Thinking the In-itself and Its Relation to Appearances

  • Christian Onof
Part of the The New Synthese Historical Library book series (SYNL, volume 66)


The impetus for this paper is the question of how to think of the in-itself and its role in Transcendental Idealism. This is only an issue if Kant’s claim that the in-itself exists has more than a methodological meaning, so the paper will start by emphasizing the metaphysical dimension of the enterprise of the Critique of Pure Reason (CPR).


Intuitive Representation Transcendental Idealism Transcendental Argument Empirical Object Conceptual Determination 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Causal Theory of Perception


Transcendental Idealism


Transcendental Realism


Transcendental Unity of Apperception



I am grateful to Manfred Baum and Gary Banham for comments on a previous oral version of this paper, and indebted to Dennis Schulting and his in-depth knowledge of the literature for commenting on this paper with thoughtful insights.


  1. Abela, P. 2002. Kant’s Empirical Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allais, L. 2006. ‘Intrinsic Natures: A Critique of Langton on Kant’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73(1): 143–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allison, H. 1968. ‘Kant’s Concept of the Transcendental Object’. Kant-Studien 59: 165–186.Google Scholar
  4. Allison, H. 2000. ‘Where Have All the Categories Gone? Reflections on Longuenesse’s Reading of Kant’s Transcendental Deduction’. Inquiry 43(1): 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allison, H. 2004. Transcendental Idealism. An Interpretation and Defense. Enlarged and Revised edition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ameriks, K. 2003. Interpreting Kant’s Critiques. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ameriks, K. 2006. Kant and the Historical Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aquila, R. 1979. ‘Things in Themselves and Appearances: Intentionality and Reality in Kant’. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 61: 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beiser, F. 2002. German Idealism: The Struggle Against Subjectivism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Buroker, J. 1981. Space and Incongruence. The Origin of Kant’s Idealism. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  11. Carson, E. unpublished. ‘Arithmetic and the Possibility of Experience’.Google Scholar
  12. Descartes, R. 1996. Meditations on First Philosophy. Trans. and ed. J. Cottingham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Engstrom, S. 2006. ‘Understanding and Sensibility’. Inquiry 49(1): 2–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedman, M. 1992. Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gardner, S. 1999. Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Grice, H. P. 1961. ‘The Causal Theory of Perception’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 35: 121–152.Google Scholar
  17. Guyer, P. 1987. Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kant, I. 1950. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. Trans. L. W. Beck. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  19. Kant, I. 1987. Critique of Judgment. Trans. W. Pluhar. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  20. Kant, I. 1993. Opus Postumum. Ed. E. Förster and trans. E. Förster and M. Rosen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kant, I. 1997. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. and ed. P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kitcher, P. 1990. Kant’s Transcendental Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Langton, R. 1998. Kantian Humility: Our Ignorance of Things in Themselves. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  24. Longuenesse, B. 1998. Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Trans. C. T. Wolfe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Longuenesse, B. 2005. Kant on the Human Standpoint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin, M. 1992. ‘Perception, Concepts, and Memory’. Philosophical Review 101(4): 745–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Melnick, A. 1973. Kant’s Analogies of Experience. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Peacocke, C. 2001. ‘Does Perception Have a Non-Conceptual Content?’ Journal of Philosophy 98: 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prauss, G. 1974. Kant und das Problem der Dinge an sich. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
  30. Rescher, N. 2000. Kant and the Reach of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Robinson, H. 1994. ‘Two perspectives on Kant’s Appearances and Things in Themselves’. Journal of the History of Philosophy 32(3): 411–441.Google Scholar
  32. Rogerson, K. F. 1993. ‘Kantian Ontology’. Kant-Studien 84(1): 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Simon, J. 2007. ‘Kant, la compréhension et la langue de la philosophie’. In C. Berner and F. Capeillères (eds.), Kant et les Kantismes dans la philosophie contemporaine 1804–2004. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, pp. 235–246.Google Scholar
  34. Sutherland, D. 2006. ‘Kant on Arithmetic, Algebra, and the Theory of Proportions’. Journal of the History of Philosophy 44(4): 533–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vision, G. 1995. Problems of Vision. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Westphal, K. 2004. Kant’s Transcendental Proof of Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Willaschek, M. 1998. ‘Phaenomena/Noumena und die Amphibolie der Reflexionsbegriffe’. In G. Mohr and M. Willaschek (eds.), Immanuel Kant: Kritik des reinen Vernunft. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp. 325–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wood, A. 1978. Kant’s Rational Theology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Wood, A. 2005. Kant. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Wood, A. et al. 2007. ‘Debating Allison on Transcendental Idealism’. Kantian Review 12(2): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySchool of Social Science, Birkbeck College, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations