Volume 2, Issue 1

One of Kant’s central central claims in the Critique of Pure Reason is that we cannot have knowledge of things as they are in themselves. This claim has been regarded as problematic in a number of ways: whether Kant is entitled to assert both that there are things in themselves and that we cannot have knowledge of them, and, more generally, what Kant’s commitment to things in themselves amounts to. A number of commentators deny that Kant is committed to there actually being an aspect of reality which we cannot cognise; they argue that he is committed merely to the idea that we cannot avoid the concept of things as they are in themselves. I will argue in this paper that while transcendental idealism is partly an epistemological position, it is also partly a metaphysical position, and in specific, that Kant is committed to the claim that the things we cognise have, in addition to the way they appear to us, a nature that is independent of us, which we cannot cognise.

The aim of this article is to contribute to the ongoing debate about whether Kant is a conceptualist or a non-conceptualist, by criticizing Hannah Ginsborg’s conceptualist interpretation found in her “Was Kant a nonconceptualist?” (2008). Ginsborg’s conceptualist interpretation places important focus on imaginative synthesis. According to Ginsborg, our being conscious of imaginative synthesis is an essential element of such processes and it is our consciousness that confers intentionality to synthesized representations. In this article, I undermine Ginsborg’s account by offering several passages that challenge its central tenets. Then, I develop and argue for an interpretation of imaginative synthesis that respects the passages used against Ginsborg. In short, I think the original text supports an account of synthesis such that the manifold of intuitions produced by our faculty of sensibility is unconsciously synthetically unified by the imagination. It is important to note that while the interpretation I offer here does not decisively support a conceptualist or non-conceptualist interpretation of Kant, it is nevertheless favorable to both the content and state non-conceptualist readings and unfavorable to the Ginsborgian conceptualist reading; this is because my interpretation shows that the mere fact of imaginative synthesis does not itself entail conceptualism, as Ginsborg maintains.

In this article I aim to clarify the nature of Kant’s transformation of rationalist metaphysics into a science by focusing on his conception of transcendental reflection. The aim of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, it is argued, consists primarily in liberating the productive strand of former general metaphysics - its reflection on the a priori elements of all knowledge - from the uncritical application of these elements to all things (within general metaphysics itself) and to things that can only be thought (in special metaphysics). After considering Kant’s conception of metaphysics and his various uses of the term ‘transcendental’ I closely examine his account of logical and transcendental reflection in the section entitled ‘On the Amphiboly of the Concepts of Reflection’. Whereas commentators generally attribute the activity called transcendental reflection to Kant alone, I contend, first, that Kant regarded philosophy as such to rely on a mode of transcendental reflection and, second, that the critical mode of transcendental reflection enacted in the Critique itself yields insight into the reason why our a priori knowledge is limited to the realm of possible objects. This is illustrated by outlining the difference between Kant’s and Leibniz’ employment of the concepts of reflection.

In this paper I propose to consider a certain set of notions in Kant as subsumable under a single notion - that of the soul’s intensity - as well as the possibility of a transcendental grounding of this notion within Kant’s critical framework. First, I discuss what it means for Kant to attribute intensive magnitude to the soul, starting with his response to Mendelssohn where Kant introduces the soul’s intensity as a metaphysical notion immanent to the principles of rational psychology. I show, however, that in Kant’s counter-argument there occurs a subtle though crucial shift in perspective - from the soul’s substance to its powers. Then I move on to consider three fundamental variants upon the soul’s intensity - intensities of representation, of life, and of cognition - each governed, I argue, by the implied notions of measure of intensity and its balance. Also, I examine Kant’s accounts of the life of a species and the necessity of sickness; of intensity of “enlightenment” in a society and the benefit of ignorance; and of sermon as a practical exertion of cognition’s intensity. Next, the aforementioned shift of emphasis allows me to demonstrate that the notion of the soul’s intensity can indeed be transcendentally justified by appealing to Kant’s principle of the Anticipations of Perception. Finally, I conclude with an appendix on the possible connection of the soul’s intensity to Kant’s aesthetics.

In this paper, I challenge the assumption that Kant’s Third Paralogism has to do, first and foremost, with the question of personal identity. Beginning with a consideration of the treatments of the soul’s personality in Christian Wolff’s rational psychology, I show that, despite being influenced by Locke’s novel account of personhood and confessing a dissatisfaction with the Scholastic definition of the term, Wolff maintained the agreement between his account of personality and the traditional conception. Moreover, Wolff did not put this concept to a forensic use but considered its primary application to be in the context of the demonstration of the soul’s immortality which, according to him, required that after the death of the body the human soul retained its status personalitatis, understood as its distinct capacity to be conscious of its identity over time. Wolff’s account of the soul’s personality, and the use to which he put it, proved rather influential for metaphysicians like G. F. Meier and Moses Mendelssohn, and Kant’s lectures in the 1770’s also betray this influence. Considering the Third Paralogism in light of this context I claim that, rather than taking up the question of whether the numerical identity of the soul can be inferred from the meagre resources of the I think, what is at issue is the rational psychologist’s account of how we are conscious of our numerical identity in different times. Despite disagreeing with the rational psychologist on this score, Kant nonetheless contends that the way in which we are, in fact, conscious of our numerical identity in all times qualifies us as persons and suffices for that concept’s use in the proof of the soul’s immortality. This reading thus makes sense of Kant’s claim that the soul’s personality, even with its transcendental grounding, is “necessary and sufficient for practical use,” and provides a charitable alternative to the recent allegation of a paralogism of pure practical reason on Kant’s part.

This paper analyzes Kant’s epistemological reorientation of ontology, explaining in what sense Kant’s complex theory of transcendental idealism and empirical realism should be understood as an ontological realism under the framework of epistemological idealism. The paper shows that Kant’s concept of existence is only applicable to empirical objects in the spatiotemporal causal framework. Accordingly, not only things in themselves, but also epistemic conditions such as the transcendental subject and the faculties of sensibility and understanding cannot be said to exist. They are theoretical constructs in the transcendental discourse to account for the normative conditions of objective cognition and reality.

This paper examines Kant’s conception of the self as subject, to show that it points to an understanding of the self as embodied. By considering ways in which the manifold of representations can be unified, different notions of self are identified through the subjective perspectives they define. This involves an examination of Kant’s distinction between subjective and objective unities of consciousness, and the notion of empirical unity of apperception in the first Critique, as well as the discussion of judgements of perception and judgements of experience in the Prolegomena. If this identifies the self as subject through its embodied perspective, it leaves open the question of the self’s existence. The paper proposes an interpretation of Kant’s brief statements on this matter which provides grounds for an existence claim that extends to the embodied self. This suggests considering Kant’s view of the certainty of one’s existence as involving a feeling of self, albeit in a specifically Kantian form drawing on the transcendental unity of apperception. This feeling of self introduces a practical dimension that supports the claim that any determination of the self as subject has to be practical, namely as free agent subject to inclinations, insofar as he is embodied.

The paper examines Kant’s theory of time in light of McTaggart’s argument that time is unreal. First, it presents McTaggart’s theory of time and his argument that a contradiction inevitably emerges in time’s analysis, leading either to an infinite regress of times or the denial that time is real. The paper then shows that Kant rejects the absolute notion of time, the idea that there are eternal coordinates that are experienced by us as being in time. It argues against subjectivist or psychological interpretations of Kant’s theory of time. The main argument is that Kant’s notion of a priori intuition, rather than being the flow of mental states in consciousness, is the subject’s self-intuition as being temporally present, and, moreover, that the present acts as a temporal metric, specifying a first-person perspective in the world and designating a temporal simple.