LAUSR

involve. When Lu-Adler writes, then, that ‘[p]hilosophically speaking, I submit, what is important here is not whether the [completeness] proof is convincing in its details, but what it has revealed about Kant’s theory of logic, especially when we compare it with the relevant historical developments’ (187), or that ‘it is not clear to what (if any) extent the account I sketched on Kant’s behalf answers [the completeness question]’ (188), her readers may be left unsatisfied, since Kant’s ability to transform logic into a science rests – by Kant’s own standard, as convincingly demonstrated by Lu-Adler – on this very completeness proof. With this caveat in mind, Kant and the Science of Logic will nevertheless be a significant resource for future work on the status of Kantian logic.