Getting Acquainted with Kant

  • Colin McLearEmail author


A central question for Kant scholars concerns whether Kant thinks that experience has nonconceptual content, or whether, on his view, experience is essentially conceptual. McLear argues that in a certain sense this question is ill-conceived. He presents an alternative means of framing what is at issue in terms of a debate about the dependence relations, if any, that exist between different cognitive capacities. We should distinguish between Intellectualism, according to which all objective representation (understood in a particular way) depends on acts of synthesis by the intellect, and Sensibilism, according to which at least some forms of objective representatin are independent of any such acts (or the capacity for such acts). McLear also articulates a challenge to Intellectualist interpretations based on the role that Kant indicates alethic modal conditions play in achieving cognition.


Correctness Condition Real Possibility Epistemic Attitude Conceptual Content Conceptualism Debate 
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.


  1. Allais, Lucy. 2009. Kant, Non-Conceptual Content and the Representation of Space. Journal of the History of Philosophy 47(3): 383–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ———. 2015. Manifest Reality: Kant’s Idealism and His Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, R.L. 2001. Synthesis, Cognitive Normativity, and the Meaning of Kant’s Question, “How Are Synthetic Cognitions A Priori Possible?”. European Journal of Philosophy 9(3): 275–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, R.L 2015. The Poverty of Conceptual Truth: Kant’s Analytic/Synthetic Distinction and the Limits of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, L.W. 1978. Did the Sage of Königsberg Have No Dreams? In Essays on Kant and Hume, ed. L.W. Beck, 38–60. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, J. 2012. The Generality Constraint and the Structure of Thought. Mind 121(483): 563–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck, J 2013. Why We Can’t Say What Animals Think. Philosophical Psychology 26(4): 520–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chignell, A. 2007. Kant’s Concepts of Justification. Noûs 41(1): 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chignell, A 2010. Real Repugnance and Our Ignorance of Things-in-Themselves: A Lockean Problem in Kant and Hegel. Internationales Jahrbuch des Deutschen Idealismus/International Yearbook of German Idealism 7(2009): 135–159.Google Scholar
  10. ——— 2014. Modal Motivations for Noumenal Ignorance: Knowledge, Cognition, and Coherence. Kant-Studien 105(4): 573–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, W. 2005. Concept Individuation, Possession Conditions, and Propositional Attitudes. Noûs 39(1): 140–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dummett, M. 1993. The Seas of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dunlop, K. 2012. Kant and Strawson on the Content of Geometrical Concepts. Noûs 46(1): 86–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engstrom, S. 2006. Understanding and Sensibility. Inquiry 49(1): 2–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans, G. 1982. The Varieties of Reference. In ed. J. McDowell (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  16. Faggion, A. 2015. Can Mere Intuitions Represent Objects? In Kant’s Lectures, eds. B. Dörflinger et al., 91–103. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  17. Friedman, M 2015. Kant on Geometry and Experience. In Mathematizing Space, ed. V. De Risi, 275–309. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Geach, P. 1957. Mental Acts: Their Content and Their Objects. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  19. Ginsborg, H 2006a. Empirical Concepts and the Content of Experience. European Journal of Philosophy 14(3): 349–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ——— 2006b. Kant and the Problem of Experience. Philosophical Topics 34(1): 56–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ——— 2008. Was Kant a Nonconceptualist? Philosophical Studies 137(1): 65–77 [also published in D. Heidemann (2013), pp. 208–18.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Griffith, A. 2012. Perception and the Categories: A Conceptualist Reading of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. European Journal of Philosophy 20(2): 193–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grüne, S 2009. Blinde Anschauung. Die Rolle von Begriffen in Kants Theorie sinnlicher Synthesis. Frankfurt a/M: Klostermann.Google Scholar
  24. ——— 2011. Is There a Gap in Kant’s B Deduction? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19(3): 465–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ——— 2014a. Reply to Colin McLear. Critique,
  26. Haag, J. 2007. Erfahrung und Gegenstand. Das Verhältnis von Sinnlichkeit und Verstand. Frankfurt a/M: Klostermann.Google Scholar
  27. Hanna, R 2005. Kant and Nonconceptual Content. European Journal of Philosophy 13(2): 247–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ——— 2008. Kantian Non-Conceptualism. Philosophical Studies 137(1): 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ——— 2011a. Beyond the Myth of the Myth: A Kantian Theory of Non-Conceptual Content. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19(3): 323–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. ——— 2011b. Kant’s Non-Conceptualism, Rogue Objects, and the Gap in the B Deduction. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19(3): 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heck, R. 2000. Nonconceptual Content and the “Space of Reasons”. Philosophical Review 109(4): 483–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heck, R 2009. Are There Different Kinds of Content? In Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind, eds. B. McLaughlin and J. Cohen, 117–138. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Heis, J. 2014a. The Priority Principle from Kant to Frege. Noûs 48(2): 268–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heis, J 2014b. Kant (vs. Leibniz, Wolff, and Lambert) on Real Definitions in Geometry. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 44(5/6): 605–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hogan, D. 2009. Three Kinds of Rationalism and the Non-Spatiality of Things in Themselves. Journal of the History of Philosophy 47(3): 355–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kenny, A. 2010. Concepts, Brains, and Behaviour. Grazer Philosophische Studien 81(1): 105–113.Google Scholar
  37. King, J., S. Soames, and J. Speaks. 2014. New Thinking About Propositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Land, T 2015a. Nonconceptualist Readings of Kant and the Transcendental Deduction. Kantian Review 20(1): 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. ——— 2015b. No Other Use Than in Judgment? Kant on Concepts and Sensible Synthesis. Journal of the History of Philosophy 53(3): 461–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewis, C. 1929. Mind and the World-Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  41. Longuenesse, B. 1998a. Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Machery, E. 2009. Doing Without Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Margolis, E. and S. Laurence. 2014. Concepts. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. Zalta,
  44. McDowell, J. 1990. Peacocke and Evans on Demonstrative Content. Mind 99(394): 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McDowell, J 1996. Mind and World, 2 edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. ——— 1998. Having the World in View: Sellars, Kant and Intentionality. [The Woodbridge Lectures]. Journal of Philosophy 95(9): 431–491.Google Scholar
  47. McLear, C. 2011. Kant on Animal Consciousness. Philosophers’ Imprint 11(15): 1–16.Google Scholar
  48. McLear, C 2014b. The Kantian (Non)-Conceptualism Debate. Philosophy Compass 9(11): 769–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. ——— 2015. Two Kinds of Unity in the Critique of Pure Reason. Journal of the History of Philosophy 53(1): 79–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. ——— 2016a. Kant on Perceptual Content. Mind.Google Scholar
  51. ——— 2016b. Animals and Objectivity. In Kant on Animals, eds. L. Allais and J. Callanan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. ——— 2016c. Intuition and Presence. In Kant and the Philosophy of Mind, eds. A. Gomes and A. Stephenson. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  53. Messina, J. 2014. Kant on the Unity of Space and the Synthetic Unity of Apperception. Kant-Studien 105(1): 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Naragon, S. 1990. Kant on Descartes and the Brutes. Kant-Studien 81(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Paton, H. 1936. Kant’s Metaphysic of Experience. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  56. Peacocke, C. 1992. A Study of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Pereboom, D. 1988. Kant on Intentionality. Synthese 77(3): 321–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pippin, R. 1982. Kant’s Theory of Form: An Essay on the ‘Critique of Pure Reason’. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Russell, B 1997. The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Schafer, K. 2016. Kant’s Conception of Cognition and Our Knowledge of Things-in-Themselves. In The Sensible and Intelligible Worlds: New Essays on Kant’s Metaphysics and Epistemology, eds. K. Schafer and N. Stang. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Sellars, W 1968. Science and Metaphysics: Variations on Kantian Themes. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  62. Speaks, J. 2005. Is There a Problem About Nonconceptual Content? Philosophical Review 114(3): 359–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stalnaker, R. 1998. What Might Nonconceptual Content Be? In Concepts, ed. E. Villanueva, 339–352. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
  64. Stang, N. 2011. Did Kant Conflate the Necessary and the A Priori? Noûs 45(3): 443–471.Google Scholar
  65. Stang, N 2016. Kant’s Modal Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stephenson, A 2015b. Kant on the Object-Dependence of Intuition and Hallucination. Philosophical Quarterly 65(260): 486–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Strawson, P.F 1966. The Bounds of Sense. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  68. Thompson, M. 1972. Singular Terms and Intuitions in Kant’s Epistemology. Review of Metaphysics 26(2): 314–343.Google Scholar
  69. Tolley, C. 2013. The Non-Conceptuality of the Content of Intuitions: A New Approach. Kantian Review 18(1): 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tolley, C 2014. Kant on the Content of Cognition. European Journal of Philosophy 22(2): 200–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Van Cleve, J 2012. Defining and Defending Nonconceptual Contents and States. Philosophical Perspectives 26(1): 411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Watkins, E. 2005. Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Willaschek, M. 1997. Der transzendentale Idealismus und die Idealität von Raum und Zeit. Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung 51(4): 537–564.Google Scholar
  74. Winkler, K. 2010. Kant, the Empiricists, and the Enterprise of Deduction. In The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’, ed. P. Guyer, 41–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations