Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T01:41:52.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Normativity and the Acquisition of the Categories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2013

John J. Callanan*
King's College London,
Get access


It is quite common when explicating the nature of Kant's break with the preceding Early Modern tradition to cite his attitude towards the acquisition and deployment of concepts. It is claimed that Kant sought to distinguish two tasks that had become unfortunately intertwined and conflated — explaining how we come to acquire our concepts on the one hand and showing how we are justified in deploying them in judgement on the other. This conflation can be expressed in terms of a conflation of the natural and the normative, of descriptive and prescriptive questions. The topic of the conditions of concept-possession, i.e. how we have come to possess the concepts that we do, is an entirely psychological inquiry, involving ‘natural’ descriptive inquiries. The topic of concept-deployment, the story about how we use our concepts in veridical judgements about the world, is an entirely philosophical question, since it involves the question of how we ought to deploy those concepts in judgement. The fundamental distinction between the natural and the normative is drawn by Kant, it is claimed, in order to distinguish these two practices of acquisition and deployment.

The manner in which this claim is expressed is through Kant's distinction between the question of fact (quaestio facti) and the question of right (quaestio juris). I want to claim that a proper understanding of this distinction doesn't support this notion of Kant's ‘normative turn’. In fact, the distinction is best understood within an interpretation whereby Kant is understood as continuing to endorse the Early Modern conviction that the provision of a concept's possession-conditions is sufficient to determine that concept's deployment-conditions, and that the task of the Transcendental Deduction is to determine the possession-conditions for the Categories.

Research Article
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Allison, H. (1996), Idealism and Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, H. (2004), Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense (rev. and enl. ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. L. (2001), ‘Synthesis, Cognitive Normativity, and the Meaning of Kant's Question, “How Are Synthetic Cognitions a Priori Possible?”’, European Journal of Philosophy 9(3): 275305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J. (1966), Kant's Analytic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandom, R. (2002), Tales of the Mighty Dead: Historical Essays in the Metaphysics of Intentionality. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. (2009), Reason in Philosophy: Animating Ideas. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broad, C. D. (1978), Kant: An Introduction. Ed. Lewy, C.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Callanan, J. J. (forthcoming), ‘Kant's Nativism: Another Look at B167-8’ in Proceedings of the XII International Kant Congress.Google Scholar
Callanan, J. J. (unpublished), ‘Kant on Acquiring Mathematical and Metaphysical Concepts’.Google Scholar
Hatfield, G. (1997), ‘Empirical, Rational, and Transcendental Psychology: Psychology as Science and as Philosophy’, in Guyer, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 200227.Google Scholar
Henrich, D. (1989), ‘Kant's Notion of a Deduction and the Methodological Background of the First Critique’, in Forster, E. (ed.), Kant's Transcendental Deductions. Stanford: Stanford University Press: 2946.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1992), Theoretical Philosophy, 1755-1770. Eds. and trans. Walford, D. and Meerbote, R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511840180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1992), Lectures on Logic. Ed. and trans. Young, J. M.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1997), Lectures on Metaphysics. Eds and trans. Ameriks, K. and Naragon, S.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107049505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1998), Critique of Pure Reason. Eds and trans. Guyer, P. and Wood, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511804649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (2002), Theoretical Philosophy after 1781. Trans. Hatfield, G., Friedman, M., Allison, H., and Heath, P.. Eds. Allison, H. and Heath, P.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar