BODY AND PRACTICE IN KANT

movement. An example of such a movement may be when substance A
hits substance B and creates a movement in the latter. Is this what Kant
has in mind? This seems to be a reasonable answer. However, if we
examine what Kant adds in brackets in the above sentence, the answer
seems not to be exhaustive. When a substance A acts on a substance B,
then ‘the inner state’ of B is altered, Kant tells us. What does he mean?
I take his theory to be this. A substance may be described under two
perspectives. The first we may call the external perspective. Central to
this perspective is extension and position in space. When we describe the
movement of a substance in space, then this description takes place
according to this external perspective. Then there is what we may call
the internal perspective, focusing on the inner aspect of the substance.
Kant does not explain in detail what we find when we establish this
internal perspective. From the text, however, we may infer that the
concept of working force belongs to this internal perspective. That is,
when we ascribe to a substance a working force, then the description of
this force takes place according to this internal perspective. The concept
of working force, moreover, seems to be part of a theory claiming that
what we observe as an external movement taking place in space typically
has its origin within the substance. And also when a substance is
externally affected, the effect involves more than what we observe from
the outside. It affects its inner state as well.
When a substance A acts on a substance B, we may consequently
distinguish between three moments of the corresponding event. First, we
have the working force of A considered as the origin of the event. In
order to conceptually identify this force, we have to establish an internal
perspective on A. Then we have the external movement in which A
externally exerts its force on B. This is described according to the
external perspective. In this process, however, something also happens
with the inner state of B. In order to conceptually identify this, we have
again to establish an internal perspective. 30
This is only meant as a rough interpretation. 31 Instead of going deeper
into Kant’s theory of working forces, I would like now to show how he
uses it to explain the communion of mind and body. Before we can do
this, however, we have to consider another idea from Living forces.
Space is not a structure existing independently of the substances existing
30
THE EMBODIED MIND
Kant seems also to be arguing that sometimes two substances may interact
without external movement taking place, for instance when a substance acts at
another without overcoming its resistance, see §§ 4 and 5.
31 For more details see e.g. Nierhaus (1962), 13ff.
23