I present an argument for an interpretation ofKant's views on the nature of the ‘content [Inhalt]’ of ‘cognition [Erkenntnis]’. In contrast to one of the longest standing interpretations ofKant's views on cognitive content, which ascribes toKant a straightforwardly psychologistic understanding of content, and in contrast as well to the more recently influential reading ofKant put forward byMcDowell and others, according to whichKant embraces a version ofRussellianism, I argue thatKant's views on this topic are of a much moreFregean bent than has (...) traditionally been admitted or appreciated. I conclude by providing a sketch of how a better grasp ofKant's views on cognitive content in general can help bring into sharper relief what is, and what is not, at stake in the recent debates over whether Kant accepts a particular kind of cognitive content—namely, non‐conceptual content. (shrink)

The main point of disagreement about Kant's approach of the problem of truth is whether it can be understood within the apparatus of contemporary philosophy as a coherence or a correspondence theory. By favoring a systematic consideration of Kant's argumentation in light of the available literature on the problem, this paper argues toward the latter alternative. It is sustained that the definition of truth as "the agreement of cognition with its object" is cogent throughout Kant's thought and that it is (...) finally approached not from an established theory, but as a problem to which a solution cannot be given within the boundaries of the critical-transcendental philosophy. Initially, the literature which locates Kant either as coherentist or correspondentist is taken into account. The latter is systematized into four groups: the ontological reading; the isomorphic reading; the "consequentialist" reading; the regulative reading. Secondly, the argumentation in the pre-critical period is approached. It is argued that a coherence theory lacks its confirmation already within it and that in the decade of 1750 Kant disposes of the isomorphic correspondence reading. Finally, the critical argumentation is considered. It is sustained that the critical approach takes truth as a fundamental problem which cannot be held by a "consequencialist" or regulative correspondence theory. (shrink)

By considering the semantic footings of the so-called antinomies of pure reason, this article contributes to the debate about whether Kant was committed to semantic realism or anti-realism. That is, whether verification-transcendent judgements are truth-apt (realism) or not (anti-realism). Against the (empiricist) semantic principle that Strawson, and others, have ascribed to Kant as the “principle of significance,” the bedrock of my article is what I call Kant’s Real Principle of Significance: an extension-based and normative principle stating that a judgement can (...) have no “significance” or “objective validity” (truth-value) without a universally recognizable norm for verifying it. This principle entails semantic anti-realism. I argue that we can extract the principle from the antinomy chapter of KrV, since in there Kant concludes that judgements of the form “the world as such is x” are without “significance” (lack a truth-value) in virtue of being unverifiable as a matter of principle. I propose that Kant’s reference to some of the antinomical judgements as “false” is not incompatible with this anti-realist reading because he operates with two distinct world-concepts: an illegitimate transcendental realist one and a legitimate transcendental idealist one. In contrast to most anti-realist Kant-interpretations, it is furthermore argued that any satisfactory anti-realist construal of Kant’s view must be compatible with his assertion that the thesis in the third antinomy about freedom “can be true.” That requires a thicker conception of “significance” or “objective validity” than what is often ascribed to Kant, which is encapsulated by the Real Principle of Significance. (shrink)

Many scholars claimed that, according to Immanuel Kant, some judgements lack a truth-value: analytic judgements, judgements about items of which humans cannot have experience, judgements of perception, and non-assertoric judgements. However, no one has undertaken an extensive examination of the textual evidence for those claims. Based on an analysis of Kant's texts, I argue that: (1) according to Kant, only judgements of perception are not truth-apt. All other judgements are truth-apt, including analytic judgements and judgements about items of which humans (...) cannot have experience. (2) Kant sometimes states that truth-apt judgements are actual bearers of truth or falsity only when they are taken to state what is actually the case. Kant calls these judgements assertoric. Other texts ascribe truth and falsity to judgements, regardless of whether they are assertoric. Kant's views on truth-aptness raise challenges for correspondentist and coherentist interpretations of Kant's theory of truth; they rule out the identification of Kant's crucial notion of objective validity with truth-aptness; and they imply that Kant was not a verificationist about truth or meaning. (shrink)

I present an argument for an interpretation of Kant's views on the nature of the ‘content [Inhalt]’ of ‘cognition [Erkenntnis]’. In contrast to one of the longest standing interpretations of Kant's views on cognitive content, which ascribes to Kant a straightforwardly psychologistic understanding of content, and in contrast as well to the more recently influential reading of Kant put forward by McDowell and others, according to which Kant embraces a version of Russellianism, I argue that Kant's views on this topic (...) are of a much more Fregean bent than has traditionally been admitted or appreciated. I conclude by providing a sketch of how a better grasp of Kant's views on cognitive content in general can help bring into sharper relief what is, and what is not, at stake in the recent debates over whether Kant accepts a particular kind of cognitive content—namely, non-conceptual content. (shrink)

