Philosophy 190: Seminar on Kant Spring, 2015 Prof. Peter Hadreas Course website: http://oucampus.sjsu.edu/people/peter.hadreas/courses/Ka nt/index.html

Download Philosophy 190: Seminar on Kant Spring, 2015 Prof. Peter Hadreas Course website: http://oucampus.sjsu.edu/people/peter.hadreas/courses/Ka nt/index.html

Post on 13-Dec-2015

213 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li>Slide 1</li></ul><p>Philosophy 190: Seminar on Kant Spring, 2015 Prof. Peter Hadreas Course website: http://oucampus.sjsu.edu/people/peter.hadreas/courses/Ka nt/index.html Slide 2 The Second Edition Version (1781) of the Transcendental Deduction (pp. 245-266). Slide 3 Critique of Pure Reason PrefacesIntroduction Transcendent al Doctrine of Elements First Part Trans. Aesthetic Second Part Trans. Logic Division One: Trans. Analytic Book I: Analytic of Concepts Book II: Analytic of Principles Division Two: Trans. Dialectic Introduction Book I: Concepts of Pure Reason Book II: The dialectical inferences of pure reason Transcendent al Method Slide 4 1) distinguishing the phenomenal self from the transcendental self; 2) remarks on the deduction of the categories as epigenetic, that is one is born from seeds, or more primitive structures that grow into their mature form; 3) that 'is, the copula, has its objectivist force because of the objectivity implied by the transcendental unity of apperception. Some Differences Between the First and Second Edition Versions of the Transcendental Deduction Slide 5 15 On the possibility of a combination in general Here, Kant distinguishes between synthetic unity of the manifold and the category of unity. This unity, which precedes all concepts of combination a priori, is not the category of unity (10); for all categories are grounded on logical functions of judgments, but in these combination, thus the unity of given concepts, is already thought. The therefore category already presupposes combination. (p. 246) Slide 6 "Therefore it is only because I can combine a manifold of given representations in one consciousness that it is possible for me to represent the identity of the consciousness in these representations itself, i. e. the analytical unity of apperception is only possible under the presupposition of some synthetic one. (pp: 247) 16 On the original synthetic unity of apperception (Formulaically: Ein [one] entails Mein [mine]) Slide 7 ... only because I can comprehend their manifold in a consciousness do I call them all together my representations; for otherwise I would have as multicolored, diverse a self as I have representation so which I am conscious (p. 247) 16 On the original synthetic unity of apperception [continued] (Formulaically the also the converse: MEIN [mine] entails EIN [one]) Slide 8 The supreme principle of the possibility of all intuition in relation to sensibility was, according to the Transcendental Aesthetic, that all the manifold of sensibility stand under the formal conditions of space and time. The supreme principle of all intuition in relation to the understanding is that all the manifold of intuition stand under conditions of the original synthetic unity of apperception. (p. 248) 17 The principle of the synthetic unity of apperception is the supreme principle of all use of the understanding Slide 9 Thus the mere form of outer sensible intuition, space, is not yet cognition at all; it only gives the manifold of intuition a priori for a possible cognition. But in order to cognize something in space, e.g., a line, I must draw it, and thus synthetically bring about a determinate combination of the given manifold, so that the unity of this action is at the same time the unity of consciousness (in the concept of a line), and thereby is an object (a determinate space) first cognized. (p. 249) 17 The principle of the synthetic unity of apperception is the supreme principle of all use of the understanding [continued] Space and time is not enough for an experience. An intuition must be conceptualized. Slide 10 The transcendental unity of apperception is that unity through which all of the manifold given in an intuition is united in a concept of the object. It is called objective on that account, and must be distinguished from the subjective unity of consciousness, which is a determination of inner sense, through which that manifold of intuition is empirically given for such a combination. p. 250 18 What the objective unity of self- consciousness is Slide 11 ... the empirical unity of apperception, which we are not assessing here, and which is also derived only from the former [the empirical self], under given conditions in concreto, has merely subjective validity. p. 250 18 What the objective unity of self- consciousness is [continued] Kant calls subjective is not only the empirical self, that we experience through the inner sense. He also recognizes an empirical I think or apperception which is also subjective. Only the transcendental unity of apperception is objective. Slide 12 If, however, I investigate more closely the relation of given cognitions in every judgment, and distinguish that relation, as something belonging to the understanding, from the relation in accordance with laws of the reproductive imagination (which has only subjective validity), then I find that a judgment is nothing other than the way to bring given cognitions to the objective unity of apperception. That is the aim of the copula is in them: to distinguish the objective unity of given representations from the subjective. (p. 251) 19 The logical form of all judgments consist in the objective unity of the apperception of the concepts which they contain therein (pp. 251- 2) The is, the copula, in a judgment relates the judgment to the transcendental unity of apperception. It thereby obtains objectivity. Slide 13 For this word [the copula: is] designates the relation of the representations to the original apperception and its necessary unity, even if the judgment itself is empirical, hence contingent, e.g., Bodies are heavy... Only in this way does there arise from this relation a judgment, i.e., a relation that is objectively valid, and that is sufficiently distinguished from the relation of these same representations in which there would be only subjective validity, e.g., in accordance with laws of association. In accordance with the latter I could only say If I carry a body, I feel a pressure of weight, but not It, the body, is heavy,... (p. 251-2) 19 [continued] The is, the copula, in a judgment relates the judgment to the transcendental unity of apperception. It thereby obtains objectivity. Slide 14 Note: Frege and Russell, thought that propositions were neutral. They took on truth values only when asserted as judgments. Proposition were thereby referred to as bivalent. Wittgenstein in the Tractatus thought that propositions had to convey truth or falsity. The term bi-polar was used to distinguish Wittgensteins view from Russells and Freges. Of course bipolar currently less happy associations. 19 The logical form of all judgments consist in the objective unity of the apperception of the concepts which they contain therein (pp. 251-2) Slide 15 As regards Kants position -- quite apart from the fact that the Analytic denies the epistemological priority of our sensible objects required by phenomenalism -- no coherent marriage of transcendental idealism with phenomenalistic ontology can be envisaged. A phenomenalistic ontology cannot be part of the basic conception of transcendental idealism, since transcendental idealism precisely eschews any foundational commitments. Nor can phenomenalistic ontology enter in at a later point. In other words, Kants solution to how our judgments make objective claims, could never come from phenomena alone. Gardner Sebastian, Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason, (London: Routledge, 1999), p. 276. Gardner on Kants relating judgments to the transcendental unity of apperception to account for their claims to objectivity. Slide 16 20 All sensible intuitions stand under the categories, as conditions under which alone their manifold can come together in one consciousness. (p 252) Therefore all manifold, insofar as it is given in one empirical intuition, is determined in regard to one of the logical functions for judgment, by means of which, namely, it is brought to a consciousness in general. But now the categories are nothing other than these very functions for judging, insofar as the manifold of a given intuition is determined with regard to them ( 13). Thus the manifold in a given intuition also necessarily stands under categories. NOTE: Categories pertain to manifold of intuitions as determining them. Kant will later refer to the relation of the two Tables as the Metaphysical Deduction. Slide 17 They [the categories] are only rules for an understanding whose entire capacity consists in thinking, i. e., in the action of bringing the synthesis of a manifold that is given to it in intuition from elsewhere, to the unity of apperception, which therefore cognizes nothing at all by itself, but only combines and orders the material for cognition, the intuition, which must be given to it through the object. 21 Remark (253-4) This section explicates further the nature of the Categories of the Understanding. Slide 18 Elements of Kants analysis: intuition + concepts cognition and cognition experience. Kant writes p. 254: Consequently all mathematical concepts are not by themselves cognitions, except insofar as one presupposes that there are things that can be presented to us only in accordance with the form of that pure sensible intuition. Question Is Kant right about this? There are many proofs and theorems in mathematics dealing with prime numbers, e. g., that they are infinite, how they are distributed, whether there infinite 'twin primes' that is primes like 11 and 13 that are just separated by one integer. These theorems do not seem to connected in any obvious way with sensible intuitions. Are they, then, not experience? 22 The Categories have no other use for the cognition of things in its application to objects of experience (pp. 253-4) Slide 19 23 [No title] Topic: Boundaries of Categories of Understanding Our sensible and empirical intuition alone can provide them [the Categories of Understanding] with sense and significance.... But it is not yet a genuine cognition if I merely indicate what the intuition of the object is not, [e. g. a non-sensible intuition]without being able to say what is then contained in it; for then I have not represented the possibility of an object for my pure concept of the understanding at all... for I would not even know whether there could be anything that corresponded to this determination of thought if empirical intuition did not give me the case for its application. (pp. 255-6) Slide 20 Question arises as to the relation of inner sense to apperception. "Here is now the place to make intelligible the paradox that must have struck everyone in the exposition of the form of inner sense (6): namely how this presents even ourselves to consciousness only as we appear to ourselves, not as we are in ourselves, since we intuit ourselves only as we are internally affected, which seems to be contradictory, since we would have to relate ourselves passively; for this reason is it customary in the systems of psychology to treat inner sense as the same as the faculty of apperception (which we carefully distinguish). (p. 257) 24 On the application of the categories to objects of the senses in general (pp. 256-9) Slide 21 Apperception and its synthetic unity is so far from being the same as the inner sense that the former, rather, as the source of all combination, applies to all sensible intuition of objects in general, to the manifold of intuitions in general, under the name of the categories;... and thus it does not yet contain any determinate intuition at all, which is possible only through the consciousness of the determination of the manifold through the transcendental action of the imagination (synthetic influence of the understanding on the inner sense), which I have named the figurative synthesis. (p. 258) 24 On the application of the categories to objects of the senses in general (pp. 256-9) Kant now further fills out how the Transcendental Categories connect to intuitions. A concrete determination of an intuition requires the figurative synthesis, which also takes place in one consciousness.. Slide 22 We cannot think of a line without drawing it in thought, we cannot think of a circle without describing it, we cannot represent the three dimensions of space at all without placing three lines perpendicular to each other at the same point, and we cannot even represent time without, in drawing a straight line (which is to be the external figurative representation of time), attending merely to the action of the synthesis of the manifold through which we successively determine the inner sense, and thereby attending to the succession of this determination in inner sense. p. 258 24 On the application of the categories to objects of the senses in general (pp. 256-9) Kant now further fills out how the Transcendental Categories connect to intuitions. Concrete determination of an intuition requires the figurative synthesis, which also takes place in one consciousness. Examples: Slide 23 Motion, as action of the subject (not as determination of an object), consequently the synthesis of the manifold in space, if we abstract from this manifold in space and attend solely to the action in accordance with which we determine the form of inner sense, first produces the concept of succession at all. The understanding therefore does not find some sort of combination of the manifold already in inner sense, but produces it, by affecting inner sense. p. 258 24 On the application of the categories to objects of the senses in general (pp. 256-9) Kant now further fills out how the Transcendental Categories connect to intuitions. Concrete determination of an intuition requires the figurative synthesis, which also takes place in one consciousness. More examples: Slide 24 "... and I therefore have no cognition of myself as I am, but only as I appear to myself. (p. 260) The point is that I cannot bring my objective self, which is the Transcendental Unity of Apperception, into the governance of the categories. Made clearer in the footnote on p. 260: "Now I do not have yet another self-intuition, which would give the determining in me, of the spontaneity of which I alone am conscious, even before the act of determination, in the same way as time gives that which is to be determined, thus I cannot determine my existence as that of a self-active being; rather I merely represent the spontaneity of my thought, i. e., of the determining; and my existence always remains only sensibly determined, i. e., determinable as the as the existence of an appearance. Yet this spontaneity is the reason I call myself an intelligence. " 25 [Untitled] Topic is the identity of the self. (p. 259- 60). Slide 25 26 Transcendental deduction of the universally possible use of the pure concepts of the understanding in experience (pp. 261-4) NOTE: Kant refers for the first time here to the Metaphysical Deduction: In the metaphysical deduction the origin of the a priori categories in...</p>