29.01.2013 Views

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 ...

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.

core idea <strong>of</strong> self-objectification <strong>and</strong> it does so without use <strong>of</strong> Object or Gegenst<strong>and</strong>: self-<br />

consciousness is a logical act that gives itself a representation <strong>of</strong> itself—makes itself <strong>in</strong>to<br />

an object—that is, however, empty <strong>of</strong> any manifold <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>tuition or any other<br />

determ<strong>in</strong>ation. It also ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s the juxtaposition <strong>of</strong> two spheres that at this level still<br />

rema<strong>in</strong> separate: thought <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tuition.<br />

Keep<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d both the open debate on the use <strong>of</strong> these terms <strong>in</strong> Kant‘s work as<br />

a whole <strong>and</strong> the overall consistency apparent <strong>in</strong> the Op (whether <strong>in</strong> the use <strong>of</strong> the terms or<br />

<strong>in</strong> the core idea <strong>of</strong> this first level <strong>of</strong> the structure <strong>of</strong> the doctr<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> self-<strong>posit<strong>in</strong>g</strong>), there are<br />

at least three ways to proceed regard<strong>in</strong>g the question <strong>of</strong> the congruency among the above<br />

quoted passages <strong>and</strong>, hence, whether or not the <strong>in</strong>terpretation given so far is adequate<br />

enough. First, one could claim simply that <strong>in</strong> the passage <strong>in</strong> which the term Gegenst<strong>and</strong><br />

appears, despite <strong>of</strong> the fact that the objectification that is be<strong>in</strong>g discussed is merely <strong>in</strong><br />

thought, what we have are simple slippages <strong>in</strong> Kant‘s writ<strong>in</strong>g. After all, the text is not a<br />

f<strong>in</strong>ished one <strong>and</strong>, while it has been considered a manuscript, the last fascicles that are the<br />

subject <strong>of</strong> the current analysis are the least systematic <strong>and</strong> the ones written dur<strong>in</strong>g Kant‘s<br />

most advanced age. Such slippage, thus, can hardly be unexpected. If this is the case,<br />

<strong>and</strong> tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to account the other more consistent passages added to this discussion, then<br />

the analysis thus far ought to be sufficient. If, however, this is not to be taken as a<br />

slippage, then it is possible to <strong>in</strong>terpret the use <strong>of</strong> the term Gegenst<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> the first passage<br />

as an <strong>in</strong>dication <strong>of</strong> the movement or transition that the doctr<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> self-<strong>posit<strong>in</strong>g</strong> embodies<br />

as a whole: the transition between the logical subject <strong>and</strong> the concrete or real one. As<br />

such this passage can be read as anticipat<strong>in</strong>g the entirety <strong>of</strong> the doctr<strong>in</strong>e or, at the very<br />

least, as reveal<strong>in</strong>g the tension or struggle <strong>in</strong> Kant‘s own th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g as he works out this<br />

122

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!