Download pdf - The Kantian (Non)-Conceptualism Debate - PhilPapersThe Kantian (Non)-Conceptualism Debate Colin McLear University of Nebraska–Lincoln [email protected] July 21,2014 ... Attempt to Introduce

TheKantian(Non)-ConceptualismDebateColinMcLearUniversityofNebraska–[email protected], 2014

Abstract

OneofthecentraldebatesincontemporaryKantscholarshipconcernswhetherKanten-dorsesa“conceptualist”accountofthenatureofsensoryexperience. UnderstandingthedebateiscrucialforgettingafullgraspofKant’stheoryofmind, cognition, perception, andepistemology. ThispapersituatesthedebateinthecontextofKant’sbroadertheoryofcog-nitionandsurveyssomeofthemajorargumentsforconceptualistandnon-conceptualistinterpretationsofhiscriticalphilosophy.

1 Introduction

ONE OF THE CENTRAL TOPICS OF DEBATE incontemporaryKantscholarshiphasbeenwhetherKantendorsesapositionconcerningthenatureofsensoryexpe-riencecalled“conceptualism.” Asafirstapproximation, conceptualismabout

experienceistheclaimthatthecapacityforconscioussensoryexperienceoftheob-jectiveworlddepends, atleastinpart, ontherepertoireofconceptspossessedbytheexperiencingsubject, insofarastheyareexercisedinactsofsynthesisbythecognitivefacultywhichKanttermsthe“understanding”[Verstand]. Exactlyhowweshouldunder-standthisdependencerelation, aswellasthenotionofexperiencethatitpresupposes,issomethingwewilldiscussinmuchfurtherdetailbelow. ThehistoricalquestionastowhetherKantendorsedconceptualismhasalsobeenlinkedtothephilosophicalques-tionastothecommitmentsoftheconceptualistpositionandwhetheritis, intheend,atenableone.

ForthepurposesofthisarticleI shallfocusprimarilyonthehistoricalquestion, andthusI willlargelyignoreissuesinthephilosophyofmindandperceptionliteraturethathavearisenindependentlyofthescholarlydebateconcerningKant.1

Theargumentofthispaperproceedsasfollows. §2brieflysketchesthefundamen-talelementsofKant’stheoryofcognition. §3articulatesseveralmajorconsiderationswhichhelptodefinethenon-conceptualistinterpretationofKant. In§4I elaboratetheconceptualistinterpretationofKant. I presentandtosomeextentrevisewhatI taketobethecoreinterpretivecommitmentsoftheconceptualistposition. §5discussesseveralmajorobjectionstoconceptualismandnon-conceptualism, aswellasacentralissueofcontemporaryinterest—viz. theso-called“MythoftheGiven”anditsconnectiontotheconceptualismdebate. I thensummarizetheargumentofthepaper.

1 Forausefuloverviewofthecontemporaryliteraturesee Gunther(2003); Siegel(2010); Van Cleve(2012).

1

mailto:[email protected]

TheKantian(Non)-ConceptualismDebate ColinMcLear

2 A SketchofKant’sTheoryofCognition

Kant’sconceptionofourmentaleconomyisbasicallytripartite, consistingofsensations[Empfindungen], intuitions [Anschauungen] and concepts [Begriffe].2 These are allvarietiesofwhatKantcalls“representation”[Vorstellung].3

Inwhatisgenerallycalledthe“stepladder”[Stufenleiter]passagefromtheTranscen-dentalDialecticofthefirst Critique, oneofthefewplacesintheKantiancorpuswhereheexplicitlydiscussesthemeaningsofandrelationsbetweenhistechnicalterms, Kantdefinesandclassifiesvarietiesofrepresentation.

The category is representation (representatio) in general. Under itstand representations with consciousness (perceptio). A perception[Wahrnehmung], that relates solely to a subject as a modification ofits state, is sensation (sensatio). An objective perception is cognition(cognitio). This is either intuition or concept (intuitus vel conceptus).Thefirstrelatesimmediatelytotheobjectandissingular; thesecondismediate, conveyed by amark, which can be common tomany things(A320/B376–7).4

AsKant’sdiscussionhereindicates, thecategoryofrepresentationcontainssensation,intuition, and concept. The faculty that provides sensory representations is called“sensibility” [Sinnlichkeit]. Sensibility generates representations based on being af-fectedeitherbyentitiesdistinctfromthesubjectorbythesubjectherself. Thisisincontrasttothefacultyof“understanding”[Verstand]whichgeneratesrepresentations“spontaneously”—i.e. withoutadvertancetoaffection.

2 Thereareothersignficantrepresentationalkinds, suchas schemata and ideas, buttheinterpretivetradi-tionhasfocusedprimarilyonsensations, intuitions, andconcepts. I followthattraditioninmydiscussionhere. Onecould, however, objectthatthedebateisnotwell-formed, andemphasizetheimportanceofincluding, e.g., schemata, inthediscussionoftherelationshipbetweenconceptpossessionandper-ceptualexperience. Fordiscussionofschematainthegenerationofperceptual“images”see Matherne(Unpublished); cf. Griffith(2012); Williams(2012).

3 Wemightquestionwhetheritisbesttotranslate“Vorstellung”as“representation.” Thereasonforhesi-tationhaslargelytodowiththebaggagewhichtheterm“representation”carrieswithincontemporaryphilosophy. Itisoftencharacterizedasan“inner,” causallyrelevant, andperhapsfunctionallydefinedstate, whosesemanticcontentallowsittoplayaroleinthecognitivelifeofsubject. InwhatfollowsIwilltranslate“Vorstellung”as“representation”butI wishtohighlightheretheimportanceofnotsimplyequatingKant’suseof“Vorstellung”witharepresentationalisttheoryofperception. ForanargumentthatKantdoes not endorsesuchatheorysee McLear(Forthcomingb)and§3.1below; cf. Gomes(2014).

4 QuotationsfromKant’sworkarefromtheAkademieAusgabe, withthefirstCritique citedbythestandardA/B editionpagination, andtheotherworksbyvolumeandpage. TranslationsarefromtheCambridgeEditionsoftheWorksofImmanuelKant, generaleditorsPaulGuyerandAllenWood. I have, onsomeoccasions, madeslightmodificationswithoutfurthercomment. Specifictextsareabbreviatedasfollows:

July21, 2014—Forthcomingin PhilosophyCompass 2


Kantclaimsthatall therepresentationsgeneratedviasensibilityarestructuredbytwo“forms”ofintuition—spaceandtime—andthatallsensoryaspectsofourexperi-encearetheir“matter”(A20/B34). ThesimplestwayofunderstandingwhatKantmeansby“form”hereis thatallperceivableswillbesuchas toeitherhavespatial features(e.g. extension, shape, location), ortemporalfeatures(e.g. beingsuccessiveorsimul-taneous).5 Sotheformalelementofanempiricalintuition, orsenseperception, willalwaysbeeitherspatialortemporal, whilethematerialelementisalwayssensory(inthesenseofdeterminingthephenomenalor“whatitislike”characterofexperience),andtiedtooneormoreofthefivesenses, orthefeelingsofpleasureanddispleasure.

Kanttiesthetwoformsofintuitiontotwodistinctspheres, theinnerandtheouter.Theouterconcernsthespatialworldofparticularmaterialobjectswhiletheinnercon-cernstemporallyorderedstatesofmind. Spaceisthustheformof“outersense”whiletimeistheformof“innersense”(A22/B37; cf. An7:154). IntheTranscendentalAes-thetic, Kantisprimarilyconcernedwith“pure”[rein]intuition, andoftenonlyspeaksinpassingofthesenseperceptionofphysicalbodies(e.g. A20–1/B35). However, Kantmoreclearlylinksthefivesenseswithintuitioninthe1798 AnthropologyfromaPrag-maticPointofView, inthesectionentitled“OntheFiveSenses.”

Sensibility inthecognitivefaculty(thefacultyofintuitiverepresentations)contains twoparts: sense and the imagination…But the senses, on theotherhand, aredividedinto outer and inner sense(sensusinternus); thefirstiswherethehumanbodyisaffectedbyphysicalthings, thesecondiswherethehumanbodyisaffectedbythemind(An7:153).

An: AnthropologyfromaPragmaticPointofViewCJ: CritiqueofJudgmentG: GroundworkfortheMetaphysicsofMoralsJL: JäscheLogicLL: LecturesonLogicNM: AttempttoIntroducetheConceptofNegativeMagnitudesintoPhilosophyOD:OnaDiscoveryWherebyanyNewCritiqueofPureReasonistobeMadeSuperfluousbyanOlderOnePr: ProlegomenatoanyFutureMetaphysicsR: NotesandFragments

5 TherearecomplicationsherethatI cannotgointo, concerningwhetherorhowspatialobjectsmightberepresentedasstandingintemporalrelationswithoneanothergiventhat“Timecannomorebeintuitedexternallythanspacecanbeintuitedassomethinginus”(A22-3/B37). Kantgoesontosaythatouterobjectsaretemporallyrelatedonly“mediately”, invirtueoftheirrepresentationsbeingtemporallyrelatedininnersense(A34/B50-1). Thus, thoughouterobjectsmaybesaidtostandintemporalrelations,timeisnotanaprioriconditionoftheappearanceofanouterobjectinthewaythatspaceis. Whetherthismeansthatobjectsinspaceonly seem tobeintime, invirtueoftheirrepresentationsbeingintuitedasstandingintemporalrelationsininnersense, goesbeyondwhatI candiscusshere. Fordiscussionsee Van Cleve(1999), ch. 5; Brook(2013).



Kantcharacterizes intuitiongenerally in termsof twocharacteristics—viz. imme-diacy [Unmittelbarkeit]and particularity [Einzelheit](cf. A19/B33, A68/B93; JL 9:91).Thisisincontrasttothemediacyandgenerality[Allgemeinheit]characteristicofcon-ceptualrepresentation(A68/B93; JL 9:91).

Kantcontrasts theparticularityof intuitionwith thegeneralityofconcepts in the“stepladder”passage(seethefirstquoteabove). Butthespecificremarkhemakesisthataconceptisrelatedtoitsobjectvia“amark, whichcanbecommontomanythings”(A320/B377)andthissuggeststhatintuition, incontrasttoconcepts, putsasubjectincognitivecontactwithfeaturesofanobjectthatarenothadbyotherthings.6 Spatio-temporalpropertiesseemlikeexcellentcandidatesforsuchfeatures.7 Butpehapsanynon-repeatable, non-universalfeatureofaperceivedobjectwilldo.8

Doestheoccurrenceofanintuitioncountashavinganexperience, inourcontem-porarysenseofacognitivelysignificantmentaleventorstatewithaparticular(sense-modal)phenomenalcharacter?9 Moregenerally, doesKant’susageoftermslike“per-ception”[Wahrnehmung]and“experience”[Erfahrung]cleanlymatchupwithours?Givenhowslipperythesetermsare, evenintheireverydayusage, weshouldbesome-whatcautiousinthinkingthattheydo. Atleasttwoworriesloomlargehere. First, wemightworrythatdisputesconcerningthenecessaryconditionsofhavinga“perception”oran“experience”aremerelyverbal. Second, wemightworrythattheconcepts<per-ception>and<experience>arenotwell-defined, andthusthatnosubstantivedisputeshouldhangoneitherof them. For thepurposesof thispaper, I shall take thecon-cepts<perception>and<experience>assufficientlywell-definedthatwecancredibly

6 Thereisafurthercontroversyhereaswhethertheimmediacyofintuitioniscompatiblewithanintuition’srelatingtoanobjectbymeansofmarksorwhetherrelationbymeansofmarksentailsmediacy, andthusthatonlyconceptsrelatetoobjectsbymeansofmarks. See Smit(2000)fordiscussion.

7 Thisistrueatleastifweassumethatspatio-temporallocationissufficienttoindividuateonethingfromanother. CertainlyKantthoughtthisthecase; cf. B327-8.

8 Forexample, intuitionmaygiveasubjectperceptualaccesstothetropescharacterizinganobject. Forthesuggestionofaviewalongtheselinessee Smit(2000); Grüne(2009), 50, 66-70.

9 A noteabouttheuseof“cognitive”here. Thereisadifferencebetweenmentalstateswhichpossessphe-nomenalcharacteristicsbutnoseemingobjectivecognitivefeatures, suchaswhathappensin“seeingstars”orbeingpokedintheeye, etc., andstatesthatarebothphenomenallyrichandcognitive, suchashavingaperceptualexperienceasofsomeobjectinone’senvironment, suchasatreeoranimal.Thereis, ofcourse, aseriousquestionastowhetherorhowthesetwokindsofstatesmightberelated.I shalltakeitthatKant’susageof“intuition”ismeanttodesignatea cogntive stateratherthanastatewhichmerelypossessesphenomenalcharacter. Thelatterseemstomostconsistentlybedesignatedbytheterm“sensation”[Empfindung], ormoreprecisely, by“feeling”[Gefühl]. ThisisespeciallyclearinKant’sdiscussionofsensationandfeelinginthethird Critique; cf. CJ 5:189, 203-6. Whetherandhowsuchcognitiveandnon-cognitivestatesarerelatedisacomplexissue, andwe’lltouchonitfurtherinthediscussionofconceptualismbelow.



disputeoverthenecessaryconditionsfortheirinstantiation.10 ButI dothinkthatitisnecessarytosaysomethingaboutthepossibilityofamerelyverbaldisputeconcerningtheconditionsfortheoccurrenceofaperceptualexperience.

Kantobviouslymakesadistinctionbetween“experience”[Erfahrung]and“intuition”[Anschauung]. Heisclearthat“experience,” inhissenseofan“empiricalcognition”[empirischeErkenntnis], includesconceptual synthesis, sincesuchsynthesis iswhatbindsthevariouselementsofanempiricalcognitiontogethersuchthattheyarenon-arbitrarilyconnected (cf. B12, B161, B201, B218, B233).11 Asa result, wecannotunderstandthe(non)-conceptualismdebateasconcerning“experience”inKant’ssenseoftheterm. Non-conceptualistinterpretersallconcedethatKant’susageof“experience”[Erfahrung]and“empiricalcognition”[empirischeErkenntnis]typicallyismeantinawaythatassumessomesortofcognitivecontributionbytheunderstanding.

ThedifficultiesthatresultintryingtopindownKant’suseof“experience”[Erfahrung]havenotgoneunnoticed in the literature.12 Forexample, HannahGinsborghasar-guedthatKant’sargumentthattheunderstandingmustbeactiveinthegenerationorconstitutionof“Erfahrung”ispotentiallyambiguousbetweendesignatingsensemodalspecific states of phenomenal consciousness—”sense impressions“—and full-blownperceptual judgments. But itseemsclear thatKanthimself tookthe terms”intuition”[Anschauung], “perception”[Wahrnehmung], and“experience”[Erfahrung]todesig-natedifferentthings.13 Intuitionisarelationtoan“undetermined”[unbestimmt]ob-jectoran“appearance”[Erscheinung](A20/B34). Intuitionisdistinguishedfrom“per-ception”[Wahrnehmung]byvirtueof thesubject’sbeingconsciousof the“content”[Inhalt]of the intuition (moreon thenotionof “content”below) (Pr4:300; cf. A99,A119-20, B162, B202-3).14 Finally, “experience” [Erfahrung] involves the synthesisofperceptions[Wahrnehmungen]viaapplicationof(orperhapsguidanceby)thecat-egories. “Experience iscognition throughconnectedperceptions [durchverknüpfte

10 See Hinton(1973); Byrne(2009)forcontemporarydiscussionofworriesconcerningthenotionofan“experience”.

11 AsKantsaysinthe Prolegomena, “Experienceconsistsinthesyntheticconnection[Verknüpfung]ofap-pearances(perceptions)inaconsciousness, insofarasthisconnectionisnecessary”(Pr4:305; cf. 4:275;B147, B218, B227).

12 Seethediscussionin Van Cleve(1999), 74-6; Ginsborg(2006b).13 ThankstoClintonTolleyfordiscussionconcerningtheseandrelatedpoints.14 Whatexactly is intendedbyKant’suseof “conscious” [Bewußt] and“consciousness” [Bewußtsein]furthercomplicatesmatters. Significantly, forourpurposes, wecannottakeforgrantedthatKantmeanstoindicatewhat we typicallymeaninusingtheterm—viz. “phenomenalconsciousness”or“whatitislike”tohavetherelevantexperience. KanttypicallyusesthetermintheLeibniz-Wolffsenseinwhichitindicatestheextenttowhichtherepresentingsubjectcandistinguishbetweenobjectsorthepartsofobjects. See Wunderlich(2005); La Rocca(2008a), La Rocca(2008b); Grüne(2009), ch.1; SturmandWunderlich(2010); McLear(2011)fordiscussion.



Wahrnehmungen]”(B161; cf. B218; Pr4:300). Thisthreefolddistinctionisalsocon-firmedintheheadingstothefirstthreechaptersofthePrinciplesofthefirst Critique,inwhichKantdistinguishesbetweenthe“Axiomsof Intuition”, the“AnticipationsofPerception”, andthe“AnalogiesofExperience”. IfKant weren’t thinkingthatthetermstheterms“intuition”[Anschauung], “perception”[Wahrnehmung], and“experience”[Erfahrung]designateddistinctmentalstates, thenitwouldbedifficulttounderstandwhyheorderedacentralpartofhisarchitectonicaroundthem.

There isalsoaprimafacie tensionbetweenthesuggestionabove, thatwedistin-guish“intuition” from“perception”—i.e“Wahrnehmung”—andKant’s remark in theStufenleiter passagequotedabove, that“perception”[perceptio]isthecategoryof“rep-resentationwithconsciousness”, inwhichheincludesintuition. Onedifficultyisthat“Wahrnehmung”, “perceptio”, and“Perzeption”arealltypicallytranslatedinEnglishusing“perception”, whileitisunclearthatallthesetermsmeanthesamethingforKant,orthattheymeanwhat wemean, using“perception”initscontemporaryEnglishsense.Butthedifficultyisn’tjustrelatedtotheproblemofEnglishtranslation; rather, thetextofthe Stufenleiter seemstodefineintuitionintermsofbeingaconsciousrepresenta-tion (and thusa “perceptio”), but I suggestedabove theKantdistinguishes intuitionfrom Wahrnehmung byappealtothepresenceofconsciousnessinthelatterbutnottheformer.

Onepossiblemoveinresolvingthistensionistosaythatthenotionof“conscious-ness” in the Stufenleiter concerns consciousness of the representation, rather than,specifically, itscontent. Intuitions, onthisreading, wouldbeconsciousrepresentations,butthesenseinwhichtheyareconsciousdiffersfromthatofa Wahrnehmung. ThereisalreadygroundforsuchadistinctioninKant’sdifferentiationbetweentheconscious-ness inherent in the awareness of a representation—its “clarity” [Klarheit], whichrequiresonlythattherepresentationsufficefordistinguishinganobjectfromothers—andtheconsciousnessinherentintheawarenessofthecontentofarepresentation—its“distinctness”[Deutlichkeit], whichrequiresthatoneclearlyrepresentallthedifferentpartsofthecontentoftherepresentation(orthepartsofitscorrespondingobject)(An7:137-8; cf. JL 9:34; R 643, 15:283; R 1709, 16:89).15 Thismeansof resolving theissueisperhapsmadeevenmoreattractivebyKant’sremarkinthe Anthropology that,

distinctnessalonemakesitpossiblethatanaggregate[Summe]ofrepre-sentationsbecomesacognition[Erkenntnis], inwhichorderisthoughtinthismanifold, becauseeveryconsciouscombination[ZusammensetzungmitBewußtsein]presupposesunityofconsciousness, andconsequentlyaruleforthecombination. (7:138)

15 Therearecomplications, however, in simply equating clarityandconsciousness; cf. B414-15, note.Kantalsoseemsquitehappytoentertainthepossibilityofunconsciousor“obscure”[Dunkel]intuitions(An7:135); cf. Wunderlich(2005), 141-2; Grüne(2009), ch. 1.3.



Thispassage suggests thatan intuition, of itself, isatbestconscious in the senseofbeing clear [klar]. WhenanintuitionisapprehendedinanactofWahrnehmung (cf. Pr4:300), itscontentisbroughttogetherinsuchawaythatitbecomes(atleasttosomedegree) distinct [deutlich], andthusacandidateforcognition. Inthismanner, weseemabletoresolvethetensionbetweentheaccountofthedifferencebetweenintuitionandWahrnehmung offeredaboveandKant’sremarksinthe Stufenleiter.16

GiventhedifficultyofprovidingapreciseaccountofhowKant’sterminologymapsontocontemporaryusage(assumingthatitdoesatall), I focusbelowonwhatI taketo be a central aspect of the contemporary debate between conceptualist and non-conceptualistinterpretationsofKant—viz. whether intuitions, understoodbythisde-bateasmentalstateswhicharebothcognitive, andhavesense-modalspecificphenom-enalcharacter, dependon(andinwhatwaytheydependon)actsoftheunderstanding.TheemphasisonintuitionisgroundedinKant’stextsinsofarasKantrepeatedlycitesempiricalintuitionasthatwhichisourfirstorprimarymeansofbeingsensorilyrelatedtoactualobjects(Pr4:283; cf. Pr4:350; B160; A180/B222; OD 8:217). I shallfreelyusetheterms“perception”, “experience”, and“perceptualexperience”todescribethementalstatesKantdesignatesby“intuition”[Anschauung], solongasitisunderstoodthattheseEnglishtermsaremeantinourcontemporaryusage, notnecessarilyKant’s.

SoI use“outerintuition”(orwherecontextpermits, simply“intuition”)toindicate,unlessotherwisenoted, theperception(i.e. theEnglishtermforcognitivesensorycon-sciousness)ofanexistencedistinctfromthesubject. “Inner”intuition, incontrast, istheawarenessof the subject’s existence, andaparticularmode thereof (e.g. feelingwarm, hungry, etc.). Bothareformsof experience intheEnglishsenseoftheterm—viz. acognitivementalstateoreventwithaparticularphenomenologybasedononeofthefivesenses. But, asnotedabove, neitherinnernorouterintuitionissufficientforexperience[Erfahrung]inKant’ssenseoftheterm. Kant’snotionofanexperiencere-quiresconceptualandapperceptivecapacitieswhichengenderanawarenessoflawfulrelationsbetweenconsciouslyperceivedobjects, properties, states, orevents.

Thequestiontowhichwenowturnconcernstheconditionsunderwhichamen-tal state type thatKantdesignatesas“intuition” [Anschauung] requiresorotherwisepresupposesmentalactsofsynthesis(oratleastthecapacityforsuchacts)bytheun-derstanding.

3 KantianNon-Conceptualism

Attheheartofnon-conceptualistreadingsofKantstandsthedenialthatmentalactsofsynthesiscarriedoutbytheunderstandingarenecessaryfortheoccurrenceofcognitivementalstatesofthetypewhichKantdesignatesbytheterm“intuition”[Anschauung].

16 ThankstoSamRicklessforencouragingclarityonthispoint.



Though it is controversial as towhatmightbeconsidered the “natural”or “default”readingofKant’smaturecriticalphilosophy, thereareatleastfourconsiderationswhichlendstrongsupporttoanon-conceptualistinterpretationofKant’smaturework.

First, asseveralscholarshavenoted, Kant repeatedlyand forcefullystates that inourcognitionthereisastrictdivisionofcognitivelabor—objectsaregivenbysensi-bilityandthoughtviatheunderstanding.17 AsRobertHannahasargued, whenKantdiscussesthedependenceofintuitiononconceptualjudgmentintheAnalyticofCon-cepts, heisspecificallytalkingabout cognition ratherthanwhatwewouldconsidertobeperceptualexperience.18

Second, Kantcharacterizestherepresentationalcapacitiescharacteristicofsensibil-ityasmoreprimitive than thosecharacteristicof theunderstanding (or reason), andasplausiblypartofwhathumans sharewith the restof theanimalkingdom.19 Forexample, RobertHannaconstruesKant’sdistinctionbetweenthefacultiesofsensibilityandunderstandingascapturingthedifferencebetweenthe“sub-rational”powersofthemindthatwesharewithnon-humananimals, andthe“rationalorhigher-levelcognitivepowers”thatarespecialtohumanbeings.20

Ifoneweretodenythat, accordingtoKant, sensibilityaloneiscapableofproducingmentalstatesthatwerecognitiveincharacterthenitwouldseemthatanyanimalwhichlacksafacultyofunderstanding, andthusthecapacityforconceptualsynthesis, wouldthereby lackanycapacity forgenuinely perceptual experience. Themental livesofnon-rationalanimalswouldthus, atbest, consistofnon-cognitivesensorystateswhichcausallycorrelatewithchangesintheanimal’senvironment. Asidefromwhatwewouldnowconsidertobeanunappealingandimplausiblecharacterizationofthecognitivecapacitiesofanimals, thisreadingalsofacestextualhurdles. Kantisonrecordinvariousplacesassayingthatanimalshavesensoryrepresentationsoftheirenvironment(CPJ5:464; LM 28:449; cf. An7:212), thattheyhaveintuitions(LL 24:702), andthattheyareacquaintedwithobjectsthoughtheydonotcognizethem(JL 9:64–5).21

IfKant’spositionisthatsyntheticactscarriedoutbytheunderstandingarenecessaryfor the cognitive standingof amental state, thenKant is contradicting fundamental

17 Hanna(2005); Allais(2009); McLear(2011); Hanna(2011a); Tolley(2013); McLear(Forthcominga),McLear(Forthcomingb).

18 SeethediscussionofKant’s“togethernessprinciple”andit’ssignificanceforsettingtheconditionsonobjectivelyvalidjudgmentin Hanna(2005), 265-7.

19 Kant connects the possession of a faculty of sensibility to animal nature in various places,e.g. A546/B574, A802/B830; An7:196.

20 Hanna(2005), 249; cf. Allais(2009); McLear(2011), McLear(Forthcominga), §3.21 Forfurtherdiscussionsee Naragon(1990); Allais(2009); McLear(2011). Forsomedefenseofthecon-ceptualistpositionsee McDowell(1996), chs. 3&6; Ginsborg(2006b), Ginsborg(2006a); Ginsborg(2008); Gomes(2014).



elementsofhisownpositionincreditingintuitions(ortheirpossibility)tonon-rationalanimals.

Third, anypositionwhichregardsperceptualexperienceasdependentuponactsofsynthesiscarriedoutbytheunderstandingmustalsoconstruethe“pure”intuitionsofspaceandtimeasdependentuponactsofsynthesis.22 However, Kant’sdiscussionofspace(andanalogously, time)inthethirdandfourtharguments(fourthandfifthinthecaseoftime)oftheMetaphysicalExpositionofSpaceintheTranscendentalAestheticseemsincompatiblewithsuchaproposedrelationofdependence.

Kant’spointinthethirdandfourthargumentsoftheMetaphysicalExpositionofspace(andsimilarlyoftime)isthatnofiniteintellectcouldgrasptheextentandnatureofspaceasaninfinitewholeviaasyntheticprocessmovingfromparttowhole. Iftheunityoftheformsofintuitionwerealsosomethingdependentuponintellectualactivity, thenthisunitywouldnecessarilyinvolvethediscursive(thoughnotnecessarilyconceptual)runningthroughandgatheringtogetherofagivenmultiplicity(presumablyofdifferentlocationsormoments)intoacombinedwhole, whichKantbelievesischaracteristicofsynthesisgenerally(A99).

ButKant’sargumentsintheMetaphysicalExpositionsofspaceandtimerequirethatthefundamentalbasisofourrepresentationofspaceandtimedoesnotproceedfromagraspofthemultiplicityoffeaturesofanintuitedparticulartothewholethathasthosefeatures. Insteadtheformofpureintuitionconstitutesarepresentationalwholethatisprior tothatofitscomponentparts(cf. CJ 5:407-8, 409).23

Hence, Kant’spositionisthatthepureintuitionsofspaceandtimepossessaunitywhollydifferentfromthatgivenbythediscursiveunityoftheunderstanding(whetheritbeinconceptualjudgmentortheintellectual cum imaginativesynthesisofintuitedobjectsmoregenerally). Theunityofaestheticrepresentation—characterizedbytheformsofspaceandtime—hasastructureinwhichtherepresentationalpartsdependonthewhole. Theunityofdiscursiverepresentation—representationwheretheactivityoftheunderstandingisinvolved—hasastructureinwhichtherepresentationalwholedependsonitsparts.24

Finally, therehasbeenextensivediscussionof thenon-conceptualityof intuitioninthesecondaryliteratureonKant’sphilosophyofmathematics. Forexample, MichaelFriedmanhasarguedthattheexpressivelimitationsoftheprevailinglogicinKant’stimerequiredthepostulationofintuitionasaformofsingular, non-conceptualrepresenta-

22 Thispositionisforcefullyarticulatedin Longuenesse(1998), ch. 8; seealso Griffith(2012); Friedman(2012).

23 Kant’sargumenthereisdirectedverymuchagainsttheLeibnizianviewthatallrepresentationispurelyconceptual. Forfurtherdiscussionsee Adams(1994), ch. 9; Janiak(2012).

24 Formuchmoreextensivediscussionofthisissuesee McLear(Forthcominga); cf. Messina(2014); OnofandSchulting(Forthcoming).



tion.25 CharlesParsonsandEmilyCarsonhavearguedthatspacemustbegiveninaphenomenologicalmannerasanoriginal, non-conceptualrepresentationinorderthatwebeabletodemonstratetherealpossibilityofconstructedmathematicalobjectsasrequiredforgeometricknowledge.26 Ultimately, however, therearedifficultiesinas-sessingwhetherKant’sphilosophyofmathematicscanhaverelevancefortheconceptu-alismdebate, sincethesenseinwhichintuitionmustbenon-conceptualinaccountingformathematicalknowledgeisnotobviouslyincompatiblewithclaimingthatintuitionsthemselves(includingpureintuition)aredependentuponaconceptually-guidedsyn-thesis.27

Thenon-conceptualistreadingisthusclearlycommittedtoallowingthatsensibilityaloneprovides, in a perhaps very primitivemanner, objective representationof theempiricalworld. Sensibilityisconstruedasanindependentcognitivefaculty, whichhumanssharewithothernon-rationalanimals, andwhichisthejumping-offpointformoresophisticatedconceptualrepresentationofempiricalreality.

4 KantianConceptualism

IntheintroductionI characterizedconceptualismasclaimingthatthereisadependencerelationbetweenasubject’shavingconscioussensoryexperienceofanobjectiveworld,andtherepertoireofconceptspossessedbythesubjectandexercisedinactsbyherfacultyofunderstanding.

Asafirstpassatsharpeningthisformulation, wemayunderstandconceptualism, asitappearsinthescholarlyliteratureonKant, asathesisconsistingoftwoclaims: (i)senseexperiencehascorrectnessconditionsdeterminedbythe“content”oftheexperience;(ii)thecontentofanexperienceisastructuredentitywhosecomponentsareconcepts.Let’staketheseinturn.

25 Friedman(1992), ch. 2; cf. thediscussionofthenon-conceptualconditionsofjudgmentsofequalityin Anderson(2005), 54-8andthediscussionoftherepresentationofhomogeneousunitsin Sutherland(2008).

26 Parsons(1964); Parsons(1992); Carson(1997); Carson(1999); cf. Hanna(2002). ForageneraloverviewofrelatedissuesinKant’sphilosophyofmathematicssee Shabel(2006)andtheworkscitedthereinatp. 107, note29.

27 MichaelFriedman(Friedman(2012))hasrecentlyarticulatedsuchaposition; cf. Longuenesse(1998).If, asFriedmanargues, Kant’snotionoftheconceptualistiedtohislogic, then, aswemoveawayfromsyllogisticlogicpost-Frege, theremaybenotionsoftheconceptualthatarecompatiblewithKant’sviewsinmathematics. Fordiscussionsee MacFarlane(2002); Anderson(2004), Anderson(2005).



4.1 Content&Correctness

Animportantbackgroundassumptiongoverningtheconceptualismdebateconstruesmentalstatesasrelatedtotheworldcognitively(asopposedtomerelycausally)ifandonlyiftheypossesscorrectnessconditions. Thatwhichdeterminesthecorrectnesscon-ditionforastateisthatstate’s“content”.

Suppose, forexample, thatanexperienceE hasthefollowingcontentC:

C:Thatcupiswhite.

ThiscontentdeterminesacorrectnessconditionV:

V:S’sexperienceE iscorrectiffthecupvisuallypresentedtothesubjectasthecontentofthedemonstrativeiswhiteandthecontentC correspondstohowthingsseemtothesubjecttobevisuallypresented.

Herethecontentoftheexperientialstatefunctionsmuchlikethecontentofabeliefstatetodeterminewhethertheexperience, likethebelief, isorisnotcorrect.

A state’spossessionofcontentthusdeterminesacorrectnesscondition, invirtueofwhichwecanconstruethestateasmapping, mirroring, orotherwisetrackingaspectsofthesubject’senvironment.

PerhapsthemostprominentrecentinterpretationofKantasendorsingthecontentassumptionisfoundinJohnMcDowell’s MindandWorld. McDowell’sprojectthereistoshow, givencertainpresuppositionsconcerningthenatureofjustification, howitisthatexperiencecanplayajustificatoryandnotmerelycausalroleinthefixationofbelief. InthecourseofthisargumentMcDowellarticulatesveryclearlyacommitmenttoconstruingrepresentationalcontentasthekindofthingthatiscorrectorincorrect.Hesays,

Theveryideaofrepresentationalcontentbringswithitanotionofcorrect-nessandincorrectness: somethingwithacertaincontentiscorrect, intherelevantsense, justincasethingsareasitrepresentsthemtobe. I canseenogoodreasonnottocallthiscorrectness“truth.” Butevenif, forsomereason, wereservethat titleforcorrectnessinthissensewhenit ispos-sessedbythingswithconceptualcontent, itseemsaroutinethoughtthattherecanberationalconnectionsbetweentheworld’sbeingasapossessorofonebitofcontentrepresentsitandtheworld’sbeingasapossessorofanotherbitofcontentrepresentsit, independentlyofwhatkindofcontentisinquestion.28

28 McDowell(1996), 162. ManyofMcDowell’sinterlocutorssharesimilarviews. Cf. Evans(1982), 202;Peacocke(1992), 55, 65; Burge(2003), 506.



McDowellexplainsthecloseconnectionbetweentheideaofrepresentationalcon-tentandthatofcorrectnessintermsofthenormativecharacterofanyworld-directedmentalstate, aparadigmaticinstanceofwhichisjudgingthatsomethingisthecase. Hesays,

Tomakesenseoftheideaofamentalstate’sorepisode’sbeingdirectedtowardstheworld, inthewayinwhich, say, abelieforjudgementis, weneedtoputthestateorepisodeinanormativecontext. A belieforjudge-menttotheeffectthatthingsarethusandso—abelieforjudgementwhosecontent(aswesay)isthatthingsarethusandso—mustbeapostureorstancethatiscorrectlyorincorrectlyadoptedaccordingtowhetherornotthingsareindeedthusandso. (Ifwecanmakesenseofjudgementorbeliefasdirectedtowardstheworldinthatway, otherkindsofcontent-bearingposturesorstancesshouldeasilyfallintoplace).29

HereMcDowellclaimsthatbeliefsandjudgmentshaveaparticularwayofdisclosingtheworld to a subject and that this is away inwhichwemightunderstandworld-directedmentalstatesmoregenerally. Hefurtherclaimsthatthewayinwhichamen-talstate isdirectedat theworld is in termsof itspossessingacorrectnessconditionconcerninghowtheworldinfactis. McDowellthenrelateshisunderstandingofsuchworld-disclosingorworld-directedstatestoperceptualexperience.

WeshouldunderstandwhatKantcalls“intuition”—experientialintake—notasabaregettingofanextra-conceptualGiven, butasakindofoc-currenceorstatethatalreadyhasconceptualcontent. Inexperienceonetakesin, forinstancesees, thatthingsarethusandso. Thatisthesortofthingonecanalso, forinstance, judge.30

McDowellhereutilizesKant’sterm“intuition”[Anschauung]whichMcDowellequateswith“experiential intake.‘’Soheendorses the idea that intuitionhascontent (beingnecessaryforour“takingin”thatsomethingisthecase), andthatitisinvirtueofthiscontentthattheexperientialstate, togetherwiththeworld, iseithercorrectorincorrect.Fromthiswecanconcludethat, accordingtoMcDowell, intuitionshaverepresenta-tionalcontent, thatthisentailsthatsuchcontentisassessableforitscorrectness, andthatintuitionswithcontentaretherebymentalstatesassessablefortheircorrectness.Hence, McDowell’sinterpretationclearlyunderstandsKantasendorsingaversionofthecontentassumption.

29 McDowell(1996), xi-xii.30 McDowell(1996), 9.



Manynon-conceptualistopponentsofMcDowell’sinterpretationneverthelesssharewithhimanendorsementofthecontentassumption.31 However, theydifferwithhiminatleastoneoftwoways. First, thecontentofanexperiencewhichsetsitscorrectnessconditionsisattributedtotheexperienceregardlessofwhat, ifany, otherconceptualcapacitiesthesubjectmayhave. Non-conceptualcontentsarethusmeanttocaptureaspectsoftheperceivingsubject’sexperiencethatmaywelloutrunthesubject’sowncapacitiesforarticulation.32

Second, proponents of non-conceptualist readings of contentmay construe non-conceptualcontentsascorrectinamannerthatisaltogetherdistinctfromconceptualcontents, whicharetrueorfalsedependingonwhethertheconditionssetoutbytheconceptsconstituting thecontentare satisfied. Incontrast, non-conceptualcontent,muchlikethecontentofamaporarecording, isaccurateorinaccurate. Itthusadmitsofdegreesofapproximation.33

Thus, formanynon-conceptualists, whileitisstillthecasethatasubject’smentalstatesonlycountasrepresentationalinvirtueofpossessingcorrectnessconditions, thenatureandarticulationofthesecorrectnessconditionsmaywelldifferradicallyfromthosesetoutbyconceptualism.

