Subject: Tags: Spam prevention:Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically. If the code is hard to read, then just try to guess it right. If you enter the wrong code, a new image is created and you get another chance to enter it right.Enter code: Content: Yasuo Deguchi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let me make several comments on this > presentation.1) It had better > mention Kant’s own examples of ‘judgments of > perception and experience’ to make them more > understandable.2) It should be > carefully examined whether judgment of perception > and its category-free character are compatible or > not with the ideas of judgment and categories in > the first critique. The latters appear to imply > that any judgment, provisionally or not, should be > in accordance with categories, logical or > real.3) If there is > inconsistency between the first critique’s ideas > and the judgment of perception, the mere > distinction of two contexts; ‘normative’ and > ‘descriptive’, doesn’t clarify the issue at > all; it means that transcendental arguments in the > ‘normative’ context are incompatible with > empirical psychology. Kant and anyone else remain > unhappy with this incompatibility. They wish that > any psychological distinction between, say, > provisional and full fledged judgments are in > conform with transcendental > arguments.4) In other words, as > far as a tension remains between the > ‘normative’ and the ‘descriptive’ > contexts, the tension cannot be dispelled by > introduction of two > ‘contexts’.5) One promising > direction of further research is, I suggest, to > admit the tension and to ask its significance in > Kantian entire project.6) Then > what significance it can have? My further comments > are to be continued, and let me invite anyone to > comment on this issue if he or she is interested > in it.