Matthew Boyle
University of Chicago
Kant famously characterizes our human understanding as a “spontaneous” faculty, but what can this mean? I criticize some recent interpretations of Kant’s claim and suggest that we can only understand what Kant means by “the spontaneity of understanding” if we recognize certain basic differences between how Kant conceived of cognition and how philosophers commonly think of it today. I go on to argue that Kant’s conception of cognition represents an appealing alternative to the unsatisfying options that contemporary ways of thinking seem to force on us.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1515/dzph-2015-0050
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,587
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Understanding and Sensibility.Stephen Engstrom - 2006 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 49 (1):2 – 25.
Sensibility and Understanding.S. Engstrorn - 2006 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 49 (1):2-25.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Inferring as a Way of Knowing.Nicholas Koziolek - 2017 - Synthese (Suppl 7):1563-1582.
Belief as an Act of Reason.Nicholas Koziolek - 2018 - Manuscrito 41 (4):287-318.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
71 ( #154,722 of 2,461,958 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #298,784 of 2,461,958 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes