Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (1):33-63 (2000)
Although both Kant and Wittgenstein made claims about the “unknowability” of cognitive subjects, the current practice of assimilating their positions is mistaken. I argue that Allison’s attempt to understand the Kantian self through the early Wittgenstein and McDowell’s linking of Kant and the later Wittgenstein distort rather than illuminate. Against McDowell, I argue further that the Critique’s analysis of the necessary conditions for cognition produces an account of the sources of epistemic nonnativity that is importantly different from McDowell’s own account in terms of a ‘second nature’ created through ‘Bildung’. Finally, I argue that Kant’s epistemic analyses also lead to a model of the cognitive self that answers two contemporary questions: why should we refer to selves at all? in what dies the unity of a subject of thought consist?
|Keywords||Analytic Philosophy Contemporary Philosophy Philosophy of Mind|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
‘Second Nature’, Knowledge, and Normativity: Revisiting McDowell’s Kant.Christopher Norris - 2011 - Diametros 27:64-107.
Kant and Wittgenstein: Common Sense, Therapy, and the Critical Philosophy.Kurt Mosser - 2009 - Philosophia 37 (1):1-20.
Kant on the Content of Cognition.Clinton Tolley - 2012 - European Journal of Philosophy 20 (4):200-228.
Wittgenstein, Kant and the Critique of Totality.Paul Livingston - 2007 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 33 (6):691-715.
Contemporary Epistemology: Kant, Hegel, McDowell.Kenneth R. Westphal - 2006 - European Journal of Philosophy 14 (2):274–301.
Wilson on Kripke's Wittgenstein.Michael Kremer - 2000 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (3):571-584.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads61 ( #87,071 of 2,178,194 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #35,576 of 2,178,194 )
How can I increase my downloads?