David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of the History of Philosophy 47 (3):pp. 355-382 (2009)
In the transcendental aesthetic of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant claims that space and time are neither things in themselves nor properties of things in themselves but mere subjective forms of our sensible experience. Call this the Subjectivity Thesis. The striking conclusion follows an analysis of the representations of space and time. Kant argues that the two representations function as a priori conditions of experience, and are singular "intuitions" rather than general concepts. He also contends that the representations underwrite some non-trivial a priori cognition of the objects of sensible experience. The Subjectivity Thesis is then presented as an immediate consequence: Space represents no property at all of any things in themselves nor any relation of them to each other. . . . For neither absolute nor relative determinations can be intuited prior to the existence of the things to which they pertain, thus [neither] can be intuited a priori. Time is not something which exists of itself, or which inheres in things as an objective determination. . . . [Were it] a determination or order inhering in things themselves, it could not precede the objects as their condition, and be known and intuited a priori by means of synthetic propositions. Kant's argument for the Subjectivity Thesis seems to have the following structure: * No absolute or relational features of things in themselves can be cognized a priori
|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
Edward Kanterian (2013). The Ideality of Space and Time: Trendelenburg Versus Kant, Fischer and Bird. Kantian Review 18 (2):263-288.
Ohad Nachtomy (2012). Leibniz and Kant on Possibility and Existence. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (5):953-972.
Similar books and articles
JT Paasch (2011). Are the Father and Son Different in Kind? Scotus and Ockham on Different Kinds of Things, Univocal and Equivocal Production, and Subordination in the Trinity. Vivarium 48 (3-4):302-326.
A. Diller (2013). On Critical and Pancritical Rationalism. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 43 (2):127-156.
Kristie Miller (2008). Thing and Object. Acta Analytica 23 (1):69-89.
Larry Lee Blackman (1983). Russell on the Relations of Universals and Particulars. Philosophy Research Archives 9:265-278.
Alan Nelson (ed.) (2005). A Companion to Rationalism. Blackwell Pub..
Abraham Olivier (2006). The Spatiality of Pain. South African Journal of Philosophy 25 (4):336-349.
Frederick Doepke (1996). The Kinds of Things: A Theory of Personal Identity Based on Transcendental Argument. Open Court Publishing Company.
Douglas W. Portmore (2011). Consequentialism and Moral Rationalism. In Mark Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics. Oxford Univ Pr
Henry E. Allison (1976). The Non-Spatiality of Things in Themselves for Kant. Journal of the History of Philosophy 14 (3):313-321.
Added to index2009-07-22
Total downloads264 ( #8,853 of 1,907,137 )
Recent downloads (6 months)25 ( #28,124 of 1,907,137 )
How can I increase my downloads?