References
- Cf. for example, Gram, M. S. Kant, Ontology and the A Priori, Northwestern University Press, 1968; Swing, T. K., Kant's Transcendental Logic, Yale University Press, 1970; and to a certain extent, Chipman, L., “Kant's Categories and their Schematism”, Kantstudien 63 (1972). My criticism will be directed mainly towards Gram.
- Critique of Pure Reason, Kemp Smith translation A106. Hereinafter the first edition pagination is signified by ‘A’, the second by ‘B’ in accordance with convention.
- I am using “image” here, as throughout, in a specifically Kantian sense. On this point see Chipman, op. cit., p. 47.
- A68/B93.
- A137/B176.
- N. Kemp Smith: A Commentary to Kant's “Critique of Pure Reason” (second edition), London, Macmillan, 1923, p. 334.
- J. Bennett: Kant's Analytic, Cambridge University Press, 1966, pp. 148–152.
- A137/B176.
- A66/B91.
- A79/B105.
- B148 and B306.
- A79/B105.
- Or at least some of them: it may be argued that substance or causality, for example, must be applicable to intuition.
- This priority is logical, not chronological.
- A138/B177.
- Gram, Ch. 4.
- This is said of the schema of a triangle, but there is no reason to suppose that the same cannot be said of the transcendental schema.
- He does say, however, that it is “universal and rests on an a priori rule”, (A188/B177–178).
- He nevertheless relents on this view further on in his analysis, p. 103.
- Gram, p. 95.
- Gram, p. 97.
- A138/B177.
- Gram, pp. 103–104.
- B275.
- A140/B179–180.
- A88/B120.
- A99.
- “All knowledge by means of which I am enabled to know and determine a priori what belongs to empirical knowledge may be entitled an anticipation” (A166/B208).
- A124.
- A118–119.
- A118–119.
- A107.
- A107–108.
- A118.
- A99.
- A343/B401.
- A189/B234.
- A120.
- A97.
- A97.
- A99.
- A99.
- A78/B103.
- A124.
- A145/B185.
- A147/B186.
- A240/B299.
- A137/B176.
- A142/B182.
- A142/B181–182.
- A145/B184.
- Cf. B208.
- A99.
- A176/B209 and A142–143/B182.