Critique of Pure Reason 18 - Transitioning to the Transcendental Deduction

READ FOR NEXT TIME

Remember that the B edition has numbered sections (§) while the A edition just has titles no § numbers. Read the following from both editions.

Sec II: "Transition to the transcendental deduction of the categories"
Sec II: "On the a priori grounds for the possibility of experience"
Sec II: "Preliminary reminder"
Sec II: "1. On the synthesis of apprehension in the intuition."
Sec II: "2. On the synthesis of reproduction in the imagination."
Sec II: "3. On the synthesis of recognition in the concept.
Sec II: "4. Explanation of possibility of categories as a priori cognitions."
Sec III: "On the relation of the understanding to objects in general and the possibility of cognizing these a priori."

A93 - A128
B125 - B129
Guyer, pages 219 - 244

01/04/26 - #19: start the transcendental deduction
01/18/26 - #20: finish the transcendental deduction
02/01/26 - #21: start the B version of the transcendental deduction

WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT

We discussed not only a transcendental deduction, but the concept of deduction in general and why it is more urgently needed when discussing the ground of thinking than it is when discussing the ground of intuition.

WHAT STUMPED US (or at least me)

1. Does modern science negate Kantian metaphysics? Or are we comparing apples to oranges? Even if we are, does there come a point where science and metaphysics converge such that the one can support or contradict the other? Quantum mechanics seems the most likely candidate for that convergence. Is quantum mechanics a serious challenge to transcendental idealism?

2. We also got into a disagreement about Parmenides and his relation to science and Kant. In the end, we agreed that as a sample of early attempts at logic and dialectic thought, Parmenides was an important step to the development of modern scientific thought. I still, however, I think there's some confusion about Parmenides' views about changingsensation and phenomena and his value of such as compared to eternal, unchanging reason and logic.

3. We're still a little stuck about Kant's table of judgments and the difference between affirmative, negative, and infinite judgments. It's still pretty confusing and merits some further analysis.

Thank you David for giving us a good interpretation of Kant's distinction between mathematical and dynamic categories in relation to existence. And thank you Jason for challenging us and giving us new problems to figure out.

SUMMARY OF THE SECTIONS WE JUST COVERED

§13 - The need for a deduction

The distinction between a metaphysical deduction and a transcendental deduction can be clarified as follows:

1. Metaphysical deduction attempts to establish the origin or legitimacy of a concept by tracing it back to experience or conceptual analysis alone, often in a general or abstract sense. Kant calls this empirical deduction." It explains how we come to have a concept by experience or reflection. The problem with this for pure a priori concepts is that it cannot show why the concept is valid for objects at all, only that we happen to use it. In Kant’s legal analogy, this would be like proving a claim by appealing to empirical precedent or habit rather than demonstrating rightful entitlement.

2. Transcendental deduction seeks to establish why a concept must necessarily apply to objects independently of any empirical input. It demonstrates the objective validity of a concept — why it can legitimately be used to think about objects a priori. This is essential for categories because their use is not grounded in intuition. Appearances could exist without them, so we need a transcendental justification.

A metaphysical/empirical deduction explains how or where we get the concept. Transcendental deduction explains why concepts apply legitimately to objects at all, providing an a priori foundation. The metaphysical deduction traces origins, while the transcendental deduction justifies use.

RESOURCES

1. An analysis of the term "cognition" based on its usage in the Transcendental Logic..

https://open.substack.com/pub/geraldpriddle/p/essay-3-kognition-a-timeless-puzzle?r=2rot22&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

2. Kant's argument against Newton and Transcendental Idealism

https://open.substack.com/pub/geraldpriddle/p/essay-2-kants-transcendental-aesthetic?r=2rot22&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true