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.

that exhibits it must share <strong>in</strong> the latter‘s nature. In the current discussion, this means that<br />

the pr<strong>in</strong>ciple <strong>of</strong> thoroughgo<strong>in</strong>g determ<strong>in</strong>ation takes the form <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternal relations <strong>of</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

with<strong>in</strong> reality. In other words, s<strong>in</strong>ce the ideal is conceived as an <strong>in</strong>dividual that functions<br />

as the ground <strong>of</strong> all possibility – as the source <strong>of</strong> the data or material <strong>and</strong> thus the<br />

condition for the possibility <strong>of</strong> all predicates <strong>of</strong> th<strong>in</strong>gs – it must also be thought <strong>of</strong> as a<br />

thoroughgo<strong>in</strong>g reality (omnitudo realitatis). Furthermore, s<strong>in</strong>ce all determ<strong>in</strong>ation entails<br />

a form <strong>of</strong> negation (i.e., non-A or –A), when account<strong>in</strong>g for the possibility <strong>of</strong><br />

determ<strong>in</strong>ation qua th<strong>in</strong>g the key is to show how a thoroughgo<strong>in</strong>g reality (a someth<strong>in</strong>g)<br />

can present with<strong>in</strong> itself <strong>and</strong> out <strong>of</strong> itself (the case <strong>of</strong> reason‘s ideal) a lack (noth<strong>in</strong>g).<br />

It is safe to say that the answer to this question was already under development <strong>in</strong><br />

NM, discussed earlier with respect to the function <strong>of</strong> Position as both the positivity <strong>of</strong><br />

reality <strong>in</strong> general <strong>and</strong> loci <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividuation. <strong>The</strong> answer <strong>in</strong> NM was given through the<br />

mathematical concept <strong>of</strong> negative magnitude, under which a magnitude is negative when,<br />

relative to another magnitude, it ―cancels as much <strong>in</strong> the other as is equal to itself.‖ 68<br />

When transposed to the doma<strong>in</strong> <strong>of</strong> philosophy, this meant that the negativity, or negation,<br />

was conceived as the result <strong>of</strong>: a) tak<strong>in</strong>g the absolute position <strong>of</strong> someth<strong>in</strong>g as a<br />

reference aga<strong>in</strong>st which its predicate was cancelled by another (whether <strong>in</strong>ternal or<br />

external to the posited subject) <strong>and</strong> b) that the content <strong>of</strong> the equal but opposite negative<br />

magnitude, when considered <strong>in</strong> itself, had its own positive or real value.<br />

Despite the fact that <strong>in</strong> this section on the ideal <strong>of</strong> reason Kant does not use the<br />

language <strong>of</strong> magnitude (it does appear however <strong>in</strong> both his discussions <strong>of</strong> the categories<br />

<strong>of</strong> reality, <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>tensive magnitude, <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> causality <strong>in</strong> reference to the state <strong>of</strong><br />

68 Ak: 2:174. Walford, 214.<br />

47

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!