Kant’s Response to Hume in the Second Analogy: A Critique of Gerd Buchdahl’s and Michael Friedman’s Accounts

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
This article presents a critical analysis of two influential readings of Kant’s Second Analogy, namely, Gerd Buchdahl’s “modest reading” and Michael Friedman’s “strong reading.” After pointing out the textual and philosophical problems with each, I advance an alternative reading of the Second Analogy argument. On my reading, the Second Analogy argument proves the existence of necessary and strictly universal causal laws. This, however, does not guarantee that Kant has a solution for the problem of induction. After I explain why the empirical lawfulness of nature does not guarantee the empirical uniformity of nature, I examine the modal status of empirical laws in Kant and argue contra Buchdahl and Friedman that empirical laws express two different kinds of necessity that are not reducible to each other.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
VATKRT-2
Revision history
Archival date: 2019-02-14
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
A Treatise of Human Nature.Hume, David & Lindsay, A. D.
Critique of the Power of Judgment.Ginsborg, Hannah; Kant, Immanuel; Guyer, Paul & Matthews, Eric
A Treatise of Human Nature.Hume, David & Lindsay, A. D.

View all 44 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2018-05-09

Total views
263 ( #17,074 of 50,327 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
41 ( #14,759 of 50,327 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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