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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

perspective, conta<strong>in</strong>ed analytically with<strong>in</strong> the ―I th<strong>in</strong>k‖ is the knowledge <strong>of</strong> the existence<br />

<strong>of</strong> an ―I.‖ This existential claim is, however, restricted as to its cognitive connotations.<br />

Know<strong>in</strong>g from the last section that the ―I‖ as an object <strong>of</strong> consciousness is empty with<br />

regards to any <strong>in</strong>tuition, that which is now claimed to exist is also restricted to an exist<strong>in</strong>g<br />

that is qua th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g alone. As a result, such an existence is not yet determ<strong>in</strong>ed as to its<br />

possibility beyond the mere <strong>posit<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>of</strong> this ―I‖ out <strong>of</strong> an analysis <strong>of</strong> the proposition ―I<br />

th<strong>in</strong>k.‖ From this po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>of</strong> view, the existential claim that ―I am‖ rema<strong>in</strong>s ontologically<br />

neutral.<br />

In the doctr<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> self-<strong>posit<strong>in</strong>g</strong> the claim ―I am‖ rema<strong>in</strong>s with<strong>in</strong> the bounds <strong>of</strong><br />

Kant‘s critical work <strong>in</strong> that the ―I‖ is still considered a mere fact <strong>and</strong> its truth value<br />

follows from the pr<strong>in</strong>ciple <strong>of</strong> identity <strong>and</strong> the nature <strong>of</strong> analytic judgments: the Cogito<br />

conta<strong>in</strong>s analytically sum. Here is a representative fragment from the Op,<br />

In the proposition: I am th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g, because it is completely<br />

identical, no progress, no synthetic judgment is given to me; for it is<br />

tautological <strong>and</strong> the alleged <strong>in</strong>ference: I th<strong>in</strong>k, therefore I am, is no<br />

<strong>in</strong>ference. 182<br />

Kant is quite explicit that one f<strong>in</strong>ds the existence <strong>of</strong> one‘s ―I‖ (es wird mir) already<br />

embedded <strong>in</strong> the assertion that ―I am th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g‖ (ich b<strong>in</strong> denkend). In the KrV he had<br />

already claimed that there is no dist<strong>in</strong>ction between the propositions ―I th<strong>in</strong>k,‖ ―I am<br />

th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g‖ <strong>and</strong> ―I exist th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g;‖ as a result <strong>of</strong> this equivalency it becomes more apparent<br />

that ―I am‖ or sum is conta<strong>in</strong>ed there<strong>in</strong>. 183 In addition to this analytic conta<strong>in</strong>ment, any<br />

182 Ak: 22:79. Förster, 187. Orig<strong>in</strong>al: ―Es wird mir also <strong>in</strong> dem Satz ich b<strong>in</strong> denkend[,]<br />

weil er gantz identisch ist[,] gar ke<strong>in</strong> Fortschritt ke<strong>in</strong> synthetisches Urtheil gegeben[,]<br />

denn er ist tavtologisch und der vermeynte Schluß: Ich dencke darum b<strong>in</strong> ich ist ke<strong>in</strong><br />

Schluß.‖<br />

183 Allison, H. Kant‘s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation <strong>and</strong> Defense. New<br />

125

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!