David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
European Journal of Philosophy 21 (4):507-524 (2013)
In a recent paper, Robert Hanna argues that Kant's incongruent counterparts example can be mobilized to show that some mental representations, which represent complex states of affairs as complex, do so entirely non-conceptually. I will argue that Hanna is right to see that Kant uses incongruent counterparts to show that there must be a non-conceptual component to cognition, but goes too far in concluding that there must be entirely non-conceptual representations that represent objects as existing in space and time. Kant is deeply committed to the thesis that no representation of a complex state of affairs as complex can be entirely non-conceptual. For Kant, all representations of complex states of affairs as complex (including those of incongruent counterparts) are conceptually structured. I present an interpretation of the Transcendental Aesthetic according to which Kant not only aims at Leibnizian and Newtonian accounts of space and time, but also Hume's. Hume's account fails to make representations of complex states of affairs sufficiently determinate. Kant offers an account later in the Critique that is meant to correct this failing by requiring that all representations of complex states of affairs as complex be conceptually (inferentially) structured
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Rogério Passos Severo (2005). Three Remarks on the Interpretation of Kant on Incongruent Counterparts. Kantian Review 9 (1):30-57.
Carolyn Brighouse (1999). Incongruent Counterparts and Modal Relationism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13 (1):53 – 68.
Rogério Passos Severo (2007). A Puzzle About Incongruent Counterparts and the Critique of Pure Reason. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (4):507–521.
Hud Hudson (2004). Temporally Incongruent Counterparts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (2):337–343.
Hud Hudson (2004). Temporally Incongruent Counterparts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (2):337 - 343.
Sean Walsh (2007). Incongruent Counterparts and Causality. Kant-Studien 98 (4):418-430.
Graham Nerlich (2009). Incongruent Counterparts and the Reality of Space. Philosophy Compass 4 (3):598-613.
Sven Bernecker (2012). Kant on Spatial Orientation. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (4):519-533.
Paul Rusnock & Rolf George (1995). A Last Shot at Kant and Incongruent Counterparts. Kant-Studien 86 (3):257-277.
William Harper (1991). Kant on Incongruent Counterparts. In James Van~Cleve & Robert E. Frederick (eds.), The Philosophy of Right and Left. Kluwer. 263--313.
Hoke Robinson (1981). Incongruent Counterparts and the Refutation of Idealism. Kant-Studien 72 (1-4):391-397.
Mark Hulbert (1993). Kant's Uses of the Argument From Incongruent Counterparts. Southwest Philosophy Review 9 (2):110-113.
Jeremy Byrd (2008). A Remark on Kant's Argument From Incongruent Counterparts. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 16 (4):789 – 800.
Peter Woelert (2007). Kant's Hands, Spatial Orientation, and the Copernican Turn. Continental Philosophy Review 40 (2):139-150.
Thomas Mormann (2012). On the Mereological Structure of Complex States of Affairs. Synthese 187 (2):403-418.
Added to index2011-02-24
Total downloads26 ( #56,529 of 1,088,873 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #42,739 of 1,088,873 )
How can I increase my downloads?