Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-nbs69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-04T01:13:51.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2025

Frode Kjosavik
Frode Kjosavik
Affiliation:
Norwegian University of Life Sciences
Get access

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Kant and the Power of Perception , pp. 327 - 335
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allais, L. (2009), “Kant, Non-Conceptual Content and the Representation of Space.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 47: 383–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allais, L. (2010), “Kant’s Argument for Transcendental Idealism in the Transcendental Aesthetic.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110: 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allais, L. (2015), Manifest Reality: Kant’s Idealism and his Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, H. E. (1983), Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, H. E. (2001), Kant’s Theory of Taste: A Reading of the Critique of Aesthetic Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, H. E. (2004), Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. Revised and enlarged edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, H. E. (2015), Kant’s Transcendental Deduction: An Analytical-Historical Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H. (eds.) (1989), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aquila, R. E. (1975), “Perceptions and Perceptual Judgments.” Philosophical Studies 28, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, M. (1986), Deduktion und Beweis in Kants Transzendentalphilosophie. Untersuchungen zur Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Königstein/Ts.: Hain bei Athenäum.Google Scholar
Baumgarten, A. G. (1739), Metaphysica. Halle: Hemmerde.Google Scholar
Beck, J. S. (1793), Erläuternder Auszug aus den critischen Schriften des Herrn Prof. Kant, auf Anrathen desselben. Vol. 1. Riga: Hartknoch.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. (2001), Learning from Six Philosophers. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, R. J. (2006), “The Pragmatic Century.” In: Davaney, S. G. and Frisina, W. G. (eds.), The Pragmatic Century: Conversations with Richard J. Bernstein. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1–14.Google Scholar
Beth, E. W. (1956/7), “Über Lockes ‘allgemeines Dreieck.’” Kant-Studien 48, 361–80.Google Scholar
Block, N. (2010), “Attention and Mental Paint.” Philosophical Issues 20, 23–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolzano, B. (1973), Theory of Science. Ed. by Berg, Jan. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolzano, B. (1987), Wissenschaftslehre. In: Berg, J. (ed.), Bernard Bolzano: Gesamtausgabe. Vols. I.11/2 and I.11/3. Stuttgart: Friedrich Frommann.Google Scholar
Bolzano, B. (2004), On the Mathematical Method and Correspondence with Exner. Ed. and trans. by Rusnock, P. and George, R.. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boswell, T. (1991), Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zum Kantischen Logikhandbuch. Studien zur Philosophie des 18. Jahrhunderts. Ed. by Hinske, N.. Vol. 3. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Brandt, R. (1991), Die Urteilstafel: Kritik der reinen Vernunft A67–76; B92–101. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Brewer, B. (1999), Perception and Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brewer, B. (2011), Perception and Its Objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brook, A. (1994), Kant and the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brook, A. (2010), “Kant’s Attack on Leibniz’s and Locke’s Amphibolies.” In: Palmquist, S. R. (ed.), Cultivating Personhood: Kant and Asian Philosophy. Berlin: De Gruyter, 140–54.Google Scholar
Burge, T. (2005), “Disjunctivism and Perceptual Psychology.” Philosophical Topics 33, 1–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. (2010), Origins of Objectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. (2014), “Reply to Block: Adaptation and the Upper Border of Perception.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89, 573–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. (2022), Perception: First Form of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callanan, J. J. and Allais, L. (eds.) (2020), Kant and Animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. (2002), Reference and Consciousness. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. (1981), The First Person: An Essay on Reference and Intentionality. Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Chudnoff, E. (2013), Intuition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. (1973), “Sensuous Judgments.” Noûs 7, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffa, J. A. (1991), The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. (ed.) (2014), Kant’s Lectures on Anthropology: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, T. (2013), “The Given.” In: Schear, J. K. (ed.), Mind, Reason, and Being-in-the-World: The McDowell-Dreyfus Debate. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 229–49.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1934), “Reply to the Sixth Set of Objections.” In: Haldane, E. S. and Ross, G. R. T. (eds. and trans.), Philosophical Works of Descartes. Vol. II. London: Cambridge University Press, 241–58.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1991), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Vol. 3. The Correspondence. Ed. and trans. by Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., Murdoch, D., and Kenny, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, K. (1966), “Reference and Definite Descriptions.” Philosophical Review 75, 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. (1969), Seeing and Knowing. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. (2005), “Overcoming the Myth of the Mental: How Philosophers can Profit from the Phenomenology of Everyday Expertise.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 79/2, 47–65.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. (1993), Origins of Analytical Philosophy. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Evans, G. (1982), The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Falkenstein, L. (1995), Kant’s Intuitionism. A Commentary on the Transcendental Aesthetic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Feigl, H. (1970), “The ‘Orthodox’ View of Theories: Remarks in Defense as well as Critique.” In: Radner, M. and Winokur, S. (eds.), Analyses of Theories and Methods of Physics and Psychology. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 4. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 3–16.Google Scholar
Fink, E. (1930), “Vergegenwärtigung und Bild.” Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung 11, 239–309.Google Scholar
Fish, W. (2010), Philosophy of Perception. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (2007), “The Revenge of the Given.” In: McLaughlin, B. P. and Cohen, J. D. (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Blackwell, 105–16.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1892), “Über Sinn und Bedeutung.” Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100, 25–50.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1980/1884), The Foundations of Arithmetic. Trans. by Austin, J. L.. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (2014), Begriffsschrift und andere Aufsätze. Ed. by Angelelli, I.. 2nd ed. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1992), Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (2000), “Geometry, Construction, and Intuition in Kant and His Successors.” In: Sher, G. and Tieszen, R. (eds.), Between Logic and Intuition: Essays in Honor of Charles Parsons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 186–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. (2012), “Kant on Geometry and Spatial Intuition.” Synthese 186, 231–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. (2013), Kant’s Construction of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gava, G. (2014), Peirce’s Account of Purposefulness: A Kantian Perspective. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, R. (1981), “Kant’s Sensationism.” Synthese 47, 229–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsborg, H. (2008), “Was Kant a Nonconceptualist?” Philosophical Studies 137, 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomes, A. (2014), “Kant on Perception: Naïve Realism, Non-Conceptualism, and the B-Deduction.” Philosophical Quarterly 64/254, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomes, A. and Stephenson, A. (2017), Kant and the Philosophy of Mind: Perception, Reason, and the Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grier, M. (2001), Kant’s Doctrine of Transcendental Ilusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, J. & Grimm, W. (1854), Deutsches Wörterbuch. Leipzig: Hirzel.Google Scholar
Grüne, S. (2011), “Is There a Gap in Kant’s B Deduction?” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19, 465–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüne, S. (2017), “Are Kantian Intuitions Object-Dependent?” In: Gomes, and Stephenson, (eds.), Kant and the Philosophy of Mind, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A. (2012), “A Critical Examination of Sellars’s Theory of Perception.” In: Frappier, M., Brown, D., and DiSalle, R. (eds.), Analysis and Interpretation in the Exact Sciences. Essays in Honour of William Demopoulos, 31–56. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (1987), Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, R. (2005), “Kant and Nonconceptual Content.” European Journal of Philosophy 13, 247–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, R. (2011), “Beyond the Myth of the Myth: A Kantian Theory of Non-Conceptual Content.” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19, 323–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, R. (2015), Cognition, Content, and the A Priori: A Study in the Philosophy of Mind and Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, G. (2014), “Kant on the Phenomenology of Touch and Vision.” In: Cohen, (ed.), Kant’s Lectures on Anthropology, 38–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, C. R. (1993), Charles S. Peirce’s Evolutionary Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heck, R. G. Jr. (2000), “Nonconceptual Content and the ‘Space of Reasons.’” The Philosophical Review 109, 483–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidemann, D. (ed.) (2013), Kant and Non-Conceptual Content. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Henrich, D. (1969), “The Proof-Structure of Kant’s Transcendental Deduction.” Review of Metaphysics 22, 640–59.Google Scholar
