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.

the doctr<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> self-<strong>posit<strong>in</strong>g</strong> attempts to work out at the more radical transcendental level<br />

the conditions for such physics <strong>and</strong> deductions. S<strong>in</strong>ce the doctr<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> self-<strong>posit<strong>in</strong>g</strong> returns<br />

to the basic cognitive faculties upon which the estimation <strong>of</strong> our possible synthetic a<br />

priori knowledge is determ<strong>in</strong>ed, it seems natural to go to this last section <strong>of</strong> the Op to<br />

evaluate the extent to which the ―critical‖ foundations are still <strong>in</strong> place.<br />

<strong>The</strong> second reason for undertak<strong>in</strong>g this study is that an analysis <strong>of</strong> the doctr<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong><br />

self-<strong>posit<strong>in</strong>g</strong> also provides resources from which to ask aga<strong>in</strong> where the gap identified by<br />

Kant may be located with<strong>in</strong> the whole <strong>of</strong> his critical philosophy. Show<strong>in</strong>g the extent <strong>of</strong><br />

Kant‘s ongo<strong>in</strong>g engagement with the question <strong>of</strong> the status <strong>of</strong> space, time <strong>and</strong> the material<br />

<strong>in</strong>tuitive content as well as the spontaneity <strong>of</strong> thought raises the question as to whether<br />

the gap is not ultimately grounded <strong>in</strong> the relationship between the faculties <strong>of</strong> sensibility<br />

<strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g. <strong>The</strong> problematic <strong>of</strong> the relationship between these faculties had been<br />

a concern <strong>of</strong> Kant‘s contemporary readers <strong>and</strong> critics from very time <strong>of</strong> the publication <strong>of</strong><br />

the KrV. Is it possible that Kant‘s concern with the transition between metaphysical <strong>and</strong><br />

empirical spheres <strong>of</strong> cognition leads him to acknowledge that there <strong>in</strong>deed is a ―gap‖ that<br />

arises out <strong>of</strong> the heterogeneity <strong>of</strong> these two faculties? And isn‘t the heterogeneity <strong>of</strong> these<br />

two cognitive faculties mirrored <strong>and</strong> problematized <strong>in</strong> the logical <strong>and</strong> empirical duality<br />

found <strong>in</strong> Kant‘s concept <strong>of</strong> the subject, when confronted with the epistemological need to<br />

be materially determ<strong>in</strong>ed? While this dissertation is not <strong>in</strong>tended to argue that ultimately<br />

Kant locates the aforementioned ―gap‖ to be with<strong>in</strong> the relationship between spontaneity<br />

<strong>and</strong> receptivity—this would require a much more historical approach that would reveal<br />

developmental stages with<strong>in</strong> the Op as a whole as well as a return to the orig<strong>in</strong>ally<br />

conceived ―gap‖ to evaluate the potential ramifications for it—the focus on what takes<br />

17

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!