Wecanseethesetwofeaturesofnon-conceptualismatworkinaninterpretationofKantthatis, inmanyways, directlyopposedtoMcDowell’sconceptualism. RobertHannahasargued that, forKant, sensible intuitionspossesswhollynon-conceptualrepresentationalcontent. WecanseethisintwoquotesfromHanna, thefirstofwhichdescribes thenon-conceptualist position andattributes it toKant, while the secondarticulatesingreaterdetailthekindofrepresentationalcontentHannathinksispresentinperceptualexperience.

Non-conceptualismholdsthatnon-conceptualcontentexistsandisrep-resentationallysignificant…Non-conceptualcognitivecontentinthecon-temporarysenseis, forallphilosophicalintentsandpurposes, identicaltointuitionalcognitivecontentinKant’ssense.34

31 Many, butnotall. See Tolley(2011), Tolley(2013); McLear(Forthcomingb).32 Endorsementofthisthesissometimesgoesunderthename’statenon-conceptualism’or’relativenon-conceptualism.’ See Heck(2000); Speaks(2005); cf. Allais(2009); Hanna(2005), Hanna(2008), Hanna(2011b).

33 Cf. Burge (2003). This conception of non-conceptual content also goes under name ’content non-conceptualism’or’absolutenon-conceptualism.’ See, again, Heck(2000); Speaks(2005).

34 Hanna(2005), 248.



essentiallynon-conceptualcontentiseitheraccurateorinaccurate, andasI havesuggested, inherentlypoisedforuseintheintentionalactionsofconsciousanimals.35

WecanthusseethatforHanna, intuitionalcontentisnon-conceptualbutneverthelessrepresentational—itexpressesanaccuracyconditioninvirtueofwhichthementalstaterepresentssomeportionof themind-independentworld. Hanna’sposition (bothonits ownandas attributed toKant) regards thisnonconceptual content as essentiallyveridical, indexical, andcontextdependent.36 ButthebasicpresumptionwhichdrivesHanna’snon-conceptualismisthesameasthatofMcDowell’sconceptualism. A mentalstatecountsasastateofperceptualawareness—i.e. a“world-directed”state—onlyinvirtueofhavingarepresentationalcontentwhichsetsacorrectnessconditionforthestate. Hence, Hanna, likeMcDowell, articulatesaninterpretationwhichendorsesthecontentassumption.

I takeitthatMcDowell’sandHanna’sviewsarerepresentativeoftwoextremesre-gardinginterpretationsofKantunderstandingofthecontentofintuition. McDowell, atleastinthediscussionin MindandWorld, arguesthatintuitionisthroughandthroughconceptual. Thatis, McDowellunderstandstherepresentationalcontentofperceptionasthesamekindofcontentasisfoundinbeliefsorthoughts. Sothecontentofanexpe-rienceisaconceptuallystructured, truth-evaluableproposition.37 Hanna, incontrast,arguesthatintuitionhasabsolute non-conceptual content—ithasastructureessentiallydifferentinnaturefromthatofconceptualcontent.38

HannaandMcDowellarticulatethebasicshapeofmuchrecentdebateconcerning

35 Hanna(2008), 58.36 Hanna(2006), chs. 1-2; Hanna(2011b); cf. Howell(1973); Pereira(2013).37 McDowellhassincechangedhisview. A morecurrentspecificationof itstates that intuitionisnotpropositionalinstructurethoughitneverthelesspossessesconceptualcontent. See McDowell(2008).However, sinceMcDowellstillconstruesthecontentofintuitionasintentionalandconceptual, bringingwithitanormativenotionofcorrectness, I considerevenhismorecurrentstatementstobeanendorse-mentofthecontentassumption. Cf. McDowell(2013), whereheexplicitlysaysthatitis“invirtueofhavingcontentastheydothatperceptualexperiencesputusinsuch[i.e. cognitive]relationstothings”(p. 144).

38 Hanna(2011a), 354; cf. Hanna(2005).



theinterpretationofKant’sviewsconcerningperceptualexperience.39 Sowhetheraperceptualexperientialstatehasconceptuallystructuredcontent(McDowell), ornon-conceptuallystructuredcontent(Hanna), itisinvirtueofthestate’saimingatawaytheworldmightbe, andthushavingacorrectnesscondition, thatthestatecountsasaformofperceptualawareness.

Thereare reasons forquestioningwhetherKantendorses thecontentassumptionasI’vearticulateditabove.40 Kantseemstodenyseveralclaimswhichareintegraltoit. First, invariousplacesheexplicitlydeniesthatintuition, orthedeliverancesofthesensesmoregenerally, arethekindofthingwhichcouldbecorrectorincorrect(A293–4/B350; An§117:146; cf. LL 24:83ff, 103, 720ff, 825ff). Second, Kant’sconceptionofrepresentationalcontentrequiresanactofmentalunification(Pr4:304; cf. JL §179:101; LL 24:928), somethingwhichKantexplicitlydenies ispresent inanintuition(B129-30; cf. B176-7).41 Finally, Kant’s“modal”conditiononcognition, thatitprovideademonstrationofwhatisreallyactualratherthanmerelylogicallypossible, seemstoprecludeanendorsementofthecontentassumption. However, forthepurposesofunderstanding theconceptulismdebate, wewillassume thatKantdoesendorse thecontentassumption. Thequestionthenishowtounderstandthenatureofthecontentsounderstood.

4.2 ConceptualContent

Inaddition to thecontentassumption, I definedconceptualismascommitted to thecontentofintuitionbeingcompletelycomposedofconcepts. Againstthis, ClintonTol-ley(Tolley(2013), Tolley(2011))hasarguedthattheimmediacy/mediacydistinctionbetweenintuitionandconceptentailsadifferenceinthecontentofintuitionandcon-cept.

39 ThereareagreatmanyotherwaystoarticulatethenotionthatintuitionhascontentwithinthelimitssetbyHannaandMcDowell. Forexample, therearecoherentinterpretationswhichdenythatintuitionhasconceptualcontent, butassertthatitistheresultofanimaginativesynthesis, andholdthattheimageswhichconstituteexperientialconsciousnessareconstructionsaccordingtoconceptualrules. Hence,insofarastheimagespurporttoberepresentationaltheymustbeattributedacontentdeterminedbytherulesoftheirconstruction. Inmyterms, thisamountstoavariationoftheContentassumption. SeeLonguenesse’sdiscussionofconceptsasrules forsensiblesynthesis. Longuenesse(1998), 50ff. Seealso Anderson(2001); Land(2011); Matherne(Unpublished). Watkins (2008), 519-20alsosuggestsanimagisticview, thoughitisnotfullyarticulated. Otherviewsthatseemcompatiblewithsuchanaccountinclude Strawson(1966); Strawson(1970); Sellars(1968); Ginsborg(2006b); Ginsborg(2006a).Schulting(2012)presentsarecentandhelpfuloverviewofmanyoftherelevantissues.

40 See McLear(Forthcomingb)formoreextensivediscussion.41 Kantdoesnot, however, denythatintuitionhas“content”[Inhalt]insomesenseotherthanthatofacorrectnesscondition. Fordiscussionsee Tolley(2011), Tolley(2013); McLear(Forthcomingb).



ifweunderstandby“content”…arepresentation’sparticularrelationtoanobject…thenit isclear thatweshouldconcludethatKantacceptsnon-conceptualcontent. This isbecauseKantaccepts that intuitionsputusinarepresentational relation toobjects that isdistinct inkind fromtherelationthatpertainstoconcepts. I argued, furthermore, thatthisisthemeaningthatKanthimselfassignstotheterm“content”. (Tolley(2013),128)

InsofarasKantoftenspeaksofthe“content”[Inhalt]ofarepresentationasconsistinginaparticularkindofrelationtoanobject(Tolley(2013), 112; cf. B83, B87)Tolleythusgivesusakindof“shortargument”foranon-conceptualistreadingofKant:

1. Thecontentofacognition(whetherintuitionorconcept)consistsin—i.e. isnoth-ingbut—arelationtoanobject

2. Conceptsandintuitionsrelatetoobjectsindifferentways—viz. mediatelyandimmediately

3. ∴ Thecontentof intuition isdifferent from thecontentof concepts—i.e. it isnon-conceptual

Tolley’sargumentgivesusgoodreasontorejecttheideathatintuitioncouldhave, inKant’ssenseoftheterm, aconceptasits“content”.42 HoweveritdoesnotdemonstratethatthecontentofwhatKantcallsanintuitionisnotsomethingthat we wouldconstrueasconceptual, inawidersenseof that term. Forexample, bothpureandcomplexdemonstrativeexpressionshaveconceptualform(e.g. thatcolor, thisperson), butarenot, inKant’s terms, “conceptual” since theydonot exhibit the requisite generalitywhich, accordingtoKant, allconceptualrepresentationmust.43

4.3 Conceptualism&Synthesis

If it isn’t textuallyplausible tounderstand thecontentof an intuition in conceptualterms(atleastasKantunderstandsthenotionofaconcept)thenwhatwoulditmeantosaythatKantendorsesconceptualismwithregardtoexperience? Themostplausibleinterpretation, endorsedbyawidevarietyof interpreters, readsKantasarguing thatthegenerationofanintuition, whetherpureorsensory, dependsatleastinpartontheactivityoftheunderstanding. Onthiswayofcarvingthings, conceptualismdoes notconsistinthenarrowclaimthatintuitionshaveconceptsascontentsorcomponents,butratherconsistsinthebroaderclaimthattheoccurrenceofanintuitiondependsat

42 Foropposingviewssee Willaschek(1997); Griffith(2012); Engstrom(2006).43 Forfurtherdiscussionsee McLear(Forthcomingb), §5.2; Thompson(1972).



leastinpartonthediscursiveactivityoftheunderstanding.44 ThespecificactivityoftheunderstandingisthatwhichKantcalls“synthesis”, the“runningthrough, andgatheringtogether”ofrepresentations(A99).45

What’smore, the fact that intuitionsaregeneratedaccording toactsof synthesisdirectedbyorotherwisedependentuponconceptualcapacitiesprovidessomebasistoclaimthatwhatevercorrectnessconditionsmightbehadbyintuitionmustbeinaccordwiththeconceptualsynthesiswhichgeneratedthem. ThisseemsnicelyinlinewithKant’smuchquotedclaim,

The same function that gives unity to thedifferent representations in ajudgment alsogivesunitytothemeresynthesisofdifferentrepresentationsinanintuition, which, expressedgenerally, iscalledthepureconceptofunderstanding. (A79/B104-5)

Thelinkbetweenintuition, synthesisinaccordancewithconcepts, andrelationtoanobjectismadeevenclearerbyKant’sclaimin§17oftheB-editionTranscendentalDeductionthat,

Understanding is, generallyspeaking, thefacultyof cognitions. Thesecon-sistinthedeterminaterelationofgivenrepresentationstoanobject. Anobject, however, isthatintheconceptofwhichthemanifoldofagivenintuitionis united. (B137; emphasisintheoriginal)

Howeverelsewearetounderstandthispassage, Kanthereindicatesthattheunityofanintuitionnecessaryforittostandasacognitionofanobjectrequiresasynthesisbytheconcept<object>. Inotherwords, cognitionofanobjectrequiresthatintuitionbeunifiedbyanactoractsoftheunderstanding.

Accordingtotheconceptualistinterpretationwemustunderstandthenotionofarepresentation’scontentasarelationtoanobject, whichinturndependsonaconcep-tuallyguidedsynthesis. Sowecanreviseourinitialdefinitionofconceptualismtoreaditasclaimingthat(i)thecontentof anintuitionisakindofrelationtoanobject; (ii)

44 McLear(Forthcominga)callsthisbroaderposition“Intellectualism”, soastoemphasizetheimportanceoftheunderstanding’sactivity, ratherthanthespecificconceptualcontentofthatactivity.

45 See Grüne(2009), ch. 2foranalternativetaxonomy. Grünedistinguishes“judgment-theoretic”[Urteils-theoretik]from“conceptualist”[Konzeptualist]interpretationsonthebasisofwhethertheinterpretationconstruestheintuitiverepresentationsgeneratedbysensorysynthesisintermsof, orimplying, judgment(Grüne(2009), 111-12). However, sheandI agreethatsuch“judgment-theoretic”viewsarenotdefini-tiveofabroadlyconceptualistinterpretation, andthatwhetheronetakesKantasarguingthatintuitiondependsonaconceptually-guidedsynthesisremainsasignificantdifferencebetweenconceptualistandnon-conceptualistinterpretations(Grüne(2009), §2.4; cf. Grüne(2008)). SoI takethediscussionheretobebroadlycongenialtoherown.



therelationtoanobjectdependsonasynthesisdirectedinaccordancewithconcepts;(iii)synthesisinaccordancewithconceptssetscorrectnessconditionsfortheintuition’srepresentationofamind-independentobject.46

5 Objections

Oneof themaincriticismsof theconceptualist readingofKant is that it seeminglycommitshimtothepositionthatperceptualexperienceisconstrainedbythesubject’srepertoireofconcepts. However, HannahGinsborghasarguedthatKant’sconceptual-ismneednotbeconstruedinsuchaway.47 Instead,

thereisroomforalessdemandingconceptionofwhatitisforunderstand-ingtobeinvolvedinperceptualsynthesis, aconceptionwhichdoesnotrequirethatanyconceptsbegraspedantecedentlytoengaginginsynthe-sis. Onthisconception, tosay thatsynthesis involvesunderstanding issimply tosay that it involvesaconsciousnessofnormativity…I want toclaimthatthisconsciousnessofnormativityispossiblewithoutthesub-ject’sfirsthavinggraspedanyconceptgoverninghersynthesis, and, morespecifically, withouthersynthesisneedingtobeguidedbyanyconcept.(Ginsborg(2008), 71)

AccordingtoGinsborg, weneednotreadtheconceptualistasmakingthestrongclaimthat perceptual experience is constrained by conceptual repertoire that the subjectbringswiththemtoexperience. Instead, weneedmerelyseetheissueofconceptu-alizationasoneinwhichthesubjectcombinesanassociationofsomebundleofsenseimpressionswiththesensethatsheisassociatingthemassheought, anditisthiscon-sciousnessofthenormativityofone’scombinationthatisresponsible“fortheobject-directedcharacterofourperceptions” (Ginsborg (2008), 74). Hence, ifGinsborg iscorrect, oneofthemainsourcesforobjectingtoconceptualistreadingsofKant—viz.theirsupposeddenialthatnon-rationalanimalsenjoyperceptualexperiences—wouldberemoved.48

46 Onemightworryhereabouttheobjectofperceptualhallucination. I setthisissuelargelytooneside,thoughitiscompatiblewiththeaccountgivenabovethatthe“objects”towhichoneisimmediatelyre-latedinperceptionarealways“intentional”objects. See Aquila(1983); Pereboom(1988); Longuenesse(1998), 20-6; Aquila(2003), Aquila(2008); Grüne(2009), 42.

47 Foralternativeconstrualsoftheconceptualityofexperiencethatalsoseethemselvesascompatiblewiththeclaimthatexperienceisprimitivesee Gomes(2014); Gomes(Manuscript); Land(2011).

48 Ginsborg’spositionhasbeencriticizedbyscholarsoneithersideof theconceptualismdebate. SeeGrüne(2008); Allais(2009), 401.



Perhapsthemostobviousobjectiontothenon-conceptualistreadingofKantstemsfromhisfamousstatementthat,

Intuition[Anschauung]andconcepts[Begriffe]thereforeconstitutetheele-mentsofallourcognition[Erkenntnis]…Thoughtswithoutcontent[Inhalt]areempty, intuitionswithoutconceptsareblind. . . . Theunderstand-ingisnotcapableofintuitinganything, andthesensesarenotcapableofthinkinganything. Onlyfromtheirunificationcancognitionarise. (A50–51/B74–75; myemphasis)

Theso-called“blindness”problemraisestwoissues. First, thatintuitionswithoutcon-ceptsorconceptualsynthesisarenotintentionalstates, andsocannotprovidethemindwithrelationtoanobject.49 Second, thatwecannotevenidentifythecognitivecontri-butionmadebysensoryexperienceindependentofitsconceptualization.50

AgainstthefirstpointithasbeenarguedthatifKant’sconcerniswiththemecha-nism(s)thatundergirdsintentionalstates, andhethinksthatpossessionofafacultyofunderstandingisanecessaryconditionforbeinginintentionalstates, thenhewouldbesimplyconfusedinattributingthepossibilityofintentionalstatestonon-rationalani-mals.51 Ithasalsobeenpointedoutthat, totheextentthatKantproblematizestheissueofintentionalrelations, itisatbestintentionalrelationstoexternalmind-independentobjects thatare inquestion, andnot intentional relations (suchas those involved inthinkingofone’sownmentalstates) überhaupt.52

Againstthesecondpoint, LucyAllais(Allais(2009))hasforcefullyarguedthatifwetakeKant’sdefinitionofintuition(andlikewiseofconcepts)seriously, thenwe must beabletoidentifyanindependentcontributionofsensibilitytocognition—viz. singularandimmediaterepresentationofanobject—lestwefailtomakesenseofKant’sdivi-sionbetweenintuitionandconcept.53 ItwouldalsobeextremelyoddofKanttodenythepossibilityofarticulatingthedistinctcontributionmadebysensibilitygiventhathegoessofarastoorganizethestructureofargumentinthefirst Critique aroundthedis-tinctionbetweenthosecontributionsmadebysensibility(theTranscendentalAesthetic)andthosemadebytheunderstanding(theTranscendentalLogic, andinparticular, the

49 Foraclearstatementoftheviewthatconceptualsynthesisisthemechanismbywhichsensorystatesfirstachievethestatusofintentionalstatessee George(1981); Pereboom(1988); cf. Van Cleve(1999),95-7.

50 Falkenstein(1995); McDowell(1996). McDowellfamouslyclaimsthatsensibilitycannotbeeven“no-tionallyseperated”fromcontributionsmadebytheunderstanding(McDowell (1996), 51). Cf. Bird(2006), ch. 7.2.

51 See Naragon(1990); Allais(2009); McLear(2011)andthereferencescitedinnotes 20 and 21 above.52 Cf. George(1981), 233andVanCleve’scriticaldiscussionin Van Cleve(1999), 96.53 Allais(2009), 393-4; cf. Falkenstein(1995), 63.



Analytic).54 Theclaimof“blindness”, itisargued, shouldnotbeinterpretedassoex-tremeastorenderunintelligiblefundamentalaspectsofKant’sarchitectonic, orofhisrepeatedstatementsconcerningtheindividualcognitiverolesofthefacultiesofsensi-bilityandunderstanding. Finally, atbest, theblindnessproblemseemstoconcernthedifficultiesinvolvedinarticulatingthenatureofsensorycontentwithoutdrawingonconceptsintheprocessofprovidingthearticulation.55 Butthiscanbeconcededwith-outtherebyadmittingthatthereisnosensorycontent(orpositivecognitivecontribution)independentofconceptualarticulation.

A significantfurthersourceofcriticismofthenon-conceptualistreadingisthatitatbestrendersineffectualKant’sapparentstrategyfordemonstratingthelegitimacyofthecategoriesintheargumentoftheTranscendentalDeduction, andatworstshowsKanttobetotallyconfusedinhisargumentativestrategy.56

A key text for this readingcomes in theconclusion to the secondor“B-edition”versionoftheargumentoftheTranscendentalDeduction.

[E]verythingthatmayevercomebeforeoursensesmuststandunderthelawsthatarise apriori fromtheunderstandingalone(B160). . . Conse-quentlyallsynthesis, thoughwhichevenperceptionitselfbecomespossi-ble, standsunderthecategories, andsinceexperienceiscognitionthoughconnectedperceptions, thecategoriesareconditionsofthepossibilityofexperience, andarethusalsovalid apriori ofallobjectsofexperience.(B161)

What thispassageanditscontextsuggest is that theculminationofKant’sargumentdemonstratingthelegitimacyoftheaprioriconceptshecallsthe“categories”requiresshowingthatallperceptiondependsonasynthesisviathecategories. Here, however, itisimportanttonotethatKantisusing“perception”[Wahrnehmung]inhisowntechnicalsense, asdiscussedin§2above, ratherthanourcontemporaryEnglishsense. Sohearguesherethatthecategoriesarenecessaryforconsciousnessofthecomplexcontentofanintuition. Butit isn’tclearthatthisisequivalenttobeingnecessaryforhavinganintuition, andthusforhavingasensoryexperienceinthecontemporarysensewithwhichwe’vebeenconcerned.

A further, andmuchdiscussed, text in theB-editionTranscendentalDeduction isalsooftentakenassupportingaconceptualistinterpretation. ThereKantsays,

Space, presentedasobject(asweareactuallyrequiredtorepresentitinge-ometry), containsmorethan[the]mereformofintuition—viz. itcontains

54 Bird(2006), 12755 Bird(2006), 129-30.56 Cf. Ginsborg(2008), 68-9; Griffith(2012). Forcriticismsee Allais(2009); Tolley(2013); McLear(Forth-cominga).



alsothegathering-together[Zusammenfassung]ofthemanifoldgivenac-cordingtotheformofsensibility, inanintuitiverepresentation—sothattheformofintuitiongivesusmerelyamanifold, butformalintuitiongivesusunityofrepresentation. IntheTranscendentalAestheticI hadmerelyin-cludedthisunitywithsensibility, wantingonlytopointoutthatitprecedesanyconcept. Butthisunityindeedpresupposesasynthesiswhichdoesnotbelongtothesenses, throughwhichallconceptsofspaceandtimefirstbecomepossible. Forthroughthisunity(inasmuchasunderstandingde-terminessensibility)spaceortimearefirstgivenasintuitions, andhencetheunityofthisintuitionbelongs apriori tospaceandtime, andnottotheconceptofunderstanding(see§24)(B160-1, note).

Here theconceptualist takesKant to “complete” theargumentof theDeductionbyarguing that even the existenceof space and time aspure intuitions dependson asynthesisbythecategories.57 Theconceptualistideahereisthat, bymakingspaceandtimethemselvesdependonacategorialsynthesis, Kantassureshisdesiredconclusion—viz. thatallpossibleempiricalintuitionmustdependonthecategories, andthusthatallpossibleobjectsofempiricalintuitionmustfallunderthecategories. Theconceptualistthus takes thisasproof thatanon-conceptualistapproach toreading theDeductionmustmaketheargumenttherehopelessandKant’sstrategydeeplyconfused.58

One thing to note about the footnote passage is that, in thefirst sentence, Kantexplicitlyinvokesthenotionofspaceasanobjectofgeometry. Butitisn’tobviousthatKantidentifiestheconditionsunderwhichasubjectmayrepresentspacegeometricallywiththeconditionsforrepresentingspace simpliciter. Infact, Kant’sdistinctioninthefootnotebetweentheformsofintuitionandformalintuitionsuggeststhathedeniesanysuchidentification. SoKantcanconsistentlyholdthattheunityoftherepresentationofthepureformsofintuition—spaceandtime—isindependentofanysynthesis, whileacknowledging, ashedoesinthelastsentenceofthenote, thattherepresentationoftheseentitiesasobjects, aswedoin the formal intuitionsrequiredformathematics,requiresapre-conceptualsynthesiscarriedoutbytheimagination.59

57 ThesourceofthisinterpretationseemstobeHegel. See Hegel(1977), 69-72. Forrelevantdiscussionsee Pippin(1989), 29-31; Waxman(1991), 79ff; Longuenesse(1998), ch. 8; Keller(1998), 107-12, 254;McDowell(2003), McDowell(2007); McLear(Forthcominga); Messina(2014).

58 Longuenesse(1998); Wenzel(2005); Gomes(2010); Land(2011); Griffith(2012); Gomes(2014). Notallnon-conceptualiststakeupthischallenge. Hanna(2011b)simplyacceptsthisasaconsequenceofKant’snon-conceptualistposition, andconstruesKantasdeeplydividedinhisownviewsonthematter.ForobjectionstoHanna’spositionsee Grüne(2011); Schulting(2012). ForanextensivediscussionoftheB160-1footnoteanddefenseofanon-conceptulistreadingofitsee OnofandSchulting(Forthcoming).

59 Cf. thediscussionin McLear(Forthcominga), §2.1.



We’vealsoseenonenon-conceptulistargument, above, thatKant’sargumentativestrategyintheDeductioncannotdependonmakingtheunityofintuitionitselfdepen-dentonsynthesisbecauseitjeopardizeshisargumentsintheTranscendentalAesthetic.SuchaninterpretationwouldalsodirectlycontradictKant’scharacterizationofthefinitenatureofhumanintellectualactivity(CJ 5:407; cf. B72; CJ 5:251-2, 253-4).60 Othernon-conceptualrepliestothisconceptualistreadingincludedenyingthatthesynthe-sisrequiredfortheunityofperceptualintuitionisitselfconceptual,61 anddistinguish-ingbetween the having ofan intuition, and the representationof thecontentof anintuition—wherethelatterisunderstoodasadeterminaterepresentationalrelationtosomeobject.62

Finally, andperhapsmostcentrallyforsomeconceptualistreadings(mostnotablySellars’sandMcDowell’s), theroleofconceptsinthegenerationofperceptualexperi-enceissupposedtohelpexplainhowperceptioncanplayajustificatoryratherthanmerelyacausal role in thefixationofbelief. Non-conceptualism, so theobjectiongoes, cannotaccountforthejustificatoryroleofperceptualexperienceinthefixationofempiricalbelief. Versionsofthisobjectionhaveoften, sinceWilfredSellars’sfamouspaper, goneunderthemonikerofthe“MythoftheGiven”.63 WhileitisnotentirelyobvioushowKant’stextsorargumentsyieldanysubstantiveconnectionwiththecon-cernsarticulatedbySellars, I shallsuggestbelowthreepossiblewaysinwhichsuchaconnectionmightbeunderstood.

