Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kant, according to Cassam, had a greater role than any other philoso-
pher in bringing how-possible questions to the foreground of philoso-
phical investigation. Moreover, in addressing the how-possible question
he most prominently asked (How are synthetic a priori judgments
possible?), Kant had the merit of developing the kind of three level
answer Cassam himself recommends. However, Cassam contends,
Kants version of this answer is inadequate, especially with respect to
its third level, the level at which what is under investigation are
background enabling conditions for knowledge.
In this essay I shall rst discuss Cassams claim to the superiority of
the three level response, both in his own and in Kants version, over
responses relying on so-called transcendental arguments. I shall then
discuss the second of the two main background enabling conditions
for perceptual knowledge Cassam identies, avowing his debt to Kant:
categorial thinking.
1
One might, however, argue that the premise of the Deduction is actually weaker
than the one just stated for regressive transcendental arguments. The premise
might be read as: we have experience we take to be of independently existing
objects. This is perhaps still not a premise every skeptic would accept, but closer
to it. What interests me in what follows, however, is not how close to an anti-skepti-
cal argument the Deduction turns out to be, but Cassams discussion of the motiva-
tion for the Deduction and the relation between the three aspects of the purported
regressive argument.