The Problem of the Relationship between Apperception, Self-Consciousness and Consciousness in Kant’s Critical Philosophy
- DOI
- 10.5922/0207-6918-2020-3-2
- Pages
- 24-53
Abstract
Kant does not provide clear-cut definitions of apperception, consciousness, and self-consciousness and everywhere uses these terms as synonyms, which creates the problem of the relationship between these faculties. The importance of this problem stems from the colossal significance of each of the above-mentioned faculties which are intimately connected with Kant’s formulation of the key tasks of transcendental philosophy. The prime task is to discover the categories of understanding and to prove the legitimacy of their use, a task that is further complicated by the difference between the editions of the Critique of Pure Reason in terms of the argumentation in the section on the deduction of categories and Kant’s concept of apperception. Accordingly, the author seeks to clarify the purpose of each of the above-mentioned faculties and to establish their inter-relationship. To this end the author analyses the functional roles of consciousness, self-consciousness and apperception in solving the main tasks of the first Critique. It turns out that consciousness is a reflexive cognitive capacity which provides access to representations in our soul and allows us to distinguish them and to connect them. Self-consciousness is the mode of the functioning of consciousness which makes it possible to study three objects of consciousness: internal and external representations of the subject, the synthetic activity of understanding and our soul. Apperception is the Latin synonym of the concept of Selbstbewußtsein and is aimed at studying the unity of our representations. Because Kant distinguishes multiple kinds of unity, there are different names for apperception. Kant uses the concept of Apperzeption as a synonym of self-consciousness because his concept of consciousness follows the Leibniz-Wolffian tradition.
Reference
Allison, H., 1983. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ameriks, K., 2000a. Kant and the Fate of Autonomy: Problems in the Appropriation of the Critical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ameriks, K., 2000b. Kant’s Theory of Mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Brook, A., 1994. Kant and the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guyer, P., 1987. Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heßbrüggen-Walter, S., 2004. Die Seele und ihre Vermögen. Kants Metaphysik des Mentalen in der Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Paderborn: Mentis.
Izmailov, G., 2005. Leibniz and Kant: to the Question of Apperception. In: Forum molodykh kantovedov (Po materialam Mezhdunarodnogo kongressa, posvjashhennogo 280-letiju so dnja rozhdenija i 200-letiju so dnja smerti Immanuila Kanta) [Forum of Young Kant Scholars (Collected Papers of the International Congress on the 280th Anniversary of the Birth and 200th Anniversary of the Death of Immanuel Kant)]. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy RAS, pp. 53-59 [online] Available at: https://iphras.ru/page50843406.htm [Accessed 20 March 2020] (In Rus.)
Kant, I., 1992. On the Form and Principles of the Sensible and Intelligible World. In: I. Kant, 1992. Theoretical Philosophy, 1755-1770. Translated and edited by D. Walford, in collaboration with R. Meerbote. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 373-416.
Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I., 2004. Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics that Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science. Translated and edited by G. Hatfield. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I., 2005. Notes and Fragments. Edited by P. Guyer, translated by C. Bowman, P. Guyer and F. Rauscher. New York & Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I., 2007. Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. In: I. Kant, 2007. Anthropology, History, and Education. Translated and edited by R. B. Louden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kitcher, P., 2015. Bewusstsein. In: M. Willaschek, J. Stolzenberg, G. Mohr, S. Bacin, Hg. 2015. Kant-Lexikon, Band 1. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 281-285.
Krouglov, A. N., 2005. Did Kant have a transcendent subject? In: Istoriko-filosofskii ezhegodnik 2004 [History of Philosophy Yearbook 2004]. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 279-295. (In Rus.)
Leibniz, G. W., 1989a. On What is Independent of Sense and of Matter (Letter to Queen Sophia Charlotte of Prussia, 1702). In: G. W. Leibniz, 1989. Philosophical Papers and Letters. A Selection. Translated and edited, with an Introduction, by L. E. Loemker, 2nd Edition. Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 547-554.
Leibniz, G. W., 1989b. The Principles of Nature and of Grace, based on Reason (1714). In: G. W. Leibniz, 1989. Philosophical Papers and Letters. A Selection. Translated and edited, with an Introduction, by L. E. Loemker, 2nd Edition. Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 636-643.
Mayorov, G. G., 1973. Teoreticheskaya filosofiya Gotfrida W. Leibniza [Theoretical Philosophy of Gottfried W. Leibniz]. Moscow: Moscow State University Press. (In Rus.)
Rosefeldt, T., 2000. Das logische Ich. Kant über den Gehalt des Begriffes von sich selbst. Berlin: Philo.
Serck-Hanssen, С., 2008. Kant on Consciousness. In: S. Heinämaa and M. Reuter, eds. 2008. Psychology and Philosophy. Inquiries into the Soul from Late Scholasticism to Contemporary Thought. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 139-157.
Soboleva, M. E., 2018. How Do We Read Kant, or Kant in the Context of Contemporary Epistemological Discussions in Western Analytic Kant-Studies. Voprosy Filosofii, 3, pp. 129-140. (In Rus.)
Strawson, P., 1966. The Bounds of Sense. An Essay on the Critique of Pure Reason. London: Routledge.
Vasilyev, V. V., 1998. Podvaly kantovskoi metafiziki (deduktsiia kategorii) [Basements of Kant’s Metaphysics: Deduction of the Categories]. Moscow: Nasledie. (In Rus.)
Vasilyev, V. V., 2005. Kant’s Transcendentalism and Wolfian Psychology. In: Istoriko-filosofskii ezhegodnik 2004 [History of Philosophy Yearbook 2004]. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 238-249. (In Rus.)
Vasilyev, V. V., 2010. Filosofskaia psikhologiia v epokhu Prosveshcheniya [Philosophical Psychology in the Age of Enlightenment]. Moscow: “Kanon+” ROOI Reabilitatsiya. (In Rus.)
Vasilyeva, M. Y., 2009. Kant and Berkeley: Similarity or Difference? Kantian Journal, 1(29), pp. 30-38. (In Rus.)
Wolff, C., 1725. Vernünfftige Gedancken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen, Auch allen Dingen überhaupt. 3. Auflage. Halle: Renger.
Wunderlich, F., 2005. Kant und die Bewußtseinstheorien des 18. Jahrhunderts. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.
Zöller, G., 2015a. Selbstbewusstsein. In: M. Willaschek, J. Stolzenberg, G. Mohr, S. Bacin, Hg. 2015. Kant-Lexikon, Band 3. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 2065-2070.
Zöller, G., 2015b. Apperzeption. In: M. Willaschek, J. Stolzenberg, G. Mohr, S. Bacin, Hg. 2015. Kant-Lexikon, Band 1. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 145-150.