Immanuel Kant
Kant published a second edition of the "Critique of Pure Reason" ("Kritik der reinen Vernunft") in 1787, heavily revising the first parts of the book. Most of his subsequent work focused on other areas of philosophy. He continued to develop his moral philosophy, notably in 1788's "Critique of Practical Reason" (known as the second "Critique") and 1797's "Metaphysics of Morals". The 1790 "Critique of Judgment" (the third "Critique") applied the Kantian system to aesthetics and teleology. It was in this critique where Kant wrote one of his most popular statements, ""it is absurd to hope that another Newton will arise in the future who will make comprehensible to us the production of a blade of grass according to natural laws"".
T. K. Seung
In the Metaphysical Deduction, Kant claims to derive logically his twelve categories from the twelve forms of judgment. It has long been a standard practice to dismiss the Metaphysical Deduction as one of Kant's typical opaque passages and move on to the Transcendental Deduction. Seung argues that this practice leads to a serious misreading of the first "Critique". If Kant were to assemble the categories empirically, they could not be distinguished from empirical concepts. For this reason, he openly disdains Aristotle's empirical method of collecting his categories. By his logical derivation of the categories, Kant believes, he can prove their a priori origin because logic is a priori. With their a priori origin thus proven, Kant intends to use them as the logical premise for the Transcendental Deduction. But Seung shows that Kant's derivation scheme was ill-conceived. The forms of judgment are syntactic elements; the categories are semantic elements. To derive the latter from the former was to derive semantic elements from syntactic elements. Although this was a logically impossible operation, Kant proudly flaunted it as his ingenious invention. Unfortunately, his ingenuity thrived only in exploiting his logical fantasy. Seung has dissected a series of fraudulent maneuvers in his derivation of the categories. But the fraud was recognized neither by the performer nor by the audience because it was executed in an obscure tricky language.