILOS ANIMAT