I focus on two main points in Ian Proops’s reading of Kant’s Paralogisms of Pure Reason: the structure of the paralogisms in the A edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, and the changes in Kant’s exposition of the paralogisms from A to B. I agree with Proops that there are defects in the A exposition and that Kant attempted to correct those defects in B. But I argue that Proops fails to give its due to what remains fundamental in both editions: Kant’s criticism of the rational psychologist’s confusion between the subjective (albeit universally subjective) standpoint thinkers have on themselves just in virtue of thinking, and the objective, metaphysical standpoint on a thinking thing. In short, Proops fails to give sufficient attention to Kant’s opening statement in the Paralogisms of Pure Reason: ‘“I think” is the sole text of rational psychology’.

中文翻译：

---

““我认为”是理性心理学的唯一文本”：对伊恩·普罗普斯《批判的激烈考验》的评论

我重点关注伊恩·普罗普斯阅读康德《纯粹理性的旁系逻辑》中的两个要点：《纯粹理性批判》A版旁系逻辑的结构，以及康德对旁系逻辑从A到B的阐述的变化。我同意普罗普斯认为 A 的论述存在缺陷，而康德试图纠正 B 中的这些缺陷。但我认为，普罗普斯未能给出其应有的理由，因为在两个版本中仍然存在根本性的东西：康德对理性心理学家在主观（尽管思想家仅仅凭借思维而对自己持有普遍主观的立场，并对思考的事物采取客观的、形而上学的立场。简而言之，普罗普斯没有对康德在《纯粹理性的谬论》中的开场白给予足够的重视：““我认为”是理性心理学的唯一文本”。