University of Groningen Kant's anatomy of logic Zinkstok, Johannes Theodoor IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2013 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Zinkstok, J. T. (2013). Kant's anatomy of logic: logic and method in the critical philosophy. [s.n.]. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 10-10-2021 kant’s anatomy of logic rijksuniversiteit groningen Kant’s Anatomy of Logic Method and Logic in the Critical Philosophy proefschrift ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de Wijsbegeerte aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op gezag van de Rector Magnicus, dr. E. Sterken, in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 30 mei 2013 om 14.30 uur door johannes theodoor zinkstok geboren op 1 april 1979 te Utrecht Promotores: Prof. dr. D.H.K. Pätzold Prof. dr. L.W. Nauta Beoordelingscommissie: Prof. dr. W.R. de Jong Prof. dr. G. Mohr Prof. dr. P. Kleingeld Contents Acknowledgements vii Introduction: Kant’s Anatomy of Logic 1 1 Logic and Its Divisions in Kant’s Pre-Critical Period 17 1.1 Kant’s Earliest Views on Logic and Its Divisions: the 1750s and 1760s 18 1.2 1770s: General Logic and the Criticism of Practical Logic 25 1.3 Towards the Critical View: Doctrine of Method and Particular Logic 29 1.4 Kant’s View on Practical Logic in His Published Works 31 1.5 Logic and Its Divisions in Kant’s Pre-Critical Period: Conclusions 33 2 Kant on the Nature of Logic in the Critical Period 35 2.1 Logic: Its Nature and Subject Matter 38 2.2 Logic Is General 44 2.3 Logic Is Pure 58 2.4 Logic Is Necessary 61 2.5 Logic Is Formal 71 2.6 Kant on the Nature of Logic: Conclusions 76 3 e General Doctrine of Method: A General Account of Systematicity 79 3.1 e Contents of the Doctrine of Method in Kant’s Logic Lectures 80 3.2 Unifying the Contents of Kant’s General Doctrine of Method 88 3.3 e General Doctrine of Method: Conclusions 102 vi Contents 4 Particular Logic and the Methodology of Speci c Sciences 105 4.1 Kant on Particular Logic 106 4.2 inking about Kant’s Conception of Particular Logic: Two Suggestions 113 4.3 Analytic Principles and the Particular Logic of Mathematics 121 4.4 Particular Logic: Conclusions 145 5 Applied Logic: Error and Its Prevention with the Help of Empirical Psychology 147 5.1 Kant’s Anthropology and Its Common Interpretation 149 5.2 Empirical Psychology and Anthropology 152 5.3 Applied Logic as a eory of Error 159 5.4 An Example of Applied Logic: Prejudice 162 5.5 Applied Logic: Conclusions 166 6 Transcendental Logic and the a priori Content of Cognition 169 6.1 Transcendental Logic and the Content of Cognition 171 6.2 Is Transcendental Logic a Particular Logic? 185 6.3 Transcendental Logic: Conclusions 200 7 e Transcendental Doctrine of Method: A Blueprint for the System of Pure Reason 203 7.1 Interpretations of the Transcendental Doctrine of Method 204 7.2 Kant on the Transcendental Doctrine of Method 208 7.3 e Structure of the Transcendental Doctrine of Method 217 7.4 e Transcendental Doctrine of Method and Particular Logics 228 7.5 e Transcendental Doctrine of Method: Conclusions 233 Conclusions 237 Samenvatting voor niet-specialisten 241 Bibliography 255 Acknowledgements And so too, it seems, should one make a return to those with whom one has studied philosophy; for their worth cannot be measured against money, and they can get no honour which will balance their services, but still it is perhaps enough, as it is with the gods and with one’s parents, to give them what one can. Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea ix:1, 1164b2-5 The book that lies before you has many expectations to full. A few too many, I fear. By dint of its nature it has to full the expectations of the profession. ose harbouring such expectations will at least nd a decent attempt at living up to them, and I hope it will even satisfy them to a su cient extent. But perhaps most people picking up this book expect something more, something rather dierent. ey expect this book to be the tangible justication for years of relatively solitary connement to libraries, pouring over dusty volumes of old philosophy, and that even on public means. ey expect this book to nely clarify to them what these years were about – what all the talk on this dead German philosopher was about (after all, it wasn’t just after a bottle of wine that he rambled on about it, was it?) – what the use of it all was. It is not unthinkable that even my carefully crafted summary does not oer solace to people who started to read with such expectations. For those feeling let down by this book, there is at least this preface. It is a text that anyone can understand and perhaps even enjoy (save the odd private joke), and that oers just enough material for conversation to get them through the drinks after the PhD ceremony. It has the added benet of implicating many a reader as an inadvertant accomplice to my scholarly endeavours. Naturally, I do not intend to burden anyone with any errors or omissions – if all the support I received could not prevent that from happening, it is entirely my own fault. viii Acknowledgements As it is, it is a great pleasure to be able to thank a number of people for their tremendous help and support while I was working on this dissertation. In the rst place, I want to thank my promotor Detlev Pätzold. Detlev, you have been a great help for me. Your vast knowledge and erudition proved an invaluable resource for my work, and you were always wont to share it with me. In the long, intense but above all pleasant discussions we had about Kant, Wol, Leibniz and many others, you have shown me how to be a scrupulous historian of philosophy. At times when I got stuck, your tranquil and wise demeanour always managed to get me back on track. You were a steadfast and warm-hearted Doktorvater to me. ank you for all that! To my other promotor, Lodi Nauta, I owe a lot of gratitude as well. Your sharp mind and keen eye for thinking and writing philosophically has taught me many things on structuring papers, crafting rigourous argumentations and writing engagingly. Your door was always open for help and advice – or just a drink. I remember with pleasure a night of wining and dining in Palermo, when I was a stowaway at a conference you and Suzanne attended. Such occasions proved to be characteristic of the way in which you love to combine your scholarly wit and your genial friendship. Wim de Jong, your help over the past years has been invaluable. ere is probably no-one whose knowledge of early modern logic matches yours, and I was a lucky man that you generously let me benet from it. e rst course on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason I ever followed was taught by you, and in the past years I found myself from time to time digging up your meticulous handouts, and always nding another useful reference or thought. Your comments on the drafts of many chapters of this dissertation uncanningly and invariably put the nger on some sore spot, and thanks to them the present dissertation is far better than it would have been without your assistance. I was extremely lucky to become a PhD student at the faculty were Karin de Boer worked and were Johan Blok became a PhD student together with me. We formed a small Kant research group, and I feel proud as well as priviliged to have been part of that. It was extremely stimulating and great fun to meet and discuss our work. Karin, you are one of the most energetic scholars I know. I am still impressed by the speed with which you have become a Kant expert. e amount of time and energy you invest in junior researchers such as Johan and Acknowledgements ix me is characteristic of your enthousiasm. Johan, it was great to have you as a fellow Kant scholar (although you felt compelled to stray into Bolzano scholarship as well). I have learnt a lot from your calm and self-assured readings of complex and obscure passages.