02.09.2013 Views

stankovic, sasa thesis.pdf - Atrium - University of Guelph

stankovic, sasa thesis.pdf - Atrium - University of Guelph

stankovic, sasa thesis.pdf - Atrium - University of Guelph

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

presupposed prior to all appearance and cannot therefore itself be an appearance) is supposed to<br />

be appearance. In one word, I could not see how appearance could be possible at all if<br />

representation and thought themselves are supposed to be appearance” (quoted in Sassen 94).<br />

Transcendental subject gives appearance. Therefore it cannot itself be appearance. If appearance<br />

were to give appearance then knowledge would not be necessary, in other words, it would not be<br />

the imposition <strong>of</strong> concepts. However, because representational knowledge turns the<br />

transcendental subject into the transcendental object it only knows it as an appearance. In this<br />

sense, Pistorius’ point is an inverted version <strong>of</strong> Jacobi’s famous point. Representational<br />

knowledge requires the existence <strong>of</strong> the transcendental subject who knows representationally,<br />

however, it cannot know that transcendental subject. “Hence” Schelling writes in the System <strong>of</strong><br />

Transcendental Idealism “the first problem <strong>of</strong> philosophy can also be formulated as that <strong>of</strong><br />

finding something which absolutely cannot be thought <strong>of</strong> as a thing. But the only candidate here<br />

is the self…Now if the self is absolutely not an object, or thing, it seems hard to explain how any<br />

kind <strong>of</strong> knowledge <strong>of</strong> it is possible, or what sort <strong>of</strong> knowledge we have <strong>of</strong> it” (Schelling 368-9).<br />

There are at least two commentators who think that knowledge <strong>of</strong> the transcendental subject is<br />

impossible.<br />

In “The Inconceivability <strong>of</strong> Kant’s Transcendental Subject” A.J. Mandt argues that “Kant<br />

consistently treats the formal conditions <strong>of</strong> knowledge as formative activities constitutive <strong>of</strong><br />

experience…However, if the forms <strong>of</strong> experience are indistinguishable from constitutive acts,<br />

the analysis <strong>of</strong> experience necessarily presupposes an agency that engages in these acts” (Mandt<br />

15). For this reason, Mandt argues, Kant must explain this agency. “There is one metaphysical<br />

question that, by its very nature, the Critique must address. This question concerns the nature <strong>of</strong><br />

reason itself. The organizing and unifying principles <strong>of</strong> the Critique is that embodied in Kant’s<br />

78

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!