Henrich, D. (1976), Identität und Objektivität. Eine Untersuchung über Kants transzendentale Deduktion. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Hinske, N. (2002) “Kant und Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten.” Aufklärung 14, 261–74.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1969), “On Kant’s Notion of Intuition (Anschauung).” In: Penelhum, T. and MacIntosh, J. J. (eds.), The First Critique. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 38–53.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1972), “Kantian Intuitions.” Inquiry 15, 341–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1974a), “Kant’s ‘New Method of Thought’ and His Theory of Mathematics.” In: Hintikka, , Knowledge and the Known, 126–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1974b), “Kant on the Mathematical Method.” In: Hintikka, , Knowledge and the Known, 160–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1974c), Knowledge and the Known: Historical Perspectives in Epistemology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1984), “Kant’s Transcendental Method and His Theory of Mathematics.” Topoi 3, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (2003), “The Notion of Intuition in Husserl.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 57/224, 169–91.Google Scholar
Howell, R. (1973), “Intuition, Synthesis, and Individuation in the Critique of Pure Reason.” Noûs 7, 207–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, R. (1992), Kant’s Transcendental Deduction: An Analysis of Main Themes in His Critical Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. (1978), A Treatise of Human Nature. Ed. by Selby-Bigge, L. A.. 2nd ed. Revised by Nidditch, P. H.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. (2001), Logical Investigations. Vol. 2. Trans. by Findlay, J. N.. Ed. by Moran, D.. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jacovides, M. (2017), Locke’s Image of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankowiak, T. and Watkins, E.. (2014), “Meat on the Bones: Kant’s Account of Cognition in the Anthropology Lectures.” In: Cohen, (ed.), Kant’s Lectures on Anthropology, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1989a), “Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics, and Epistemology of Demonstratives and Other Indexicals.” In: Almog, et al. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, 481–563.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1989b), “Afterthoughts.” In: Almog, et al. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, 565–614.Google Scholar
Kemp Smith, N. (1923), A Commentary to Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason.’ 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
King, J. (2014), “Speaker Intentions in Context.” Noûs 48, 219–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1990), Kant’s Transcendental Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjosavik, F. (2009), “Kant on Geometrical Intuition and the Foundations of Mathematics.” Kant-Studien 100, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjosavik, F. (2020), “Kant on Method and Evidence in Metaphysics.” In: Kjosavik, F. and Serck-Hanssen, C. (eds.), Metametaphysics and the Sciences: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 19–37.Google Scholar
Kjosavik, F. (2022), “Kant on the Possibilities of Mathematics and the Scope and Limits of Logic.” Inquiry 65, 683–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. A. (1980), Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Land, T. (2015), “Nonconceptualist Readings of Kant and the Transcendental Deduction.” Kantian Review 20, 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Land, T. (2019), “Conceptualism and the Objection from Animals.” In: Waibel, V. L. et al. (eds.), Natur und Freiheit. Akten des XII. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1269–76.Google Scholar
Langton, R. (1998), Kantian Humility: Our Ignorance of Things in Themselves. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1989a), Philosophical Essays. Ed. and trans. by Ariew, R. and Garber, D.. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1989b), Philosophical Papers and Letters. Ed. by Loemker, L. E.. 2nd ed./2nd print. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1996), New Essays on Human Understanding. Ed. and trans. by Remnant, P. and Bennett, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (2000), G. W. Leibniz and Samuel Clarke: Correspondence. Ed. by Ariew, R.. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Locke, J. (1975), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. by Nidditch, P. H.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, B. (1998), Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Trans. Wolfe, C. T.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, E. J. (1995), Locke on Human Understanding. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. (2005), Locke. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L. (1976), Problems from Locke. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makkreel, R. A. (1990), Imagination and Interpretation in Kant: The Hermeneutical Import of the Critique of Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Makkreel, R. A. (2018), “Baumgarten and Kant on Clarity, Distinctness, and the Differentiation of Our Mental Powers.” In: Fugate, C. D. and Hymers, J. (eds.), Baumgarten and Kant on Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 94–109.Google Scholar
Mathieu, V. (1989), Kants Opus postumum. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (1984), “De re senses.” Philosophical Quarterly 34, 283–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, J. (1994), Mind and World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (1998), Meaning, Knowledge & Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (2007), “Response to Dreyfus.” Inquiry 50, 366–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, J. (2008a), “The Disjunctive Conception of Experience as Material for a Transcendental Argument.” In: Haddock, A. and Macpherson, F. (eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 376–89.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (2008b), “Responses.” In: Lindgaard, J. (ed.), John McDowell: Experience, Norm, and Nature. Oxford: Blackwell, 200–67.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (2009), Having the World in View. Essays on Kant, Hegel, and Sellars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (2013), “Perceptual Experience: Both Relational and Contentful.” European Journal of Philosophy 21, 144–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLear, C. (2011), “Kant on Animal Consciousness.” Philosophers’ Imprint 11/15, 1–16.Google Scholar