Theexactnatureofobjectionstothesupposedlymythical“Given”vary.64 Oneob-jection, madebySellars, isthatjustifiersforbeliefmusthaveacertainkindofstructure—viz. afact-likestructurethatmirrorsthepropositionalstructureofbelief. Incontrast,sensoryexperiences(construedassensations)areparticularsratherthanfacts, andsocannotplayanyjustificatoryrole.65 This“premiseprinciple”, asithasbeencalledincontemporaryepistemology, thusplaysasignificantroleinmotivatingtherejectionofexperience, insofarasit lacksrepresentationalcontent, asapotentialjustifierforbe-

60 Forfurtherdiscussionofthispointsee McLear(Forthcominga).61 Rohs(2001), 220-1; Allais(2009), 395-6, 406-7; cf. Tolley(2013). Willaschek(1997)arguesthatin-tuition causally relatestoitsobjectindependentofconcepts, butonlyhasintentional content givenaconceptualsyntheis. Hannatakesanothertackandarguesthatsensibilityhasitsownformofsponta-neoussynthesisdistinctfromtheunderstanding’s(cf. Hanna(2008), 62).

62 Tolley(2013), 122-24.63 Sellars(1956), reprintedin Sellars(1963); cf. McDowell(1996); McDowell(1998a), McDowell(1998b),McDowell(1998c); Abela(2002)

64 Cf. Watkins(2008); Watkins(2012).65 Sellars(1956), reprintedin Sellars(1963), 128. Allfurtherpagereferenceswillbetothereprint. Cf.BonJour(1985), ch. 4.



lief.66 Forexample, JohnMcDowellarguesthat

TheideaoftheGivenistheideathatthespaceofreasons, thespaceofjus-tifications’orwarrants, extendsmorewidelythantheconceptualsphere.Butwecannotreallyunderstandtherelationsinvirtueofwhichajudgmentiswarrantedexceptasrelationswithinthespaceofconcepts: relationssuchasimplicationorprobabilification, whichholdbetweenpotentialex-ercisesofconceptualcapacities67

ThepassageinKanttypicallyadducedinsupportofthispointisthe“samefunction”passageat(A79/B104-5)quotedin§4.3above.68 Thus, accordingtothisconceptualistreadingofKant, senseexperience would havetherequisiteproposition-likestructure,andthusbecapableofstandinginjustificatoryrelationstobeliefs, sincethesameca-pacitiesthatstructurethecontentsofjudgmentforKant(viz. thecategories)wouldalsostructuresensoryexperience. WhilesuchinterpretersaresurelycorrectthatKant’saim,asexemplifiedinthispassage, istoshowthattheverysamecognitivecapacitieswhichconnectrepresentationsinamentalactofjudgingarealsoinplayintheconnectionofrepresentationsinasensoryexperience, itisnotobvioushowthepassagedirectlysupportsanyargumentconcerningtheepistemicsignificanceofperceptualexperiencetoknowledge. Endorsementofthepremiseprincipleisasubstantiveepistemologicalcommitment, anddespitewhatKantsaysintheA79/B104-5passageconcerningtheunityofjudgmentandintuition, itisnotatallobviousthatKantendorsestheprinci-ple.69 HencefurtherworkneedstobedonetoshowthatKantactuallyendorsesorevenarticulatesthisargument.

A secondobjectionagainsttheGiven, thatmightbeattributedtoKant, isthatthemereoccurrenceofasensoryexperiencecannotlicenseanyparticularbelief. Instead,sensoryexperiencecanonlyplayitsjustificatoryroleagainstabackgroundofconceptspossessedbytheexperiencingsubject.70 Thisconnects toKantat least inthesensethat, if theconceptualist reading is correct, there is aparticularbatteryof concepts

66 See Pryor(2005); SiegelandSilins(Forthcoming); McLear(Forthcomingb), §4.3fordiscussion.67 McDowell(1996), 7; cf. BonJour(1985),78; Davidson(1986), 310; Brewer(1999), 15468 Seee.g. Sellars(1968), 4-5; McDowell(2003), 79; Haag(2007), 150-1, 199, andch. 8; Kalderon(2011),235-6. Cf. Pippin(1982), 99-101; Heidegger(1997), 45-6; Longuenesse(1998), 200; Grüne(2009),107-11.

69 Forexample, accordingtoatleastoneprominentinterpretationofKant’sepistemology, Kantendorsesanatleastpartly“externalist”positionconcerningepistemicjustification, andthusdoesnotendorsethepremiseprincipleinthemannerrequiredtoplausiblyattributetohimthisversionofthe“MythoftheGiven”argument. See Chignell(2007b), 49-50; McLear(Forthcomingb), §4.3.

70 Sellars(1963), 170; McDowell(1998a), 435-6.



necessaryforanyperceptualexperiencetoplayaroleinjustificationortheacquisitionofempiricalknowledge—viz. thecategories.71

Againthough, onemightworryaboutattributingtheaboveargumenttoKant. Cer-tainlyKantthoughtthatempiricalintuitionalonewasinsufficienttocountasempiricalknowledgeandthatthelegitimateapplicationofthecategorieswasnecessaryforanysuchknowledge. Butmuchmorewouldneedtobesaidregardingwhetherorhowin-tuitionmightstandinepistemicrelationstobeliefs.72 ThereisnostraightforwardroutefromKant’sargumentconcerningtheroleofthecategoriesinempiricalknowledgetotheconclusionthattheepistemologicalstatusofintuitiondependsonthecategories.Indeed, theremaybereasonstothinkthatKantwouldrejectsuchaclaim.

Forexample, Kantseemstoholdthatinintuitionwe“provethepossibility”ofthesubjectmatterofourthoughts. KantmakesthispointexplicitlyintheprefacetotheB-editionofthefirst Critique.

To cognize anobject, it is required that I be able toprove its possibil-ity(whetherbythetestimonyofexperiencefromitsactualityor apriorithroughreason). ButI can think whateverI like, aslongasI donotcon-tradictmyself, i.e., aslongasmyconceptisapossiblethought, evenifIcannotgiveanyassurancewhetherornotthereisacorrespondingobjectsomewherewithinthesumtotalofallpossibilities. Butinordertoascribeobjectivevalidity to suchaconcept (realpossibility, for thefirst sortofpossibilitywasmerelylogical)somethingmoreisrequired(Bxxvi).

HereKantcontrastsmerelylogicallypossiblethought, inwhichonebringstogetherlog-icallycompossibleconcepts, withthekindofrealempiricalpossibilitynecessaryforcognition. Kantdistinguishesbetweenthesetwosortsofpossibilityintermsoftheno-tionofcancellation[Aufhebung]. Thesubjectmatterofathoughtis logically possibleifthethought’sconstituentconceptsmaybecombinedinjudgementwithoutcontradic-tion, andthuswithoutbeinglogicallycancelledout(A151/B190; NM 2:171–2). Thesubjectmatterofathoughtis really possible, incontrast, ifitcanbeshownthatthesub-jectmattertowhichthethoughtcorrespondsconsistsofpropertieswhicharemutuallyempiricallycompossibleandnot, inKant’sterms, “reallyrepugnant.” Kantoftenillus-tratesthisideawithexamplesinvolvingphysicalforces(e.g. oppositemotions, opposing

71 McDowell(1996); Ginsborg(2006b), Ginsborg(2008). Itisnotactuallyclearthatonlytheconceptualistreadingcanaccommodate thisaspectofKant’sview. A non-conceptualistmaywellagree that thecategoriesarenecessaryforempiricalknowledgewhileneverthelessdenyingthattheyarenecessaryinaccountingfortheintentionalityofperceptualexperience. Cf. Hanna(2001), 46-65, Hanna(2005), 256-7; Bird(2006), 193-207; Watkins(2008); Allais(2009), 392-4; Watkins(2012); Tolley(2013); McLear(Forthcominga), §3; McLear(Forthcomingb), §5.2.

72 For discussion see Stevenson (2003); Chignell (2007a), Chignell (2007b); Watkins (2008), Watkins(2012).



attractiveandrepulsiveforces; cf. A264–5/B320–1). Moreover, Kantconsideredafur-therkindofrepugnance, whereinthesubjectitselfis“cancelledout”. Inotherwords, itwouldbeimpossibleforanybeingtoexistthatwouldinstantiatesuchrepugnantprop-erties.73 Inorderforknowledgetobepossible, thedemonstrationoftherealpossibilityoftheobjectofknowledgemustbesecured. Ifthisiscorrectthenthereseemstobeatleasta primafacie tensionbetweenattributingtoKantboththeclaimthatpossessionofsomebatteryofconceptsisnecessaryforintuitiontohaveepistemicstanding, andtheclaimthat it isvia intuitionthatone’sconcepts (or thejudgmentsconstitutedbythem)firstattainepistemiclegitimacy. Howcouldaconceptconferepistemicstandingtointuitionpriortothatconcept’sbeingshowntobelegitimate? TheymaywellbeaKantianbasisforansweringthisquestion, butmoreneedstobesaidbytheconceptu-alisttodefendthesupposedKantianprovenanceofthissecondversionofthe“MythoftheGiven”argument.74

Finally, bothSellarsandMcDowellclaimthat it issimplyamistaketo thinkthatmentalstateswhicharepurelytheupshotofcausalinteractionswiththeworldcouldthemselvesstandasreasonsforempiricalbelief. Sellarsremarksthatsuchamistakeis“ofapiecewiththeso-called’naturalisticfallacy’inethics”(Sellars(1963), 146). Sellarshimselfgivesnoclearargumentforthisclaim.75 McDowellfocusesonthedistinctionbetweenthekindsofmentalstates, theoccurrenceofwhichweareresponsiblefor, suchasjudgment, andthosewhichsimply happen tous, inthewaythat, e.g. afitofsneezingmighthappentoone.76 Onceagain, wecanseethesuggestedparallelinaconceptu-alistreadingofKant. Ifconceptualcapacities, suchasthecategories, arenecessaryfortheoccurrenceofperceptualexperiencethenexperienceisnotmerelysomethingthatcausally happens tothesubject, butratherissomethingthatthesubjectherselfpartiallyaccountsfor, inmuchthesamewaythatsheaccountsforherendorsementofthecon-tentofpropositionaljudgment. ItisnotclearthatthisargumentisconstruedasanythingmorethanKantianinspirit. Certainlythough, theredoesseemtobeadeeplyKantianpointbehindthenotionthatreasoningis thinkingforoneself, andthatthisrequiresthatthestructureofone’sthoughtsbe, insomesense, determinedbyoneself.77

73 Fordiscussionsee Chignell(2011), 144–5; Chignell(2014); McLear(Forthcomingb), §§4.3and5.2.74 A further possibility is thatKant’s views are genuinely dividedhere, and that subsequentmoves inGermanidealismreflectthisfact. See Pippin(1989), ch. 2andthesourcescitedinnote 57 above.

75 Watkins(2008); Watkins(2012).76 McDowell(1996), ch. 1-2; McDowell(1998a), 433-4; McDowell(2003), 80-5; cf. Engstrom(2006),8-13.

77 ThissuggeststhatKant’sviewsofpracticalandtheoreticalreasonhaveabroaderunity. Foroneclassicstatementofsuchaninterpretationsee O’Neill(1989), ch. 1; cf. Stevenson(2004); McDowell(2009),chs. 4, 5, and7.



[O]necannotpossiblythinkofareasonthatwouldconsciouslyreceivedirectionfromanyotherquarterwithrespecttoitsjudgments; sincethesubjectwouldthenattributethedeterminationofhisjudgment, nottohisreasonbuttoanimpulse. Reasonmustregarditselfastheauthorofitsprinciplesindependentlyofalieninfluences. (G 4:448)

WhetherornotKanthimselfintendedhisargumentsconcerningtheroleofconceptsinexperiencetobetakeninthewaysthatSellars, McDowell, andothershavesuggested,itisclearthathehasbeenacentralsourceofinspirationforthesepositions. Needlesstosay, thedisputeastoKant’sexactpositionregardingthesematterscontinues.78

Summary

To say thatKant is aconceptualist is, aswehave seen, to say thathe thinks (i) thecontentofanintuition(i.e. an“experience”inourcontemporarysense)isakindofrep-resentationalrelationtoanobject; (ii)suchrelationtoanobjectdependsonasynthesisdirectedinaccordancewithconcepts; (iii)synthesisinaccordancewithconceptssetscorrectnessconditionsfortheintuition’srepresentationofamind-independentobject.TheconceptualistreadingpromisestomakesenseofKant’sargumentintheTranscen-dentalDeductionbyshowinghowperceptualexperiencedependsonasynthesisbythecategories. Assumingthatwehavesuchexperience, if thecategoriesareneces-saryforperceptualexperience, thentheyhavelegitimateapplicationtotheobjectsofexperience. Inthismannerconceptualismpurportstohaveaninterpretiveadvantageovernon-conceptualistreadings. Conceptualistsfurtherclaimthattheirreadingbestexplainshowperceptualexperiencecouldplaya justificatory role in thefixationofbelief.

However, wehavealsoseenseveralapparentproblemsfortheconceptualistread-ing. First, thoughmuchofwhat theconceptualist saysmaybe trueofKant’sviewsconcerning“cognition”[Erkenntnis](or“experience”[Erfahrung]asheoftenusestheterm)it islessclearthatit istrueofperceptualexperienceorintuition. Second, theconceptualistmustbeabletoaccountforthemoreprimitiverolethatperceptionseemstoplayinKant’scognitivetheory, aswellastheseemingfactthatheacknowledgesthatperceptualexperienceissomethingwesharewithnon-rationalanimals. Third, concep-tualistreadingsseemtothreatenthecoherenceoftheargumentsoftheTranscendentalAesthetic, andthusthecoherenceofKant’sbroadercriticalposition. Fourth, Kant’sownphilosophyofmathematicsmayrequirethatintuitionbeunderstoodasaformofnon-conceptualrepresentation. Finally, itisnotatallclearthat, forKant, intuitionshave

78 Hanna(2011a)disputestheideathatKantiscentrallyconcernedwithdenyingtheroleoftheGiveninthewaysuggestedbySellarsandMcDowell. Seealsothereferencescitedinnote 71 above.



correctnessconditions. Thisisabasicassumptionoftheconceptualistpositionandispresupposedbyitsothercommitments.

Goingforward, conceptualismneedstoclarifyhowitsreadingiscompatiblewithKant’sarguments in theTranscendentalAesthetic, aswellashisviewsregardingthecognitivecapacitiesofnon-rationalanimals. Italsoneedstodomoretomotivatecon-fidenceinthegenuinelyKantianprovenanceofthefamilyofargumentsthatgounderthemonikerofcriticismsofthe“MythoftheGiven.” Similarly, thenon-conceptualistreadingwouldbegreatlyhelpedbyamoreextensiveaccountofthecompatibilityofnon-conceptualismwiththeargumentoftheTranscendentalDeduction. Bothsidesofthedebateneedalso toaccount forobjections to thecontentassumption. MuchofthefuroroverKant’sendorsementordenialofconceptualismhastrackedcontempo-raryissuesinthephilosophyofperception. Butwhateverthefortunesofconceptualismandnon-conceptualismascontemporaryphilosophicaldoctrines, ourunderstandingofKant’sphilosophy, andinparticularhistheoryofcognition, hasbeengreatlyextendedbythedebate.79

References

Abela, Paul(2002). Kant’sEmpiricalRealism. NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress(p. 22).Adams, Robert Merrihew(1994). Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist. Oxford: Oxford

UniversityPress(p. 9).Allais, Lucy(2009). “Kant, Non-ConceptualContentandtheRepresentationofSpace”.

In: JournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophy 47.3, pp. 383–413. doi: 10.1353/hph.0.0134 (pp. 8, 13, 18–20, 22, 24).

Anderson, R. Lanier (2001). “Synthesis, CognitiveNormativity, and theMeaning ofKant’sQuestion, ’HowAreSyntheticCognitionsaPrioriPossible?’” In: EuropeanJournalofPhilosophy 9.3, pp. 275–305(p. 15).

— (2004). “ItAddsupafterAll: Kant’sPhilosophyofArithmeticinLightoftheTradi-tionalLogic”. In: PhilosophyandPhenomenologicalResearch 69.3, pp. 501–540(p. 10).

— (2005). “TheWolffianParadigmandItsDiscontents: KantsContainmentDefinitionofAnalyticityinHistoricalContext”. In: ArchivfürGeschichtederPhilosophie 87.7,pp. 22–74(p. 10).

Aquila, Richard E. (1983). RepresentationalMind: AStudyofKant’sTheoryofKnowl-edge. en. Bloomington: IndianaUniversityPress(p. 18).

— (2003). “HansVaihingerandSomeRecentIntentionalistReadingsofKant”. In: Jour-naloftheHistoryofPhilosophy 41.2, pp. 231–250(p. 18).

79 ThankstoDerkPereboom, ClintonTolley, andtheparticipantsinmygraduateseminaronconceptualismattheUniversityofNebraska–Lincolninthefallof2013forhelpfuldiscussionandcomments.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hph.0.0134



Aquila, Richard E. (2008). “IntentionalObjectsandKantianAppearances”. In: Philo-sophicalTopics 12.2, pp. 9–37(p. 18).

Bird, Graham(2006). TheRevolutionaryKant: ACommentaryontheCritiqueofPureReason. Peru, IL: OpenCourtPublishingCompany(pp. 19, 20, 24).

BonJour, Laurence(1985). TheStructureofEmpiricalKnowledge. en. Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversityPress(pp. 22, 23).

Brewer, Bill(1999). PerceptionandReason. NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress(p. 23).Brook, Andrew(2013). “KantandTime-OrderIdealism”. en. In:ACompaniontothePhi-

losophyofTime. Ed. byAdrian BardonandHeather Dyke. Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,pp. 120–134(p. 3).

Burge, Tyler (2003). “PerceptualEntitlement”. In: PhilosophyandPhenomenologicalResearch 67.3, pp. 503–548(pp. 11, 13).

Byrne, Alex(2009). “ExperienceandContent”. In: ThePhilosophicalQuarterly 59.236,pp. 429–451. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9213.2009.614.x (p. 5).

Carson, Emily(1997). “KantonIntuitionandGeometry”. In: CanadianJournalofPhi-losophy 27.4, pp. 489–512(p. 10).

— (1999). “KantontheMethodofMathematics”. In: JournaloftheHistoryofPhilos-ophy 37.4, pp. 629–652. doi: 10.1353/hph.2008.0905 (p. 10).

Chignell, Andrew (2007a). “Belief in Kant”. In: The Philosophical Review 116.3,pp. 323–360. doi: 10.1215/00318108-2007-001 (p. 24).

— (2007b). “Kant’sConceptsofJustification”. In: Noûs 41.1, pp. 33–63(pp. 23, 24).— (2011). “RealRepugnanceandOurIgnoranceofThings-in-Themselves: ALockean

ProbleminKantandHegel”. de. In: InternationalesJahrbuchdesDeutschenIdeal-ismus2009: GlaubeundVernunft. Ed. byFred Rush, Jürgen Stolzenberg, andPaulW. Franks. Berlin: WalterdeGruyter, pp. 135–159(p. 25).

— (2014). “Kantandthe’Monstrous’GroundofPossibility”. In: KantianReview 19.1,pp. 53–69. doi: 10.1017/S1369415413000290 (p. 25).

Davidson, Donald(1986). “ACoherenceTheoryofTruthandKnowledge”. In: TruthandInterpretation: PerspectivesonthePhilosophyofDonaldDavidson. Ed. byErnestLePore. Oxford: BasilBlackwell, pp. 307–319(p. 23).

Engstrom, Stephen(2006). “UnderstandingandSensibility”. In: Inquiry 49.1, pp. 2–25(pp. 16, 25).

Evans, Gareth(1982). TheVarietiesofReference. Ed. byJohn McDowell. Oxford: Ox-fordUniversityPress(p. 11).

Falkenstein, Lorne(1995). Kant’sIntuitionism: ACommentaryontheTranscendentalAesthetic. en. Toronto: UniversityofTorontoPress(p. 19).

Friedman, Michael(1992). KantandtheExactSciences. en. Cambridge: HarvardUni-versityPress(p. 10).

— (2012). “KantonGeometryandSpatialIntuition”. en. In: Synthese 186.1, pp. 231–255. doi: 10.1007/s11229-012-0066-2 (pp. 9, 10).


http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2009.614.x


http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2007-001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1369415413000290

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0066-2


George, Rolf(1981). “Kant’sSensationism”. In: Synthese 47.2, pp. 229–255. doi: 10.1007/BF01064346 (p. 19).

Ginsborg, Hannah(2006a). “EmpiricalConceptsandtheContentofExperience”. In:EuropeanJournalofPhilosophy 14.3, pp. 349–372(pp. 8, 15).

— (2006b). “Kant and theProblemof Experience”. In: Philosophical Topics 34.12,pp. 59–106. doi: 10.5840/philtopics2006341/24 (pp. 5, 8, 15, 24).

— (2008). “WasKantaNonconceptualist?” In: PhilosophicalStudies 137.1, pp. 65–77. doi: 10.1007/s11098-007-9163-3 (pp. 8, 18, 20, 24).

Gomes, Anil (2010). “Is Kant’s Transcendental Deduction of the Categories Fitfor Purpose?” In: Kantian Review 15.02, pp. 118–137. doi: 10 . 1017 /S1369415400002466 (p. 21).

— (2014). “Kant on Perception: Naıv̈e Realism, Non-Conceptualism and the B-Deduction”. In: ThePhilosophicalQuarterly 64.254, pp. 1–19. doi: 10.1093/pq/pqt019 (pp. 2, 8, 18, 21).

— (Manuscript). “InKantianPhrase”(p. 18).Griffith, Aaron M. (2012). “Perceptionand theCategories: AConceptualistReading

ofKant’s CritiqueofPureReason”. en. In: EuropeanJournalofPhilosophy 20.2,pp. 193–222. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0378.2010.00404.x (pp. 2, 9, 16, 20, 21).

Grüne, Stefanie(2008). “BegriffealsRegelnderWahrnehmung”. In: RechtundFriedenin der Philosophie Kants: Akten des X Internationalen Kant-Kongresses. Ed. byValerio Rohden et al. Berlin: Walter deGruyter, pp. 267–278. doi: 10 . 1515 /9783110210347.2.267 (pp. 17, 18).

— (2009). BlindeAnschauung. FrankfurtamMain: VittorioKlostermann(pp. 4–6, 17,18, 23).

— (2011). “IsThereaGapinKantsBDeduction?” In: InternationalJournalofPhilo-sophicalStudies 19.3, pp. 465–490(p. 21).

Gunther, York H., ed. (2003). EssaysonNonconceptualContent. en. Cambridge: MITPress(p. 1).

Haag, Johannes(2007). ErfahrungundGegenstand. FrankfurtamMain: VittorioKloster-mann(p. 23).

Hanna, Robert(2001). KantandtheFoundationsofAnalyticPhilosophy. Oxford: Ox-fordUniversityPress(p. 24).

— (2002). “MathematicsforHumans: Kant’sPhilosophyofArithmeticRevisited”. In:EuropeanJournalofPhilosophy 10.3, pp. 328–352. doi: 10.1111/1468-0378.00165 (p. 10).

— (2005). “KantandNonconceptualContent”. In: European JournalofPhilosophy13.2, pp. 247–290. doi: 10.1111/j.0966-8373.2005.00229.x (pp. 8, 13, 14,24).

— (2006). Kant, Science, andHumanNature. Oxford: ClarendonPress(p. 14).


http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01064346

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01064346

http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/philtopics2006341/24

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-007-9163-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1369415400002466

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1369415400002466

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqt019

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqt019

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0378.2010.00404.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110210347.2.267

http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110210347.2.267

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0378.00165

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0378.00165

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0966-8373.2005.00229.x


Hanna, Robert(2008). “KantianNon-Conceptualism”. In: PhilosophicalStudies 137.1,pp. 41–64. doi: 10.1007/s11098-007-9166-0 (pp. 13, 14, 22).

— (2011a). “BeyondtheMythoftheMyth: AKantianTheoryofNon-ConceptualCon-tent”. In: InternationalJournalofPhilosophicalStudies 19.3, pp. 323–398(pp. 8,14, 26).

— (2011b). “Kant’sNon-Conceptualism, RogueObjects, and theGap in theBDe-duction”. In: InternationalJournalofPhilosophicalStudies 19.3, pp. 399–415. doi:10.1080/09672559.2011.595188 (pp. 13, 14, 21).

