David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Inquiry 49 (1):2 – 25 (2006)
Kant holds that the human cognitive power is divided into two "stems", understanding and sensibility. This doctrine has seemed objectionably dualistic to many critics, who see these stems as distinct parts, each able on its own to produce representations, which must somehow interact, determining or constraining one another, in order to secure the fit, requisite for cognition, between concept and intuition. This reading cannot be squared, however, with what Kant actually says about theoretical cognition and the way understanding and sensibility cooperate in it. Such cognition, as Kant conceives of it, satisfies two conditions: it has unity, and it depends on the existence of its object. The first of these conditions entails that the cognitive power must lie in spontaneity, or understanding, while the second implies that this spontaneity depends on receptivity, or sensibility, to be the cognitive power that it is. Consideration of how these capacities must be conceived as cooperating in cognition reveals them to be related, not as interacting parts, but as form and matter. Such a conception of their relation may at first glance seem to be merely another version of dualistic thinking; in fact, however, a proper appreciation of it eliminates the appearance of dualism and helps allay an associated concern that Kant's distinction would taint our cognition with an unacceptable subjectivism.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Hannah Ginsborg (2008). Was Kant a Nonconceptualist? Philosophical Studies 137 (1):65 - 77.
Nathan Bauer (2012). A Peculiar Intuition: Kant's Conceptualist Account of Perception. Inquiry 55 (3):215-237.
Similar books and articles
Michael J. Pendlebury (1999). Sensibility and Understanding in Perceptual Judgments. South African Journal of Philosophy 18 (4):356-369.
Rebecca Kukla (ed.) (2006). Aesthetics and Cognition in Kant's Critical Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Katherine Dunlop (2009). The Unity of Time's Measure: Kant's Reply to Locke. Philosophers' Imprint 9 (4):1-31.
Patrick Kain (2010). Practical Cognition, Intuition, and the Fact of Reason. In Benjamin Lipscomb & James Krueger (eds.), Kant's Moral Metaphysics: God, Freedom, and Immortality. de Gruyter. 211--230.
Markos Valaris (2008). Inner Sense, Self-Affection, and Temporal Consciousness in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Philosophers' Imprint 8 (4):1-18.
A. R. (2003). The Cognition-Knowledge Distinction in Kant and Dilthey and the Implications for Psychology and Self-Understanding. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 34 (1):149-164.
Clinton Tolley (2012). Kant on the Content of Cognition. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (4):200-228.
Julian Wuerth (2013). Sense and Sensibility in Kant's Practical Agent: Against the Intellectualism of Korsgaard and Sidgwick. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (1):1-36.
Richard N. Manning (2006). The Necessity of Receptivity : Exploring a Unified Account of Kantian Sensibility and Understanding. In Rebecca Kukla (ed.), Aesthetics and Cognition in Kant's Critical Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads283 ( #1,921 of 1,692,629 )
Recent downloads (6 months)22 ( #8,882 of 1,692,629 )
How can I increase my downloads?