Abstract
This paper explicates the role of language and communication in Kant’s account of objective judgment and objective reference. I take it that the basic units of proper objective reference for Kant are objective judgments, which according to Kant are acts of relating given cognitions to other cognitions in the unity of apperception. The question is, does language play any role in this activity, or is this activity reflected in language somehow? I argue that, unlike early critics such as Herder and Hamann (and many after them) have suggested, Kant does not overall neglect language and communication in his philosophy, but rather can be taken to give an account of how it is possible to use language objectively and communicate objective judgments in the first place. Even though I do not find it a plausible view that according to Kant there is no thinking at all without or prior to language, Kant’s account does not rule out the importance of language for our thinking, judging and communicating. My claim is that Kant’s account of categorical experience as universal and necessary cognition of objects provides a ground for languages and their objective use, that is, for the possibility of objective reference in language.
Bibliography
All translations are quoted from The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant (1996) and the quotation rules followed are those established by the Akademie Ausgabe (AA). Kant, Immanuel (1900 ff): Gesammelte Schriften. Hrsg.: Bd. 1 – 22 Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bd. 23 Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, ab Bd. 24 Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Berlin.
Brandt, Reinhardt (1991): Die Urteilstafel, Hamburg.10.28937/978-3-7873-2539-9Search in Google Scholar
Butts, Robert E. (1988): The Grammar of Reason: Hamann’s Challenge to Kant, in: Synthese 75, pp. 251 – 283.10.1007/BF00872981Search in Google Scholar
Dahlstrom, Daniel O. (2018): Reason within the Limits of Religion Alone: Hamann’s Onto-Christology, in: Kant and his German Contemporaries. Volume 2: Aesthetics, History, Politics, and Religion., ed. Daniel. O. Dahlstrom, Cambridge, pp. 238 – 256.10.1017/9781316823415.013Search in Google Scholar
Forster, Michael (2010): After Herder. Philosophy of Language in the German Tradition, Oxford.Search in Google Scholar
Forster, Michael (2012): Kant’s Philosophy of Language?, in: Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 74, pp. 485 – 511.Search in Google Scholar
Herder, J.G. (2002): Philosophical Writings. Transl. & Ed. Michael N. Forster, Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9781139164634Search in Google Scholar
Laiho, Hemmo (2012): Perception in Kant’s Model of Experience. Reports from the Department of Philosophy, vol. 26., Turku.Search in Google Scholar
O’Flaherty, James C. (1952): Unity and Language: A Study in the Philosophy of Johann Georg Hamann, North Carolina.Search in Google Scholar
Perconti, Pietro (1999): Kantian Linguistics, Münster.Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles (2016): The Language Animal, Cambridge.10.4159/9780674970250Search in Google Scholar
Wolff, Michael (1995): Die Vollständigkeit der kantischen Urteilstafel, Frankfurt am Main.10.3196/9783465028116Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
