Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:54:51.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kant’s Transcendental Deduction and the Unity of Space and Time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2018

Andrew F. Roche
Andrew F. Roche*
Affiliation:
Centre College
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On one reading of Kant’s account of our original representations of space and time, they are, in part, products of the understanding or imagination. On another, they are brute, sensible givens, entirely independent of the understanding. In this article, while I agree with the latter interpretation, I argue for a version of it that does more justice to the insights of the former than others currently available. I claim that Kant’s Transcendental Deduction turns on the representations of space and time as determinate, enduring particulars, whose unity is both given and a product of synthesis.

Keywords

Kantspacetimecategoriesform of intuitionformal intuition
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 41 - 64
Copyright
© Kantian Review 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allais, Lucy (2009) ‘Kant, Non-Conceptual Content and the Representation of Space’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 47 (3), 383–413.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E. (2000) ‘Where Have all the Categories Gone? Reflections on Longuenesse’s Reading of Kant’s Transcendental Deduction’. Inquiry, 43, 67–80.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E. (2004) Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense, Rev. ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. Lanier (2001) ‘Synthesis, Cognitive Normativity, and the Meaning of Kant’s Question, “How are synthetic cognitions a priori possible?”’. European Journal of Philosophy, 9 (3), 275–305.Google Scholar
Aquila, Richard E. (2001) ‘Infinitude, Whole-Part Priority, and the Ambiguity of Kantian “Space” and “Time”’. In Volker Gerhardt, Rolf-Peter Horstmann and Ralph Schumacher (eds), Kant und die Berliner Aufklärung: Akten des IX. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, vol. 2 (Berlin: de Gruyter), pp. 99–109.Google Scholar
Beck, Jakob Sigismund (2000) ‘Excerpt of The Standpoint from which Critical Philosophy is to be Judged ’. Trans. George di Giovanni. In George di Giovanni and H.S. Harris (trans. and eds), Between Kant and Hegel: Texts in the Development of Post-Kantian Idealism, rev. ed. (Indianapolis: Hackett), pp. 204–249.Google Scholar
Buchdahl, Gerd (1969) Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science—The Classical Origins: Descartes to Kant. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carson, Emily (1997) ‘Kant on Intuition in Geometry’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 27 (4), 489–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufour, Éric (2003) ‘Remarques sur la note du paragraphe 26 de l’Analytique transcendentale. Les interprétations de Cohen et de Heidegger’. Kant-Studien, 94, 69–79.Google Scholar
Falkenstein, Lorne (2004) Kant’s Intuitionism: A Commentary on the Transcendental Aesthetic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Fichant, Michel (1997) ‘“L’Espace est Représenté comme une Grandeur Infinie Donnée”: La Radicalité de l’Esthétique’. Philosophie, 56, 20–48.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael (2012) ‘Kant on Geometry and Spatial Intuition’. Synthese, 186, 231–255.Google Scholar
Gibbons, Sarah L. (2002) Kant’s Theory of Imagination: Bridging Gaps in Judgement and Experience . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah (2006) ‘Kant and the Problem of Experience’. Philosophical Topics, 34 (1–2), 59–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah (2008) ‘Was Kant a Nonconceptualist?’. Philosophical Studies, 137, 65–77.Google Scholar
Gomes, Anil (2014) ‘Kant on Perception: Naïve Realism, Non-Conceptualism, and the B-Deduction’. Philosophical Quarterly, 64 (254), 1–19.Google Scholar
Grüne, Stefanie (2016) ‘Sensible Synthesis and the Intuition of Space’. In Dennis Schulting (ed.), Kantian Nonconceptualism (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 81–98.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (1980) ‘Kant on Apperception and A Priori Synthesis’. American Philosophical Quarterly, 17 (3), 205–212.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1977) Faith and Knowledge, Trans. Walter Cerf and H. S. Harris. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin (1997) Phenomenological Interpretation of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Parvis Emad and Kenneth Maly. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas (2005) ‘Third Set of Objections [to Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy] with the Author’s Replies’. Trans. John Cottingham. In John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, Dugald Murdoch and Anthony Kenny (eds), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 121–137.Google Scholar
Hume, David (2000) An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding . In L.A. Selby-Bigge and P. H. Nidditch (eds), Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp 5–165.Google Scholar
Hume, David (2006) A Treatise of Human Nature. Ed. David Fate Norton and Mary J. Norton. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1992) ‘ Immanuel Kant’s Logic: A Manual for Lectures [Jäsche Logic]’. Ed. Gottlob Benjamin Jäsche. In J. Michael Young (trans. and ed.), Lectures on Logic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 515–640.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1993) Opus Postumum. Trans. Eckart Förster and Michael Rosen, ed. Eckart Förster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1998) Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. and ed. Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1999) Correspondence. Trans. and ed. Arnulf Zweig. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2000) Critique of the Power of Judgment. Trans. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews, ed. Paul Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2001) Lectures on Ethics. Trans. Peter Heath, ed. Peter Heath and J. B. Schneewind Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2002) Theoretical Philosophy After 1781. Trans. Gary Hatfield (Prolegomena) and Henry Allison (On a Discovery), ed. Henry Allison and Peter Heath (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 29–169, 271–336.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2005) Notes and Fragments. Trans. Curtis Bowman, Paul Guyer and Frederick Rauscher, ed. Paul Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2007) Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View . Trans. Robert B. Louden. In Günter Zöller and Robert B. Louden (eds), Anthropology, History, and Education (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 227–429.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2014) ‘On Kästner’s Treatises’. Trans. Christian Onof and Dennis Schulting. Kantian Review, 19 (2), 305–313.Google Scholar
Locke, John (1979) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Peter H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice (1998) Kant and the Capacity to Judge: Sensibility and Discursivity in the Transcendental Analytic of the Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Charles T. Wolfe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice (2005) Kant on the Human Standpoint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McDowell, John (2003) ‘Hegel and the Myth of the Given’. In Wolfgang Welsch and Klaus Vieweg (eds), Das Interesse des Denkens Hegel aus heutiger Sicht (Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag), pp. 75–88.Google Scholar
McDowell, John (2009) Having the World in View: Essays on Kant, Hegel, and Sellars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McLear, Colin (2015) ‘Two Kinds of Unity in the Critique of Pure Reason ’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 53 (1), 79–110.Google Scholar
Melnick, Arthur (1973) Kant’s Analogies of Experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Messina, James (2014) ‘Kant on the Unity of Space and the Synthetic Unity of Apperception’. Kant-Studien, 105 (1), 5–40.Google Scholar
Morrison, Margaret (1998) ‘Community and Coexistence: Kant’s Third Analogy of Experience’. Kant-Studien, 89, 257–277.Google Scholar
Naragon, Steve (1990) ‘Kant on Descartes and the Brutes’. Kant-Studien, 81, 1–23.Google Scholar
Onof, Christian, and Schulting, Dennis (2014) ‘Kant, Kästner and the Distinction between Metaphysical and Geometric Space’. Kantian Review, 19 (2), 285–304.Google Scholar
Onof, Christian, and Schulting, Dennis (2015) ‘Space as Form of Intuition and as Formal Intuition: On the Note to B160 in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason ’. Philosophical Review, 124 (1), 1–58.Google Scholar
Parsons, Charles (1992) ‘The Transcendental Aesthetic’. In Paul Guyer (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Kant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 62–100.Google Scholar
Paton, H.J. (1936) Kant’s Metaphysic of Experience: A Commentary on the First Half of the Kritik der Reinen Vernunft. 2 vols. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd.Google Scholar
Pendlebury, Michael (1995) ‘Making Sense of Kant’s Schematism’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55 (4), 777–797.Google Scholar
Pendlebury, Michael (1996) ‘The Role of Imagination in Perception’. South African Journal of Philosophy, 15 (4), 133–138.Google Scholar
Pollok, Konstantin (2008) ‘“An Almost Single Inference”–Kant’s Deduction of the Categories Reconsidered’. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 90, 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, Andrew (2010) ‘Kant’s Principle of Sense’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 18 (4), 663–691.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid (1978) ‘The Role of the Imagination in Kant’s Theory of Experience’. In Henry W. Johnstone, Jr. (ed.), Categories: A Colloquium (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University), pp. 231–245.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid (2003) Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sutherland, Daniel (2005) ‘The Point of Kant’s Axioms of Intuition’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 86, 135–159.Google Scholar
Tolley, Clinton (2016) ‘The Difference between Original, Metaphysical and Geometrical Representations of Space’. In Dennis Schulting (ed.), Kantian Nonconceptualism (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaihinger, Hans (1922) Kommentar zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Ed. Raymund Schmidt. Stuttgart: Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Waxman, Wayne (1991) Kant’s Model of the Mind: A New Interpretation of Transcendental Idealism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waxman, Wayne (2005) Kant and the Empiricists: Understanding Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar