Advertisement

Is There Room for Nonconceptual Content in Kant’s Critical Philosophy?

  • Christian OnofEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

By examining relevant texts and considering the systematic coherence of Kant’s position, this paper asks whether there is a place for nonconceptual content in his Critical philosophy. Starting with representations with conceptual content, Onof successively examines (i) whether there is more to representations whose conceptual content is well established than is captured by means of concepts, and (ii) the possibility of representations with merely nonconceptual content. With these questions answered in the affirmative, Onof addresses the issue of the dependence of representations with merely nonconceptual content upon those with conceptual content, and thereby distances himself from standard nonconceptualist views. He concludes with some general considerations about the functions of the limited notion of nonconceptual content that the paper identifies.

Keywords

Perceptual Experience Conceptual Content Objective Ground Partial Representation Clear Concept 
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.

Bibliography

  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. Allison, H.1990. Kant’s Theory of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brook, A. 2013. Kant’s View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self. In Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, ed. E. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/kant-mind/.
  4. Crane, T.2013. The Given. In Mind, Reason and Being-in-the-World. The McDowell-Dreyfus Debate, ed. J. Schear, 229–249. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Dreyfus, H.2013. The Myth of the Pervasiveness of the Mental. In Mind, Reason and Being-in-the-World. The McDowell-Dreyfus Debate, ed. J. Schear, 15–40. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Gardner, S.2013. Transcendental Philosophy and the Possibility of the Given. In Mind, Reason and Being-in-the-World. The McDowell-Dreyfus Debate, ed. J. Schear, 110–142. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Grüne, S2009. Blinde Anschauung. Die Rolle von Begriffen in Kants Theorie sinnlicher Synthesis. Frankfurt a/M: Klostermann.Google Scholar
  8. Hanna, R.2001. Kant and the Foundations of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hanna, R2006. Kant, Science, and Human Nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Land, T2015a. Nonconceptualist Readings of Kant and the Transcendental Deduction. Kantian Review 20(1): 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———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
  12. Longuenesse, B.1998a. Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Longuenesse, B2000. Kant’s Categories and the Capacity to Judge: Responses to Henry Allison and Sally Sedgwick. Inquiry 43(1): 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McDowell, J1998. Having the World in View: Sellars, Kant and Intentionality. [The Woodbridge Lectures]. Journal of Philosophy 95(9): 431–491.Google Scholar
  15. ———2013. The Myth of the Mind as Detached. In Mind, Reason and Being-in-the-World. The McDowell-Dreyfus Debate, ed. J. Schear, 41–58. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. McLear, C.2011. Kant on Animal Consciousness. Philosophers’ Imprint 11(15): 1–16.Google Scholar
  17. Onof, C.2011a. Thinking the In-Itself and Its Relation to Appearances. In Kant’s Idealism. New Interpretations of a Controversial Doctrine, eds. D. Schulting and J. Verburgt, 211–235. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Onof, C 2011b. Moral Worth and Inclinations in Kantian Ethics. Kant Studies Online. pp. 116–61.Google Scholar
  19. Onof, C., and D. Schulting.2015. Space as Form of Intuition and as Formal Intuition: On the Note to B160 in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Philosophical Review 124(1): 1–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pippin, R2013. What is “Conceptual Activity”? In Mind, Reason and Being-in-the-World. The McDowell-Dreyfus Debate, ed. J. Schear, 91–109. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Schulting, D2012a. Kant’s Deduction and Apperception. Explaining the Categories. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. ———2015a. Transcendental Apperception and Consciousness in Kant’s Lectures on Metaphysics. In Reading Kant’s Lectures, ed. R. Clewis, 89–113. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. ———2015b. Probleme des “kantianischen” Nonkonzeptualismus im Hinblick auf die B-Deduktion. Kant-Studien 106(4): 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Speaks, J.2005. Is There a Problem About Nonconceptual Content? Philosophical Review 114(3): 359–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Strawson, P.F.1959. Individuals. London: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Toribio, J.2007. Nonconceptual Content. Philosophy Compass 2/3: 445–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBirkbeck CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations