Transcendental Paralogisms as Formal Fallacies - Kant’s Refutation of Pure Rational Psychology

Kant-Studien 109 (2):195-227 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
: According to Kant, the arguments of rational psychology are formal fallacies that he calls transcendental paralogisms. It remains heavily debated whether there actually is any formal error in the inferences Kant presents: according to Grier and Allison, they are deductively invalid syllogisms, whereas Bennett, Ameriks, and Van Cleve deny that they are formal fallacies. I advance an interpretation that reconciles these extremes: transcendental paralogisms are sound in general logic but constitute formal fallacies in transcendental logic. By formalising the paralogistic inference, I will pinpoint the error as an illegitimate existential presupposition. Since - unlike transcendental logic - general logic abstracts from all objects, this error can only be detected in transcendental logic.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-03-08
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
87 ( #35,269 of 50,155 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
14 ( #35,316 of 50,155 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.