|Abstract||According to the ‘One Object’ reading of Kant’s transcendental idealism, the distinction between the appearance and the thing in itself is not a distinction between two objects, but between two ways of considering one and the same object. On the ‘Metaphysical’ version of the One Object reading, it is a distinction between two kinds of properties possessed by one and the same object. Consequently, the Metaphysical One Object view holds that a given appearance, an empirical object, is numerically identical to the thing in itself that appears as that object. I raise various indiscernibility arguments against that view; because an appearance has different spatiotemporal and modal properties than a thing in itself, no appearance can be identical to a thing in itself. I point out that these arguments are similar to arguments against Monism, the view that material objects are numerically identical to the matter of which they are made. I outline some strategies Monists have developed to respond to these indiscernibility arguments and then develop parallel responses on behalf of the Metaphysical One Object view. However, I then raise another indiscernibility argument, to which, I argue, the Metaphysical One Object view cannot respond, even using the resources I have developed thus far. I develop a modified version of the Metaphysical One Object view that can respond to this new indiscernibility argument, but, I argue, this modified version of the One Object view is only a terminological variant of the Two Object view. When the Metaphysical One Object view is fully thought through it becomes the Two Object view. I conclude that Kantian appearances are not numerically identical to the things in themselves that appear to us.|
|Keywords||Kant Transcendental Idealism Thing in itself|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Lior Nitzan (2010). The Thought of an Object and the Object of Thought: A Critique of Henry E. Allison's 'Two Aspect' View. Archiv für Geschichte Der Philosophie 92 (2):176-198.
Sebastian Luft (2007). From Being to Givenness and Back: Some Remarks on the Meaning of Transcendental Idealism in Kant and Husserl. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 15 (3):367 – 394.
Dennis Schulting (2010). Limitation and Idealism: Kant's 'Long' Argument From the Categories. In Dennis Schulting Jacco Verburgt (ed.), Kant's Idealism. Springer.
Robert Allen (2000). Identity and Becoming. Southern Journal of Philosophy 38 (4):527-548.
Edmund Runggaldier (1998). Sortal Continuity of Material Things. Erkenntnis 48 (2-3):359-369.
Andrew Arlig (2007). Abelard's Assault on Everyday Objects. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 81 (2):209-227.
Joseph G. Moore (2008). A Modal Argument Against Vague Objects. Philosophers' Imprint 8 (12):1-17.
L. A. Paul (2006). In Defense of Essentialism. Philosophical Perspectives 20 (1):333–372.
E. J. Lowe (2007). Sortals and the Individuation of Objects. Mind and Language 22 (5):514–533.
Timothy L. S. Sprigge (1966). The Common‐Sense View of Physical Objects. Inquiry 9 (1-4):339-373.
Arda Denkel (1996). Object and Property. Cambridge University Press.
Eric Marcus (2006). Events, Sortals, and the Mind-Body Problem. Synthese 150 (1):99-129.
Added to index2012-07-19
Total downloads72 ( #11,661 of 549,070 )
Recent downloads (6 months)26 ( #1,863 of 549,070 )
How can I increase my downloads?