The Role of the Notion of Truth in the Project of Kant’s Critical Philosophy [English] The discussion about Kant’s theory of truth usually revolves around his ascription to some version of the coherence or correspondence theory of truth, and the matching criteria of truth. These discussions often deliberate which theory of truth is most appropriate given the critical principles. Instead, this paper aims to exhibit, through the evolution of Kant’s notion of truth in his precritical years and through the project (...) of a transcendental logic, the intrinsic relation between the notion of truth and the very principles of critical philosophy; and to raise again the questions about the definition and the criteria of truth, but in the framework of the question of the possibility of truth. [Español] La discusión en torno a la teoría kantiana de la verdad suele girar alrededor de las preguntas —íntimamente relacionadas entre sí— por la adscripción de Kant a una versión coherentista o correspondentista de la verdad y por los correspondientes criterios de verdad. Estas discusiones suelen ponderar qué teoría de la verdad resulta más adecuada dados ya los principios críticos. En contraste con esto, este trabajo pretende mostrar, a través de la evolución de la noción de verdad del Kant precrítico y del proyecto de una lógica trascendental, la vinculación intrínseca de la noción de verdad con los principios mismos de la filosofía crítica, y replantear las preguntas por la definición y el criterio de verdad en el marco de la pregunta por la posibilidad de la verdad. (shrink)

O principal ponto de desacordo sobre a abordagem kantiana do problema da verdade é se ela pode ser compreendida nos moldes da filosofia contemporânea como coerentista ou como correspondentista. Primando por uma consideração sistemática da argumentação de Kant em confronto com a literatura existente sobre o problema, este trabalho defende a segunda alternativa. Sustentase a tese de que a definição da verdade como a “concordância do conhecimento com o seu objeto” é cogente em todo o percurso do pensamento kantiano e (...) que, nessa acepção, a verdade culmina por ser abordada não a partir de uma teoria estabelecida, mas como um problema cuja solução não pode ser dada nos limites da filosofia crítico-transcendental. Pondera-se, primeiramente, a literatura que situa Kant quer como coerentista quer como correspondentista e sistematiza-se a segunda alternativa em quatro grupos: a leitura ontológica, a leitura isomórfica, a leitura “consequencialista” e a leitura regulativa. Num segundo momento, em atenção ao período pré-crítico, argumenta-se que a alternativa coerentista deixa de se confirmar já nessa mesma época e que, na década de 1750, Kant descarta uma suposta teoria correspondentista isomórfica. Num último momento, considera-se a argumentação crítica e defende-se que a mesma concebe a verdade como um problema fundamental que não cabe ao tratamento de uma teoria correspondentista concebida de modo “consequencialista” ou regulativo. (shrink)

At the same time, it is not entirely inappropriate to ask why Kant does not care about natural language. One searches in vain for many remarks about, let alone any kind of developed discussion of, language in Kant’s texts, a lacuna that becomes especially salient in the Critique of Pure Reason, particularly to those reading that text in the late twentieth century. Yet it is in this text, along with the Critique of Judgement, where one would expect to see a (...) discussion of language in Kant’s systematic works. Thus a puzzle emerges: on the one hand, Kant displayed a remarkably wide range of curiosity about philosophical and other questions; on the other hand, there is an almost equally remarkable lack of consideration of language in his writing—most specifically in the first Critique, where the topic seems fundamentally relevant and yet is utterly ignored. Can this apparent discrepancy be reconciled? Worse yet, does not the fact that Kant neglects the questions raised by natural language reveal a fundamental gap in his critical account of reason’s scope and limits, and raise doubts about Kant’s approach that becomes even more pressing with the advent of the so-called “linguistic turn” in philosophy? (shrink)

In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant conceives of general logic as a set of universal and necessary rules for the possibility of thought, or as a set of minimal necessary conditions for ascribing rationality to an agent . Such a conception, of course, contrasts with contemporary notions of formal, mathematical or symbolic logic. Yet, in so far as Kant seeks to identify those conditions that must hold for the possibility of thought in general, such conditions must hold a fortiori (...) for any specific model of thought, including axiomatic treatments of logic and standard natural deduction models of first-order predicate logic. Kant's general logic seeks to isolate those conditions by thinking through – or better, reflecting on – those conditions that themselves make thought possible. (shrink)

Ao final da “Fundação do saber teórico”, segunda parte da primeira exposição da doutrina da ciência, Fichte afirma: “a imaginação não ilude, mas dá a verdade e a única verdade possível”. Embora essa expressão de “única verdade possível” não apareça mais no decorrer desse texto, ela parece desempenhar um papel fundamental na estruturação da doutrina da ciência, delineando até mesmo o seu ponto de vista, seja em relação à metafísica pré-kantiana, seja em relação ao kantismo. O objetivo do artigo é (...) tentar entender essa noção de “única verdade possível” e qual é a sua íntima relação com a imaginação. Para tanto, será preciso refazer a discussão de fundo que leva a Fichte a estabelecer a imaginação como atividade fundamental do espírito humano e fundamento dessa única verdade possível. Tal discussão se dá como um confronto com o ceticismo de Salomon Maimon, justamente aquele que a partir de uma crítica à filosofia de Kant também diz, assim como Fichte, que a realidade é produzida pela imaginação, mas que encara essa realidade, ao contrário da doutrina da ciência, justamente como uma ilusão. (shrink)

Tarski's analysis of the concept of truth gives rise to a hierarchy of languages. Does this fragment the concept all the way to philosophical unacceptability? I argue it doesn't, drawing on a modification of Kaplan's theory of indexicals.