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.

<strong>The</strong>se passages by no means say the same th<strong>in</strong>g; <strong>in</strong>stead, the first one is an attempt at<br />

address<strong>in</strong>g the possibility <strong>of</strong> the second one. <strong>The</strong> first passage is also the one that, <strong>in</strong> the<br />

language <strong>of</strong> transcendental philosophy, is <strong>in</strong> need <strong>of</strong> clarification. In fact, it expresses the<br />

crux <strong>of</strong> the doctr<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> self-<strong>posit<strong>in</strong>g</strong>. Space <strong>and</strong> time are now not only formal functions,<br />

but dynamical ones; it is through them that the subject is capable <strong>of</strong> giv<strong>in</strong>g itself – <strong>in</strong> the<br />

sense <strong>of</strong> self-affection – the appearance for cognition. In other words, it ―posits‖ this<br />

appearance. From the perspective <strong>of</strong> the KrV this sounds like a dogmatic position. In<br />

what sense could the subject posit a dynamic content <strong>of</strong> space <strong>and</strong> time? Posit<strong>in</strong>g after all<br />

does imply, accord<strong>in</strong>g to BDG, be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> general <strong>and</strong> not an object <strong>of</strong> cognition.<br />

<strong>The</strong> possible solution to this apparently uncritical position is to return to the<br />

concept <strong>of</strong> ―orig<strong>in</strong>al attribution‖ that was discussed earlier. <strong>The</strong>re were two fundamental<br />

elements conta<strong>in</strong>ed under the empirical proposition ―I th<strong>in</strong>k:‖ undeterm<strong>in</strong>ed empirical<br />

<strong>in</strong>tuition <strong>and</strong> the <strong>in</strong>tellectual ―I.‖ And, it was a primordial or orig<strong>in</strong>al act <strong>of</strong> attribution<br />

that first moved the <strong>in</strong>tellectual ―I‖ to recognize that <strong>in</strong>tuition as its own (although neither<br />

as cognition, th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> itself, nor appearance). With this <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d, the second part <strong>of</strong> this<br />

first passage beg<strong>in</strong>s to unfold. <strong>The</strong> manifold that is posited by the dynamical function <strong>of</strong><br />

space <strong>and</strong> time is described as the aspectabile which is itself prior to any apprehension.<br />

In this regard, it st<strong>and</strong>s parallel to the undeterm<strong>in</strong>ed empirical <strong>in</strong>tuition from the orig<strong>in</strong>al<br />

attribution. Its description as an appearance prior to apprehension <strong>in</strong>dicates that the<br />

manifold that is now be<strong>in</strong>g posited is spatio-temporal. Thus, <strong>in</strong> a certa<strong>in</strong> sense, Kant is<br />

theoriz<strong>in</strong>g a return to that footnote <strong>in</strong> the ―paralogisms‖ <strong>and</strong> reth<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g that undeterm<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

manifold that was described as the condition for the possibility <strong>of</strong> any act <strong>of</strong> thought.<br />

gedacht wird (<strong>in</strong>tuitus quem sequitur conceptus) <strong>in</strong> welchen das Subject <strong>in</strong> der<br />

collectivern E<strong>in</strong>heit des Mannifaltigen der Anschauung sich selbst setzt.”<br />

161

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!