Abstract
This paper explores Beck’s theory of original representing in order to discuss both its historical and theoretical relevance and its implications concerning Kant’s views on the capacity to judge. My first concern will be to highlight the main points of Beck’s Kant interpretation and to show at which points he misunderstands Kant. My analysis also contains a positive aspect, for I adopt Beck’s claim that there is only one possible standpoint from which critical philosophy ought to be judged. Unlike Beck, I shall argue that this standpoint is that of Judgment’s normativity. I will consider the normative structure of Judgment from three perspectives: the proto-synthetic import of sensibility; the normative character of the pure concepts of the understanding; the lawfulness of the principles of the understanding. My basic idea is that only a normative account of Judgment can prove how and why all experience depends on the possibility of synthetic a priori judgments. On Kant’s account, the capacity to judge applies transcendental rules to establish the laws which make our experience and knowledge both possible and legitimate. Every single object is an object of experience only insofar as it conforms to the normative structure of Judgment. For Kant, to constitute an object means to apply the rules which make something possible as an object of experience and cognition.
Allais, L. 2015. Manifest Reality. Kant’s Idealism and his Realism. Oxford.10.1007/s11098-016-0828-7Search in Google Scholar
Bondeli, M. 1995. Das Anfangsproblem bei Karl Leonhard Reinhold. Eine systematische und entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Philosophie Reinholds in der Zeit von 1789–1803. Frankfurt/M.10.3196/9783465026433Search in Google Scholar
Caimi, M. 2012. “The Logical Structure of Time According to the Chapter on the Schematism”. Kant-Studien 103, 415–28.10.1515/kant-2012-0031Search in Google Scholar
Cassirer, E. 2000. Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie und Wissenschaft der neueren Zeit, Bd. III, Die nachkantischen Systeme. Hamburg.Search in Google Scholar
De Boer, K. 2016. “Categories versus Schemata: Kant’s Two-Aspect Theory of Pure Concepts and his Critique of Wolffian Metaphysics”. Journal of the History of Philosophy 54/3, 441–68.10.1353/hph.2016.0068Search in Google Scholar
De Vleeschauwer, H. J. 1962. The Development of Kantian Thought. The History of a Doctrine. London/New York.Search in Google Scholar
Di Giovanni, G./Harris, H. S. 2000. Between Kant and Hegel. Texts in the Development of Post-Kantian Idealism. Indianapolis.Search in Google Scholar
Dilthey, W. 1889. “Die Rostocker Kanthandschriften”. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 2, 592–650.10.1515/agph.1889.2.4.592Search in Google Scholar
Ferrarin, A. 2012. “Pure Intuition in Mathematics: Historical Origins of a Misunderstanding”. Studi Kantiani XXV, 31–44.Search in Google Scholar
–. 2015. The Powers of Pure Reason. Kant and the Idea of Cosmic Philosophy. Chicago.10.7208/chicago/9780226243290.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Förster, E. 2005. “Fichte, Beck and Schelling in Kant’s Opus Postumum”. In Kant and his Influence. Ed. G. MacDonald Ross/T. McWalter. New York/London, 146–69.Search in Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 2007. Introduction to Kant’s Anthropology. Cambridge, MA.Search in Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1992. Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge, MA.Search in Google Scholar
Grüne, S. 2009. Blinde Anschauung. Die Rolle von Begriffen in Kants Theorie sinnlicher Synthesis. Frankfurt/M.10.5771/9783465136347Search in Google Scholar
Guyer, P. 1987. Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511624766Search in Google Scholar
Kobe, Z. 2018. “Der Fall Jacob Sigismund Beck”. In Kant and his Critics. Ed. H. F. Klemme/A. Falduto. Hildesheim, 83–98.Search in Google Scholar
La Rocca, C. 1989. “Schematismus und Anwendung”. Kant-Studien 80, 129–54.10.1515/kant.1989.80.1-4.129Search in Google Scholar
Lanier Anderson, R. 2001. “Synthesis, Cognitive Normativity, and the Meaning of Kant’s Question, ‘How are Synthetic Cognitions A Priori Possible?’”. European Journal of Philosophy 9(3), 275–305.10.1111/1468-0378.00138Search in Google Scholar
Longuenesse, B. 1998. Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Sensibility and Discursivity in the Transcendental Analytic of the Critique of Pure Reason. Princeton.10.1515/9780691214122Search in Google Scholar
Lu-Adler, H. 2017. “Kant and the Normativity of Logic”. European Journal of Philosophy, DOI: 10.1111/ejop.12242.10.1111/ejop.12242Search in Google Scholar
Makkreel, R. A. 1990. Imagination and Interpretation in Kant. The Hermeneutical Import of the Critique of Judgment. Chicago.Search in Google Scholar
Meyer, T. L. 1991. Das Problem eines höchsten Grundsatzes der Philosophie bei Jacob Sigismund Beck. Amsterdam.10.1163/9789004455658Search in Google Scholar
Nitzan, L. 2014. Jacob Sigismund Beck’s Standpunctslehre and the Kantian Thing-in-itself Debate. The Relation Between a Representation and its Object. Dordrecht.10.1007/978-3-319-05984-6Search in Google Scholar
Pollok, K. 2017. Kant’s Theory of Normativity. Exploring the Space of Reason. Cambridge.10.1017/9781316412503Search in Google Scholar
Schmucker-Hartmann, J. 1976. Der Widerspruch von Vorstellung und Gegenstand. Zum Kantverständnis von Jacob Sigismund Beck. Meisenheim/G.Search in Google Scholar
Shaddock, J. B. 2017. “Kant’s Conceptualism: A New Reading of the Transcendental Deduction”. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, DOI: 10.1111/papq.12189.10.1111/papq.12189Search in Google Scholar
Wallner, I. M. 1984. “A New Look at J. S. Beck’s Doctrine of the Standpoint”. Kant-Studien 75, 294–316.10.1515/kant.1984.75.1-4.294Search in Google Scholar
Wallner, I. M. 1985. “J. S. Beck and Husserl: The New Episteme in the Kantian Tradition”. Journal of the History of Philosophy 23(2), 195–220.10.1353/hph.1985.0044Search in Google Scholar
Watkins, E. 2010. “The System of Principles”. In The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Ed. P. Guyer. Cambridge, 151–67.10.1017/CCOL9780521883863.007Search in Google Scholar
Watkins, E. 2005. Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511614217Search in Google Scholar
Zeller, E. 1873. Geschichte der deutschen Philosophie seit Leibniz. München.10.1515/9783486722826Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
