Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:14:59.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spatial representation, magnitude and the two stems of cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Thomas Land
Thomas Land*
Affiliation:
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, UK
*
*Email: tcl37@cam.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to show that attention to Kant’s philosophy of mathematics sheds light on the doctrine that there are two stems of the cognitive capacity, which are distinct, but equally necessary for cognition. Specifically, I argue for the following four claims: (i) The distinctive structure of outer sensible intuitions must be understood in terms of the concept of magnitude. (ii) The act of sensibly representing a magnitude involves a special act of spontaneity Kant ascribes to a capacity he calls the productive imagination. (iii) Contrary to what is assumed by many commentators, it is not the case that the Two Stems Doctrine implies that a representation is either sensible or spontaneity-dependent, but not both. (iv) Outer sensible intuitions are both sensible and spontaneity-dependent – they are sensible because they exhibit the kind of structure Kant takes to be distinctive of outer sensible intuitions, and they depend on spontaneity because they are cases of sensibly representing a magnitude.

Keywords

intuitionsensibilityconceptspontaneitymagnitudeproductive imaginationspace
Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 44 , Issue 5-6: Special Issue: Mathematics in Kant’s Critical Philosophy , December 2014 , pp. 524 - 550
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allais, Lucy. 2009. “Kant, Non-Conceptual Content, and the Representation of Space.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 47: 383–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry. 2004. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense. 2nd ed.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Lanier. 2005. “The Wolffian Paradigm and Its Discontents: Kant’s Containment Definition of Analyticity in Historical Context.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 87: 22–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Lewis White. 2002. “Did the Sage of Königsberg Have No Dreams?” In Selected Essays on Kant, edited by Robinson, Hoke, 85–101. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
Carson, Emily. 1997. “Kant on Intuition in Geometry.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 27: 489–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Gareth. 1985. “Things Without the Mind.” In Collected Papers, edited by Phillips, Antonia, 249–290. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1992. Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2000. “Geometry, Construction, and Intuition in Kant and His Successors.” In Between Logic and Intuition, edited by Sher, Gila, and Tieszen, Richard, 186–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2012. “Kant on Geometry and Spatial Intuition.” Synthese 186: 231–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah. 2006. “Kant and the Problem of Experience.” Philosophical Topics 34: 59–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah. 2008. “Was Kant a Nonconceptualist?” Philosophical Studies 137: 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, Aaron. 2012. “Perception and the Categories.” European Journal of Philosophy 20: 193–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, Robert. 2005. “Kant and Nonconceptual Content.” European Journal of Philosophy 13: 247–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, Robert. 2011. “Kant’s Non-Conceptualism, Rogue Objects, and the Gap in the B Deduction.” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19: 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 1953. “Zur theoretischen Philosophie Kants” [On Kant’s Theoretical Philosophy]. Philosophische Rundschau 1: 124–149.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaako. 1969a. “Kant on the Mathematical Method.” In Kant Studies Today, edited by White Beck, Lewis, 117–140. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaako. 1969b. “On Kant’s Notion of Intuition (Anschauung).” In The First Critique: Reflections on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, edited by Penelhum, T., and MacIntosh, J. J., 38–53. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1902ff. Kants gesammelte Schriften. Edited by the Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: de Gruyter and predecessors.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited byPaul, Guyer and Allen, Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Land, Thomas. 2006. “Kant’s Spontaneity Thesis.” Philosophical Topics 34: 189–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Land, Thomas. Forthcoming. “No Other Use than in Judgment? Kant on Concepts and Sensible Synthesis.” Journal of the History of Philosophy.Google Scholar
McDowell, John. 1998. “Having the World in View: Sellars, Kant, and Intentionality.” Journal of Philosophy 95: 431–491.Google Scholar
McDowell, John. 2009a. “Avoiding the Myth of the Given.” Chap. 14 inHaving the World in View: Essays on Kant, Hegel, and Sellars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McDowell, John. 2009b. “Sensory Consciousness in Kant and Sellars.” Chap. 6 inHaving the World in View: Essays on Kant, Hegel, and Sellars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McLear, Colin. Forthcoming-a. “The Kantian (Non)-Conceptualism Debate.” Philosophy Compass.Google Scholar
McLear, Colin. Forthcoming-b. “Two Kinds of Unity in the Critique of Pure Reason.” Journal of the History of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Parsons, Charles. 1982. “Kant’s Philosophy of Arithmetic.” In Kant on Pure Reason, edited by Walker, Ralph, 13–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert. 1982. Kant’s Theory of Form. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rödl, Sebastian. 2012. Categories of the Temporal. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rohs, Peter. 2001. “Bezieht sich nach Kant die Anschauungunmittelbar auf Gegenstände?” [Does Intuition relate immediately to Objects, according to Kant?]. In Kant und die Berliner Aufklärung, edited by Gerhardt, Volker, Horstmann, Rolf-Peter and Schumacher, Ralph, vol. 2, 214–228. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schulthess, Peter. 1981. Relation und Funktion. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid. 1967. “Some Remarks on Kant’s Theory of Experience.” Journal of Philosophy 64: 633–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid. 1978. “The Role of Imagination in Kant’s Theory of Experience.” In Categories: A Colloquium, edited by Johnstone, Henry, 231–245. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid. 1992. “Sensibility and Understanding.” Chap. 1 inScience and Metaphysics: Variations on Kantian Themes. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid. 2002. Kant and Pre-Kantian Themes: Lectures by Wilfrid Sellars, edited by Amaral, Pedro. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Shabel, Lisa. 1998. “Kant on the ‘Symbolic Construction’ of Mathematical Concepts.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29A: 589–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shabel, Lisa. 2003. Mathematics in Kant’s Critical Philosophy: Reflections on Mathematical Practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shabel, Lisa. 2005. “Apriority and Application: Philosophy of Mathematics in the Modern Period.” In Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, edited by Shapiro, Stewart, 29–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Peter. 1966. The Bounds of Sense. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Sutherland, Daniel. 2004a. “Kant’s Philosophy of Mathematics and the Greek Mathematical Tradition.” Philosophical Review 113: 157–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, Daniel. 2004b. “The Role of Magnitude in Kant’s Critical Philosophy.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 34: 411–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolley, Clinton. 2013. “The Non-Conceptuality of the Content of Intuitions.” Kantian Review 18: 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Daniel. 1998. “Kant and the Apriority of Space.” Philosophical Review 107 (2): 179–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, Michael. 1995. Die Vollständigkeit der kantischen Urteilstafel. Miteinem Essay über Freges ‘Begriffsschrift’[The Completeness of Kant’s Table of Judgments. Including an Essay on Frege’s ‘Begriffsschrift’]. Frankfurt a.M.Klostermann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar