<link rel="stylesheet" href="styles.f3b1fba60ec7970c.css">

What is Necessary and What is Contingent in Kant’s Empirical Self?

Анотація

How does Kant understand the representation of an empirical self? For Kant, the sources of the representation must be both a priori and a posteriori. Several scholars claim that the a priori part of the ‘self’ representation is supplied by the category of ‘substance,’ either a regular substance (Andrew Chignell), a minimal substance (Karl Ameriks) or a substance analog (Katharina Kraus). However, Kant opens the Paralogisms chapter by announcing that there is a thirteenth ‘transcendental’ concept or category: “We now come to a concept that was not entered in the above general list of transcendental concepts, and that must yet be classed with them … This is the concept – or, if one prefers, the judgment – I think.” (A341/B399). I argue that it is the ‘I think’ that provides the a priori framework for the representation of the empirical self.

Опис

УДК

Тип документа

Мова

Є частиною

Бібліографічний опис

Kitcher P. What is Necessary and What is Contingent in Kant’s Empirical Self? // Sententiae. 2024. № 1. С. 8-17.

Зібрання

Схвалення

Рецензія

Доповнено

Цитується в

Список використаної літератури (7)

  1. Allison, H. E. (2015). Kant’s Transcendental Deduction: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198724858.001.0001
  2. Ameriks, K. (2000). Kant's Theory of Mind (2nd Edition). Oxford: Clarenden Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198238975.001.0001
  3. Chignell, A. (2017). Can’t Kant Cognize Himself? Or, a Problem for (Almost) Every Interpretation of the Refutation of Idealism. In A. Gomes & A. Stephenson (Eds.), Kant and the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198724957.003.0008
  4. Hume, D. (1978). A Treatise of Human Nature. (P. H. Nidditch & L. A. Selby-Bigge, Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Kraus, K. T. (2020). Kant on Self-Knowledge and Self-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108874304
  6. Longuenesse, B. (2012). Two Uses of ‘I’ as Subject. In S. Prosser & F. Recanati (Eds.), Immunity to Error through Misidentification (pp. 81-103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139043274.006
  7. Pluhar, W. (Trans.). (1996). Immanuel Kant. Critique of Pure Reason. Unified edition (with all variants from the 1781 and 1787 editions). Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett.