Kantian Philosophy and ‘Linguistic Kantianism’

Abstract

The expression “linguistic Kantianism” is widely used to refer to ideas about thought and cognition being determined by language — a conception characteristic of 20th century analytic philosophy. In this article, I conduct a comparative analysis of Kant’s philosophy and views falling under the umbrella expression “linguistic Kantianism.” First, I show that “linguistic Kantianism” usually presupposes a relativistic conception that is alien to Kant’s philosophy (although Kant’s philosophy itself may be perceived as relativistic from a certain point of view). Second, I analyse Kant’s treatment of linguistic determinism and the place of his ideas in the 18th century intellectual milieu and provide an overview of relevant contemporary literature. Third, I show that authentic Kantianism and “linguistic Kantianism” belong to two different types of transcendentalism, to which I respectively refer as the “transcendentalism of the subject” and the “transcendentalism of the medium.” The transcendentalism of the subject assigns a central role to the faculties of the cognising subject (according to Kant, cognition is not the conforming of a subject’s intuitions and understanding to objects, but rather the application of a subject’s cognitive faculties to them). The transcendentalism of the medium assigns the role of an “active” element neither to the external world nor to the faculties of the cognising subject, but to something in between — language, in the case of “linguistic Kantianism.” I conclude that the expression “linguistic Kantianism” can be misleading when it comes to the origins of this theory. It would be more appropriate to refer to this theory by the expression “linguistic transcendentalism,” thus avoiding an incorrect reference to Kant.

Full text

json#{"TEXT":"","TYPE":"HTML"}

Reference

1. Aarsleff, H., 1974. The Tradition of Condillac: The Problem of the Origin of Language in the Eighteenth Century and the Debate in the Berlin Academy before Herder. In: D. Hymes, ed. 1974. Studies in the History of Linguistics: Traditions and Paradigms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 93-156.

2. Anonymous, 1757. Prix proposé par l’Académie Royale des Sciences & Belles-Lettres de Prusse pour l’année 1759. Nouvelle bibliothèque germanique, ou histoire littéraire de l’Allemagne, de la Suisse, & des Pays du Nord, 21(1), pp. 201-204.

3. Berlin, I., 2013. Three Critics of the Enlightenment: Vico, Hamann, Herder, 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

4. Devitt, M., Sterelny, K., 1999. Language and Reality, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

5. Dragalina-Chernaya, E. G., 2018. Consequences and Design in General and Transcendental Logic. Kantian Journal, 37(1), pp. 25-39.

6. Dragalina-Chernaya, E., 2016. Kant’s Dynamic Hylomorphism in Logic. Con-Textos Kantianos. International Journal of Philosophy, 4, pp. 127-137.

7. Forster, M., 2012. Kant’s Philosophy of Language? Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 74(3), pp. 485-511.

8. Gale, R., 1963. Some Metaphysical Statements about Time. The Journal of Philosophy, 60(9), pp. 225-237.

9. Hamann, J. G., 1995. Metacritique of the Purism of Reason. In: G. G. Dickson, 1995. Johann Georg Hamann’s Relational Metacriticism. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 517-525.

10. Heijenoort, J., 1967. Logic as Calculus and Logic as Language. Synthese, 17(3), pp. 324-330.

11. Hintikka, J., 1997. Lingua Universalis vs. Calculus Ratiocinator: An Ultimate Presupposition of Twentieth-Century Philosophy, Dordrecht: Springer.

12. Kant, I., 1992. The Jäsche Logic. In: I. Kant. Lectures on Logic. Translated by J. M. Young, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 521-644.

13. Kant, I., 1996. An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? In: I. Kant, Practical Philosophy. Translated by M. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11-22.

14. Kant, I., 2000. Critique of Pure Reason (Unified Edition). Translated and edited by A. W. Wood and P. Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15. Kant, I., 2002. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science. Translated by G. Hatfield. In: I. Kant, 2002. Theoretical Philosophy after 1781. Edited by H. Allison and P. Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 29-170.

16. Koerner, K. E. F., 2000. Towards a ‘Full Pedigree’ of the ‘Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis’: From Locke to Lucy. In: M. Pütz, M. Verspoor, eds. 2000. Explorations in Linguistic Relativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 1-25.

17. Kuhn, T., 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

18. Kusch, M., 1988. Husserl and Heidegger on Meaning. Synthese, 77(1), pp. 99-127.

19. Lynch, M. P., 2001. Truth in Context: An Essay on Pluralism and Objectivity, Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press.

20. Makeeva, L. B., 2006. Language and Reality. Logos, 57(6), pp. 3-20. (In Russ.)

21. Peckhaus, V., 2004. Schröder’s Logic. In: D. M. Gabbay, J. Woods, eds. 2004. Handbook of the History of Logic, vol. 3: The Rise of Modern Logic: From Leibniz to Frege. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

22. Penn, J., 1972. Linguistic Relativity versus Innate Ideas. The Origins of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis in German Thought. The Hague: Mouton.

23. Romanos, G., 1983. Quine and Analytic Philosophy: The Language of Language. Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press.

24. Serck-Hanssen, C., 2003. Kant’s Critical Debut: The Idea of the Transcendental in Kant’s Early Thought. In: J. Malpas, ed. 2003. From Kant to Davidson: Philosophy and the Idea of the Transcendental. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 7-21.

25. Smith, B., 2005. Against Fantology. In: J. Marek, E. M. Reicher, eds. 2005, Experience and Analysis. Vienna: ÖBV & HPT, pp. 153-170.

26. Soboleva, M. E., 2018. How to Read Kant, or Kant in the Context of Contemporary Epistemological Discussions in Western Analytic Kant-Studies. Voprosy filosofii, 3, pp. 129-140. (In Russ.)

27. Stroll, A., 1995. Transcendentalism or Naturalism: The Only Alternatives? Dialectica, 49(2/4), pp. 95-111.

28. Stroud, B., 1972. “Ludwig Wittgenstein” by David Pears (Review). The Journal of Philosophy, 69(1), pp. 16-26.

29. Whorf, B., 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality, Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press.

30. Wolff, M., 1995. Die Vollständigkeit der kantischen Urteilstafel. Mit einem Essay über Freges „Begriffsschrift“, Frankfurt a. M.: Klostermann.

Login:
Password:
	Remember Me

Register Forgot your password?

2018 Vol. 37. №2