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)

The deduction of the categories lies undoubtedly at the very heart of Kant's theoretical philosophy and, for this reason, it is one of items in the philosophical canon that is greatly discussed and least agreed upon. In the modern and contemporary Western philosophical tradition as well as in Kant’s literature, the loci classici for its consideration are the 1781 and 1787 editions of the Critique of pure reason. In this paper, I aim at presenting and discussing an argument that Kant (...) advances in the Prolegomena and which is virtually ignored in the approach of the deduction of the categories. At first, an inquiry into the distinction between analytic and synthetic methods is carried out. After that, the difference between judgments of perception and judgments of experience is taken into account. Finally, the Prolegomena’s argument for the categories is brought into discussion. (shrink)

ABSTRACT At the core of Kant’s theoretical philosophy lies the deduction of the categories: his effort to secure the distinctiveness of sensibility and understanding and to provide a necessary relation between the domains of these faculties. The argument for this claim is presented in two different versions - i.e., the A and B editions of the Critique of pure reason - and is one of the most puzzling in Kant’s corpus. The common view in the literature that considers the importance (...) of the A-deduction and tries to present its structure is that it must be understood in the light of the B-deduction argument. I aim at contesting this view and offering an internal reconstruction of the A-deduction argument which reveals its unique methodology. The thesis advanced is that the A-deduction follows an analytical methodology and that this methodology does not allow the accomplishment of the task of the deduction stated in Kant’s effort. At first, Kant’s retrospect of the A-deduction is taken into account. After that, a consideration of the part of the argument described as ‘subjective deduction’ is carried out. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This paper contends with the critical-systematical status of Kant’s argumentation in the manuscript known as Opus postumum. At first, the elements holding Kant’s conceptual accuracy in his writing methodology and the contrast of these elements to the argumentative structure of the Opus postumum are set forth. After that, the historical condition of the manuscript in what matters to ordering and presence/absence of proofs is taken into account. Finally, the philosophical situation of the Opus postumum regarding its (post-)critical contextualization is (...) brought into discussion. The conclusion reached is that the limitation of proofs and the historical condition of the manuscript determine its philosophical nature: it will always be susceptible to an interpretation which on its own is transcendentally necessary and, at the same time, contingentempirically conditioned. (shrink)