( update 2018 Bennett fails to mention that the categories are a way to work up to the ‘transcendental deduction’ of Kant and make the case clear that ‘mind’ constructs reality somehow. You might well replace them if you can decipher any of it with something that constructs reality in the context of ‘mind’ and then produce a transcendental deduction and schopenhauer simply dispensed with them considering the sole category of causality,…? i forget…Bennett after all his spiritual contacts with people like gurdjieff was a stolid realist and his categories are suspiciously from whitehead whom he seems to follow??? But Bennett’s categories, themselves arbitrary may produce the equivalent of Kant’s TD, so reminiscent of advaita metaphysics, atman as brahman, etc…This is all darn’d if i know terrain)
Kant and his categories
Comment on Kantian Issues
18.10.09 at 12:15 pm ·
I agree that this is what Bennett wanted to do. Do you think that, though, while his attempted replacement of the categories by the dodecad is dubious, Bennett’s own criticism of Kant’s categories is valid? (as I recall, he calls them something like “optimistic guesses” – I don’t have a copy of the DU available.)
It is easy to criticize Kant, but the results are always off. Thus with Bennett.
The issue arises as to whether Bennett really studied Kant at all??
He has not really understood what Kant was doing with his categories.