Heck, Richard G. (2000). “NonconceptualContentandthe”SpaceofReasons””. In:ThePhilosophicalReview 109.4, pp. 483–523(p. 13).

Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). Hegel: FaithandKnowledge: AnEnglishtranslationofG. W.F. Hegel’sGlaubenundWissen. en. Ed. byWalter CerfandHenry Silton Harris.Albany: SUNYPress(p. 21).

Heidegger, Martin(1997). KantandtheProblemofMetaphysics. en. Bloomington: In-dianaUniversityPress(p. 23).

Hinton, John Michael(1973). Experiences: AnInquiryIntoSomeAmbiguities. en. Ox-ford: OxfordUniversityPress(p. 5).

Howell, Robert(1973). “Intuition, Synthesis, andIndividuationinthe CritiqueofPureReason”. In: Noûs 7.3. ArticleType: research-article/Fullpublicationdate: Sep.,1973/Copyright©1973Wiley, pp. 207–232. doi: 10.2307/2214348 (p. 14).

Janiak, Andrew(2012). “Kant’sViewsonSpaceandTime”. In: TheStanfordEncyclope-diaofPhilosophy. Ed. byEdward N. Zalta. Winter2012(p. 9).

Kalderon, Mark Eli(2011). “BeforetheLaw”. en. In: PhilosophicalIssues 21.1, pp. 219–244. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-6077.2011.00202.x (p. 23).

Keller, Pierre (1998). Kant and theDemandsof Self-Consciousness. en. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress(p. 21).

La Rocca, Claudio(2008a). “DerdunkleVerstand: UnbewussteVorstellungenundSelb-stbewusstseinbeiKant”. In: RechtundFriedeninderPhilosophieKants. AktendesX. InternationalenKant-Kongresses 2, pp. 447–458(p. 5).

— (2008b). “UnbewußtesundBewußtseinbeiKant”. In: Kant-Lektionen: ZurPhiloso-phieKantsundzuAspektenihrerWirkungsgeschichte. Ed. byManfred Kugelstadt.Würzburg: Königshausen Neumann, pp. 47–68(p. 5).

Land, Thomas (2011). “Kantian Conceptualism”. In: Rethinking Epistemology 1,pp. 197–239(pp. 15, 18, 21).

Longuenesse, Béatrice (1998). KantandtheCapacity to Judge. Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress(pp. 9, 10, 15, 18, 21, 23).

MacFarlane, John(2002). “Frege, Kant, andtheLogicinLogicism”. In: PhilosophicalReview 111.1, pp. 25–65. doi: 10.1215/00318108-111-1-25. eprint: http://philreview.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/111/1/25.pdf (p. 10).


http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-007-9166-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2011.595188

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2214348

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-6077.2011.00202.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00318108-111-1-25

http://philreview.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/111/1/25.pdf

http://philreview.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/111/1/25.pdf


Matherne, Samantha(Unpublished). “ImagesandKant’sTheoryofPerception”. Unpub-lishedmanuscript(pp. 2, 15).

McDowell, John(1996). MindandWorld: WithaNewIntroduction. Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversityPress(pp. 8, 11, 12, 19, 22–25).

— (1998a). “LectureI: SellarsonPerceptualExperience”. In: TheJournalofPhilosophy95.9, pp. 431–450(pp. 22, 23, 25).

— (1998b). “LectureII: TheLogicalFormofanIntuition”. In: TheJournalofPhilosophy95.9, pp. 451–470(p. 22).

— (1998c). “Lecture III: IntentionalityasaRelation”. In: The JournalofPhilosophy95.9, pp. 471–491(p. 22).

— (2003). “HegelandtheMythoftheGiven”. In: DasInteressedesDenkens: HegelausheutigerSicht. Ed. byWolfgang WelschandKlaus Vieweg. München: WilhelmFinkVerlag, pp. 75–88(pp. 21, 23, 25).

— (2007). “Hegel’sIdealismasRadicalizationofKant”. In: InternationalesJahrbuchdesdeutschenIdealismus=InternationalYearbookofGermanIdealism 5. ReprintedinMcDowell2009, 69–89, pp. 157–175(p. 21).

— (2008). “AvoidingtheMythoftheGiven”. In: JohnMcDowell: Experience, NormandNature. Ed. byJakob Lindgaard. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1–14(p. 14).

— (2009). HavingtheWorldinView: EssaysonKant, Hegel, andSellars. Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress(p. 25).

— (2013). “PerceptualExperience: BothRelationalandContentful”. en. In: EuropeanJournalofPhilosophy 21.1, pp. 144–157. doi: 10.1111/ejop.12005 (p. 14).

McLear, Colin(2011). “KantonAnimalConsciousness”. In: Philosophers’Imprint 11.15,pp. 1–16(pp. 5, 8, 19).

— (Forthcominga). “TwoKindsofUnityinthe CritiqueofPureReason”. In: JournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophy (pp. 8, 9, 17, 20–22, 24).

— (Forthcomingb). “KantonPerceptualContent”. In: Mind (pp. 2, 8, 13, 15, 16, 23–25).

Messina, James(2014). “KantontheUnityofSpaceandtheSyntheticUnityofApper-ception”. In: Kant-Studien 105.1, pp. 5–40. doi: 10.1515/kant-2014-0002 (pp. 9,21).

Naragon, Steve(1990). “KantonDescartesandtheBrutes”. In: Kant-Studien 81.1, pp. 1–23(pp. 8, 19).

O’Neill, Onora(1989). ConstructionsofReason: ExplorationsofKant’sPracticalPhilos-ophy. en. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress(p. 25).

Onof, ChristianandDennis Schulting(Forthcoming). “SpaceasFormofIntuitionandasFormalIntuition. OntheNotetoB160inKant’s CritiqueofPureReason”. In: ThePhilosophicalReview (pp. 9, 21).

Parsons, Charles (1964). “InfinityandKant’sConceptionof the”PossibilityofExperi-ence””. In: ThePhilosophicalReview 73.2. ArticleType: research-article/Fullpub-


http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/kant-2014-0002


licationdate: Apr., 1964/Copyright©1964DukeUniversityPress, pp. 182–197.doi: 10.2307/2183335 (p. 10).

Parsons, Charles(1992). “TheTranscendentalAesthetic”. In: TheCambridgeCompan-iontoKant. Ed. byPaul Guyer. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Chap. 2,pp. 62–100(p. 10).

Peacocke, Christopher(1992). AStudyofConcepts. Cambridge, MA: MITPress(p. 11).Pereboom, Derk(1988). “KantonIntentionality”. In: Synthese 77.3, pp. 321–352. doi:

10.1007/BF00869290 (pp. 18, 19).Pereira, Roberto Horácio de Sá(2013). “WhatisnonconceptualisminKant’sphiloso-

phy?” en. In: PhilosophicalStudies 164.1, pp. 233–254. doi: 10.1007/s11098-011-9851-x (p. 14).

Pippin, Robert B. (1982). Kant’sTheoryofForm: AnEssayontheCritiqueofPureRea-son. en. NewHaven: YaleUniversityPress(p. 23).

— (1989). Hegel’sIdealism: TheSatisfactionsofSelf-Consciousness. en. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress(pp. 21, 25).

Pryor, James(2005). “ThereisImmediateJustification”. In: ContemporaryDebatesinEpistemology. Ed. byMatthias SteupandErnest Sosa. Oxford: Blackwell. Chap. 7,pp. 181–202(p. 23).

Rohs, Peter (2001). “BeziehtsichnachKantdieAnschauungunmittelbaraufGegen-stände?” In: Aktendes9. InternationalenKant-Kongresses. Vol. II. Berlin: WalterDeGruyter, pp. 214–28(p. 22).

Schulting, Dennis(2012). “Kant, Non-ConceptualContentandthe‘SecondStep’oftheB-Deduction”. In: KantStudiesOnline, pp. 51–92(pp. 15, 21).

Sellars, Wilfrid(1956). “EmpiricismandthePhilosophyofMind”. In:Minnesotastudiesinthephilosophyofscience 1, pp. 253–329(p. 22).

— (1963). Science, Perception, andReality. Atascadero, CA: RidgeviewPublishingCompany(pp. 22, 23, 25).

— (1968). ScienceandMetaphysics: Variations onKantianThemes. London: Rout-ledge&KeeganPaul(pp. 15, 23).

Shabel, Lisa(2006). “Kant’sPhilosophyofMathematics”. In: TheCambridgeCompan-ion toKantandModernPhilosophy. Ed. byPaul Guyer. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress, pp. 94–128(p. 10).

Siegel, Susanna(2010). “TheContentsofPerception”. In: TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy. Ed. byEdward N. Zalta. Fall2013(p. 1).

Siegel, SusannaandNicholas Silins(Forthcoming). “TheEpistemologyofPerception”.In:OxfordHandbookofPhilosophyofPerception. Ed. byMohan Matthen. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress(p. 23).

Smit, Houston(2000). “KantonMarksandtheImmediacyofIntuition”. In: ThePhilo-sophicalReview 109.2, pp. 235–266(p. 4).


http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2183335

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00869290

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-011-9851-x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-011-9851-x


Speaks, Jeff(2005). “IsThereaProblemaboutNonconceptualContent?” In: ThePhilo-sophicalReview 114.3, pp. 359–398(p. 13).

Stevenson, Leslie(2003). “Opinion, BelieforFaith, andKnowledge”. In: KantianReview7.1, pp. 72–101(p. 24).

— (2004). “FreedomofJudgementinDescartes, Hume, SpinozaandKant”. In: Britishjournalforthehistoryofphilosophy 12.2, pp. 223–246(p. 25).

Strawson, Peter Frederick(1966). TheBoundsofSense. London: Routledge(p. 15).— (1970). “ImaginationandPerception”. In: ExperienceandTheory. Ed. byLawrence

FosterandJoe William Swanson. Amherst: UniversityofMassachusetsPress(p. 15).Sturm, Thomas and Falk Wunderlich (2010). “Kant and the Scientific StudyofCon-

sciousness”. In: Historyof thehumansciences 23.3, pp. 48–71. doi: 10.1177/0952695110363355 (p. 5).

Sutherland, Daniel(2008). “ArithmeticfromKanttoFrege: Numbers, PureUnits, andtheLimitsofConceptualRepresentation”. In: KantandPhilosophyofScienceTo-day. Ed. byMichela Massimi. Vol. 63. 1. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,pp. 135–164. doi: 10.1017/S1358246108000088 (p. 10).

Thompson, Manley(1972). “SingularTermsandIntuitionsinKant’sEpistemology”. In:TheReviewofMetaphysics 26.2, pp. 314–343(p. 16).

Tolley, Clinton (2011). “Kanton theContentofCognition”. In: European JournalofPhilosophy, n/a–n/a. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0378.2011.00483.x (pp. 13, 15).

— (2013). “TheNon-ConceptualityoftheContentofIntuitions: ANewApproach”. In:KantianReview 18.01, pp. 107–136. doi: 10.1017/S1369415412000313 (pp. 8,13, 15, 16, 20, 22, 24).

Van Cleve, James(1999). ProblemsfromKant. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress(pp. 3,5, 19).

— (2012). “DefiningandDefendingNonconceptualContentsandStates”. In: Philo-sophicalPerspectives 26.1, pp. 411–430(p. 1).

Watkins, Eric(2008). “KantandtheMythoftheGiven”. In: Inquiry 51.5, pp. 512–531(pp. 15, 22, 24, 25).

— (2012). “Kant, Sellars, andtheMythoftheGiven”. en. In: ThePhilosophicalForum43.3, pp. 311–326. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9191.2012.00427.x (pp. 22, 24, 25).

Waxman, Wayne(1991). Kant’sModeloftheMind: ANewInterpretationofTranscen-dentalIdealism. en. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress(p. 21).

Wenzel, Christian Helmut (2005). “SpielennachKantdieKategorien schonbeiderWahrnehmungeineRolle? PeterRohsundJohnMcDowell”. In: Kant-Studien 96.4,pp. 407–426(p. 21).

Willaschek, Marcus (1997). “DerTranszendentale Idealismus und die Idealität vonRaumundZeit”. In: Zeitschrift fürphilosophischeForschung 51.4, pp. 537–564(pp. 16, 22).


http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0952695110363355

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0952695110363355

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1358246108000088

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0378.2011.00483.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1369415412000313

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9191.2012.00427.x


Williams, J. J. (2012). “HowConceptuallyGuidedAreKantianIntuitions?” In: HistoryofPhilosophyQuarterly 29.1, pp. 57–78(p. 2).

Wunderlich, Falk(2005). KantunddieBewußtseinstheoriendes18. Jahrhunderts. de.Berlin: WalterdeGruyter(pp. 5, 6).
