The Doctrine of Self-positing and Receptivity in Kant's Late ...

introduction was ―to conclude‖ his ―entire critical enterprise.‖ 7 That this ―gap‖ was of
significant concern to Kant is not only apparent from the just cited letter to Garve, but
also by secondhand remarks made by his contemporaries (e.g., Hasse, Jachmann or
Wisianski), who interestingly enough report Kant‘s mentioning of the problem of a ―gap‖
or need for a ―last building stone‖ not always in terms of his ―system of critical
philosophy,‖ but sometimes in reference to his ―doctrinal philosophy‖ or his
―transcendental philosophy.‖ 8 While these secondhand remarks are certainly not the
source of the difficulty, their references to distinct areas of Kant‘s philosophy certainly
point to the challenge of ascertaining where this ―gap‖ belongs in his system of thought
as well as to its degree of significance. For example, from a theoretical perspective, a
―system of critical philosophy‖ can refer to the bare architectonic (of complete and
certain principles) or idea on the basis upon which a ―transcendental philosophy‖ is to be
constituted, while ―critique‖ itself is the assessment of the subject‘s cognitive powers and
limits with respect to the possibility of synthetic a priori cognition. 9 Thus the science of
transcendental philosophy depends upon and belongs at the systematic level to the KrV,
but the latter only offers the ―complete estimation of synthetic a priori cognition.‖ What
systematically distinguishes the science of transcendental philosophy is that it goes
beyond this estimation; specifically it requires for its completeness ―an exhaustive
analysis of all of human cognition a priori,‖ in so far as the latter is understood in the
7 Ak: 5:170. Pluhar, 7-8.
8 Prieto, Leopoldo. ―Invitación al estudio del Opus postumum de Kant,‖ in Alpha-Omega,
3(3) (2000), 514-515.
9 KrV, A13/B2. KU, Ak: 5:176. Pluhar, 15.
6