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.

a mere concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>ner possibility <strong>and</strong> on the basis <strong>of</strong> this attempts to conclude the<br />

existence <strong>of</strong> someth<strong>in</strong>g. Even if BDG‘s operative concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>ner possibility aims at<br />

<strong>in</strong>corporat<strong>in</strong>g a material component to get at the Sache selbst <strong>of</strong> any absolute position, the<br />

nature <strong>of</strong> the function <strong>of</strong> the latter is elusive. <strong>The</strong> concept is quasi empty. Lack<strong>in</strong>g a<br />

careful account <strong>of</strong> what this relationship between the data <strong>and</strong> its ability to be thought is,<br />

there is not a strong enough argument for a synthesis <strong>of</strong> possible predicates <strong>of</strong> a th<strong>in</strong>g that<br />

can provide much more than just a concept. In what way can it be legitimately said here<br />

that the relations <strong>of</strong> determ<strong>in</strong>ations <strong>of</strong> a subject are anyth<strong>in</strong>g more than non-contradictory<br />

concepts if the supreme pr<strong>in</strong>ciple is still ultimately that <strong>of</strong> contradiction? It may <strong>in</strong>deed<br />

be true that someth<strong>in</strong>g must exist <strong>and</strong> be given to thought, for there to be possibility <strong>in</strong><br />

general, but the capacity <strong>and</strong> necessity <strong>of</strong> this exist<strong>in</strong>g entity as ground for the <strong>in</strong>ner<br />

possibility <strong>of</strong> someth<strong>in</strong>g rema<strong>in</strong>s nonetheless vague.<br />

At this po<strong>in</strong>t, the discussion <strong>in</strong> this section may appear to have left the topic <strong>of</strong><br />

this chapter entirely beh<strong>in</strong>d. In other words, one may be ask<strong>in</strong>g if this is not rather<br />

tangential to the study <strong>of</strong> the concept <strong>of</strong> Setzung <strong>in</strong> Kant‘s work before the Op. Not<br />

exactly, s<strong>in</strong>ce underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g the different accounts by which the conditions for the<br />

possibility <strong>of</strong> someth<strong>in</strong>g are said to be grounded, is precisely to come to know what Se<strong>in</strong><br />

überhaupt, Setzung, or absolute position mean <strong>in</strong> each context <strong>of</strong> Kant‘s reflections.<br />

What does it really mean to say that someth<strong>in</strong>g is posited absolutely? That question is<br />

not divorced from its conditions for possibility <strong>and</strong> our capacity to ga<strong>in</strong> access to that<br />

knowledge <strong>and</strong> orient ourselves <strong>in</strong> that underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g. At the very least, one is able to<br />

beg<strong>in</strong> to grasp the problem that arises out <strong>of</strong> what accord<strong>in</strong>g to the KrV is a natural<br />

reaction provoked by a f<strong>in</strong>ite subject‘s confrontation with ―<strong>in</strong>scrutable‖ forces, <strong>of</strong> which<br />

50

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!