McLear, C. (2016), “Kant on Perceptual Content,” Mind 125, 95–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLear, C. (2017), “Intuition and Presence.” In: Gomes, and Stephenson, (eds.), Kant and the Philosophy of Mind, 86–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, G. F. (2016), Excerpt from the Doctrine of Reason. Trans. by Bunch, A.. London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melnick, A. (1973), Kant’s Analogies of Experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mörchen, H. (1930), “Die Einbildungskraft bei Kant.” Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung XI, 311–495.Google Scholar
Naragon, S. (1990), “Kant on Descartes and the Brutes.” Kant-Studien 81, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, I. (2004), Philosophical Writings. Ed. by Janiak, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Obergfell, F. (1985), Begriff und Gegenstand bei Kant. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann.Google Scholar
Onof, C. and Schulting, D. (2014), “Kant, Kästner and the Distinction between Metaphysical and Geometric Space.” Kantian Review 19, 285–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onof, C. and Schulting, D. (2015), “Space as Form of Intuition and as Formal Intuition: On the Note to B160 in Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’.” Philosophical Review 124, 1–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, C. (1983), Mathematics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, C. (1992), “The Transcendental Aesthetic.” In: Guyer, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 62–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, C. (2008), Mathematical Thought and Its Objects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, C. (2012), From Kant to Husserl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasnau, R. (2017), After Certainty: A History of Our Epistemic Ideals and Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paton, H. J. (1936), Kant’s Metaphysic of Experience. Vol. I. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Peacocke, C. (1992), A Study of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1960), Collected Papers. Vol V. Ed. by Hartshorne, C. and Weiss, P.. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinder, T. (ed.) (1998a), Immanuel Kant: Logik-Vorlesung. Unveröffentlichte Nachschriften I. Logik Bauch. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Pinder, T. (ed.) (1998b), Immanuel Kant. Logik-Vorlesung. Unveröffentlichte Nachschriften II. Logik Hechsel, Warschauer Logik. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1960), Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1983), “Ontology and Ideology Revisited.” Journal of Philosophy 80, 499–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, K. (1986), Die Vollständigkeit der Kantischen Urteilstafel. 3rd ed. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Reimer, M. (1991), “Demonstratives, Demonstrations, Demonstrata.” Philosophical Studies 63, 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, M. (2009), “Predication and Cartographic Representation.” Synthese 169, 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robb, D. (2005), “Qualitative Unity and the Bundle Theory.” Monist 88, 466–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, H. (1981), “Anschauung und Mannigfaltiges in der Transzendentalen Deduktion.” Kant-Studien 72, 140–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, H. (1994), Perception. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google ScholarPubMed
Russell, B. (1910/11), “Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 11, 108–28.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1912), “On Our Knowledge of Universals.” In: The Problems of Philosophy. London: Home University Library, 101–10.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1992) [1913], Theory of Knowledge. The 1913 Manuscript. Ed. by Eames, E. R.. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1989), “Four Decades of Scientific Explanation.” In: Kitcher, P. and Salmon, W. C. (eds.), Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 3–219.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, S. (2018), The Unity of Perception: Content, Consciousness, Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, B. A. (ed. and trans.) (1911), “Eine bisher unbekannte lateinische Rede Kants über Sinnestäuschung und poetische Fiktion.” Kant-Studien 16, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, W. (1952), “Particulars.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 13, 184–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, W. (1997/1956), Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1963), “Phenomenalism.” In: Science, Perception and Reality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 60–105.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1992/1968), Science and Metaphysics: Variations on Kantian Themes. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1975), “The Structure of Knowledge.” In: Castañeda, H.-N. (ed.), Action, Knowledge and Reality: Critical Studies in Honor of Wilfrid Sellars. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 295–347.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1978a), “The Role of the Imagination in Kant’s Theory of Experience.” In: Johnstone, H. W. Jr. (ed.), Categories: A Colloquium. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 231–45.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1978b), “Some Reflections on Perceptual Consciousness.” In: Bruzina, R. and Wilshire, B., Selected Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 169–85.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1981), “Foundations for a Metaphysics of Pure Process” (The Carus Lectures). Monist 64, 3–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, W. (1982), “Sensa or Sensings: Reflections on the Ontology of Perception.” Philosophical Studies 41, 83–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shields, C. (2009), “The Aristotelian Psuchê.” In: Anagnostopoulos, G. (ed.), A Companion to Aristotle. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 292–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S. (2002), “The Role of Perception in Demonstrative Reference.” Philosopher’s Imprint 2, 1–21.Google Scholar
Smit, H. (2000), “Kant on Marks and the Immediacy of Intuition.” Philosophical Review 109, 235–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. D. (2002), The Problem of Perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, M. (1975), Mathematical Knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Stenius, E. (1972), “On Kant’s Distinction between Phenomena and Noumena.” In: Critical Essays. Acta Philosophica Fennica XXV. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 231–45.Google Scholar
Stephenson, A. (2015), “Kant on the Object-dependence of Intuition and Hallucination.” Philosophical Quarterly 65, 486–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, A. (2017), “Imagination and Inner Intuition.” In: Gomes, and Stephenson, (eds.), Kant and the Philosophy of Mind, 104–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1959), Individuals. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1966), The Bounds of Sense. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Stroud, B. (1977), Hume. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stuhlmann-Laeisz, R. (1976), Kants Logik: Eine Interpretation auf der Grundlage von Vorlesungen, veröffentlichten Werken und Nachlaβ. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, D. (2008), “Arithmetic from Kant to Frege: Numbers, Pure Units, and the Limits of Conceptual Representation.” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 63, 135–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swoyer, C. (1995), “Leibnizian Expression.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 33, 65–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, M. (1959), “On the Elimination of Singular Terms.” Mind 68, 361–76.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. (1972), “Singular Terms and Intuitions in Kant’s Epistemology.” Review of Metaphysics 26, 314–43.Google Scholar
Todes, S. (2001), Body and World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Cleve, J. (2012), “Defining and Defending Nonconceptual Contents and States.” Philosophical Perspectives 26, 411–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanzo, A. (2017), “Kant and Abstractionism about Concept Formation.” In: Di Bella, S. & Schmaltz, T. M. (eds.), The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 305–23.Google Scholar
Waxman, W. (2014), Kant’s Anatomy of the Intelligent Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, K. D. (1975), “Kant on Intuition.” Philosophical Quarterly 25, 247–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953), Philosophische Untersuchungen/Philosophical Investigations. Trans. by Anscombe, G. E. M.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolff, R. P. (1963), Kant’s Theory of Mental Activity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wolff, M. (1995), Die Vollständigkeit der kantischen Urteilstafel. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, C. (2005), Erste Philosophie oder Ontologie. Ed. and trans. by Effertz, Dirk. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Wright, C. (1996), “Human Nature?” European Journal of Philosophy 4, 235–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yolton, J. W. (1970), Locke and the Compass of Human Understanding: A Selective Commentary on the ‘Essay.’ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Young, J. M. (1988), “Kant’s View of Imagination.” Kant-Studien 79, 140–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zöller, G. (2019), “‘The Faculty of Intuitions A Priori.’ Kant on the Productive Power of the Imagination.” In: Gentry, G. and Pollok, K. (eds.), The Imagination in German Idealism and Romanticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 66–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The PDF of this book complies with version 2.2 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range of users and attains the highest (AAA) level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive accessibility guidelines.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Frode Kjosavik, Norwegian University of Life Sciences
  • Book: Kant and the Power of Perception
  • Online publication: 27 November 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009596213.013
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Frode Kjosavik, Norwegian University of Life Sciences
  • Book: Kant and the Power of Perception
  • Online publication: 27 November 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009596213.013
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Frode Kjosavik, Norwegian University of Life Sciences
  • Book: Kant and the Power of Perception
  • Online publication: 27 November 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009596213.013
Available formats
×