The Doctrine of Self-positing and Receptivity in Kant's Late ...
The Doctrine of Self-positing and Receptivity in Kant's Late ...
The Doctrine of Self-positing and Receptivity in Kant's Late ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
S is P.‖ What is be<strong>in</strong>g thought <strong>in</strong> this first <strong>in</strong>stance by the subject or ―I‖ is the unity<br />
between two concepts <strong>in</strong> which the second is predicated <strong>of</strong> the first. Th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g is here the<br />
very act <strong>of</strong> unit<strong>in</strong>g these two concepts <strong>in</strong> the form <strong>of</strong> a judgment where each is given its<br />
particular role. Moreover, by exhibit<strong>in</strong>g this analytic conta<strong>in</strong>ment, their unification <strong>in</strong> a<br />
judgment is simultaneously an act <strong>of</strong> conceptualization, <strong>in</strong> which the concept S conta<strong>in</strong>s<br />
under it a characteristic mark <strong>in</strong> the form <strong>of</strong> concept P. It is important to note that, even<br />
though such judgment or conceptual unity be<strong>in</strong>g thought is itself analytic, for Kant it still<br />
presupposes a ―synthesiz<strong>in</strong>g‖ unity. 149 That is to say that, for <strong>in</strong>stance, the connections <strong>of</strong><br />
representations as general characteristic marks that are be<strong>in</strong>g thought as parts unified<br />
under a common concept <strong>and</strong> yet are different from this very concept <strong>and</strong> each other,<br />
presuppose an act <strong>of</strong> br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g together; the unification must be already present for any<br />
analytical relation to be exhibited <strong>and</strong> thus for the extension <strong>of</strong> a concept to be known.<br />
<strong>The</strong> same applies to the representation <strong>of</strong> the relation <strong>of</strong> concepts <strong>in</strong> judgments <strong>and</strong>, most<br />
importantly for the current discussion on apperception, for the necessary possibility for<br />
the same ―I th<strong>in</strong>k‖ to be analytically conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> all <strong>of</strong> these. In other words, the<br />
unification from which analytic knowledge arises is a synthesis <strong>of</strong> thought performed by<br />
a shared identical consciousness.<br />
As <strong>in</strong>dicated <strong>in</strong> the above passage, another result <strong>of</strong> this same function <strong>of</strong> thought<br />
is that the subject knower is also capable <strong>of</strong> attach<strong>in</strong>g the ―I th<strong>in</strong>k‖ to an <strong>in</strong>tuition <strong>in</strong><br />
general, by synthesiz<strong>in</strong>g the latter. Upon this function lies the possibility for the subject<br />
knower to cognize an object, e.g., ―I cognize object x.‖ In the KrV Kant argues that when<br />
149 KrV, B133-4. This clarification that the same function that is operative <strong>in</strong> both<br />
analytic <strong>and</strong> synthetic judgments is a ―synthesis‖ appears much later than the quoted<br />
passage <strong>and</strong> it is a footnote <strong>in</strong> the B edition only.<br />
106