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.

case, it means that the treatment <strong>of</strong> such technical terms require <strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> themselves<br />

entire sections dedicated to them, which may be essential for one‘s underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong><br />

setzen but is not possible with<strong>in</strong> the scope <strong>of</strong> this project. So the (open) question is the<br />

extent to which what follows has any value at all, beyond the problematization <strong>of</strong> the<br />

concept itself with<strong>in</strong> a subjectivist paradigm that cont<strong>in</strong>ues until the very end with the<br />

Op.<br />

Despite these difficulties, however, there are at least two very general constants<br />

that are identified here. <strong>The</strong> first is <strong>in</strong> direct relationship to Kant‘s predom<strong>in</strong>ant shift<br />

from the use <strong>of</strong> the noun Setzung or Position to the verb setzen, or conversely, this<br />

same verb presented as a noun, Setzen. <strong>The</strong> characteristic use <strong>of</strong> the verb <strong>in</strong> the KrV<br />

appears as <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g an activity carried out by the m<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong> different contexts. <strong>The</strong><br />

second broad constant is that such activity <strong>of</strong> the m<strong>in</strong>d entails – albeit rather diverse <strong>in</strong><br />

its embodiments – some form <strong>of</strong> relationship between thought <strong>and</strong> its content. <strong>The</strong><br />

latter is the closest l<strong>in</strong>e that can be said to run through all <strong>of</strong> the texts analyzed thus far.<br />

It the analyses provided above are correct, one <strong>of</strong> the ma<strong>in</strong> problems with BGD was<br />

precisely the lack <strong>of</strong> a pr<strong>in</strong>ciple that give a valid account <strong>of</strong> the nature <strong>and</strong> possibility<br />

<strong>of</strong> the unity between the ―data‖ necessary for all propositional thought. Look<strong>in</strong>g at the<br />

KrV <strong>and</strong> consider<strong>in</strong>g its very project, neither the <strong>in</strong>ternalization <strong>of</strong> setzen as an activity<br />

<strong>of</strong> thought <strong>in</strong> a subject nor its function with<strong>in</strong> Kant‘s attempt to solve the problem <strong>of</strong><br />

the possibility <strong>of</strong> synthetic a priori knowledge through a transcendental idealism, is<br />

surpris<strong>in</strong>g. <strong>The</strong>se two characteristics <strong>of</strong> the concept are present to greater <strong>and</strong> lesser<br />

degrees <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g cases: 1) the forms <strong>of</strong> self-affection <strong>of</strong> the m<strong>in</strong>d, particularly<br />

<strong>in</strong> time, but also <strong>in</strong> the representation <strong>in</strong> space; <strong>and</strong> 2) the schematization <strong>of</strong> the<br />

52

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!