Unfolding the Connection between the Kantian Self and Time

Abstract

In Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, the self and time are interwoven on three different levels. To unveil this relation, this paper refers back to Kant’s criticism directed to the ideas of early modern philosophers concerning the two notions in question. On the three levels, three different conceptions of the self correspond to three aspects of time. In the first aspect we encounter the self as inner sense (appearance) and time reveals itself as the form of this sense. The first aspect of the self thus cannot be known as it is in itself; on the contrary, it can be known only as an appearance. Later, in virtue of the act of imagination, while the second aspect of the self is unfolded as a temporal self, time comes forth as formal intuition. In this level, the self starts to become conscious of its temporal character. Finally, in the third aspect, the relation between the transcendental unity of the self (apperception) and the unity of time becomes transparent. In the course of analyzing the three corresponding aspects of the self and time, this paper aims to reveal both the temporal character of the Kantian self and the subjective character of time.

Keywords

• Self,time,inner sense,imagination,apperception

Kant’ta Kendilik ve Zaman Arasındaki İlişkinin Açımlanması

Abstract

Kant’ın Saf Aklın Eleştirisi’nde, kendilik ve zaman üç farklı seviyede birbirleriyle iç içedir. Bu durumu açık kılmak için, bu makalede, erken modern dönem düşünürlerin kendilik ve zamana ilişkin fikirlerine, Kant’ın yönelttiği eleştirileri ele alıyoruz. Söz konusu üç seviyede, kendiliğin üç farklı yönü, zamanın üç yönüne denk düşer. İlk seviyede, kendilik iç duyu (görünüş) ve zaman ise bu duyunun formu olarak ortaya çıkar. O halde, kendiliğin ilk yönü, kendinde olduğu haliyle değil, ancak bize görünen haliyle bilinebilir. Daha sonra, imgelem sayesinde, kendiliğin ikinci yönü zamansal kendilik olarak ortaya çıkarken; zaman, biçimsel görü olarak ortaya koyulur. Bu seviyede, kendilik, zamansal yönünün bilincine varmaya başlar. Son olarak, üçüncü seviyede, kendiliğin aşkınsal birliği (tamalgı) ve zamanın birliği arasındaki ilişki açık bir hale gelir. Kendilik ve zamanın birbirine karşılık gelen üç yönünü çözümleme sürecinde, bu makalenin amaçladığı şey, Kant’ın kendilik anlayışının zamansal özelliğini gösterirken bir yandan da zamanın öznel oluşunu aydınlatabilmektir.

Keywords

• Kendilik,zaman,iç duyu,imgelem,tamalgı

References

1. Allison, H. E. (1983). Kant’s transcendental idealism. New Heaven: Yale University Press.
2. Ameriks, K. (2000). Kant’s theory of mind: an analysis of the paralogisms of pure reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Brentano, F. (1988). Philosophical investigations on space time and the continuum. (Barry Smith, Trans). New York: Routledge.
4. Cassirer, E. (1943). Newton and Leibniz. The Philosophical Review, 52(4), 366-391.
5. Çifteci, V. (2017). Revealing the fact: the inseparable relation between the self and time (PhD thesis). Ankara: Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
6. Cummins, P. (1968). Kant on outer and inner intuition. Noûs, 2(3), 271-292.
7. Descartes, R. (1993). Meditations on first philosophy. In Stanley Tweyman, London & New York: Routledge.
8. Descartes, R. (2006). A discourse on the method (Ian Mclean, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9. Heidegger, M. (1997). Kant and the problem of metaphysics (Richard Taft Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
10. Hume, D. (1978). A treatise of human nature. In Lewis Amherst Selby-Bigge (Ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Kant, I. (1902). Kants gesammelte schriften, AkademieAusgabe. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
12. Kant, I. (1929). Critique of pure reason (Norman Kemp Smith, Trans.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
13. Kant, I. (1974). Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view (M. Jane Gregor, Trans.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
14. Keller, P. (1998). Kant and the demand of self-consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Kitcher, P. (1999). Kant on self-consciousness. The Philosophical Review, 108(3), 345-386.
16. Longuenesse, B. (2001). Kant and the capacity to judge: sensibility and discursivity in the transcendental analytic of the critique of pure reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
17. Longuenesse, B. (2008). “Kant’s “i think” versus Descartes’ “i am a thing that thinks”. In Daniel Garber & Beatrice Longuenesse (Ed.), Kant and the Early Moderns (pp. 9-31). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
18. Melnick, A. (2009). Kant’s theory of the self. New York: Routledge.
19. Newton, S. I. (1846). Mathematical principles of natural philosophy and his system of the world (Andrew Motte Trans.). New York: Daniel Adee.
20. Paton, H. J. (1936) Kant’s metaphysics of experience. C I. London: Routledge.
21. Pereboom, D. (2006). Kant’s metaphysical and transcendental deductions. In Graham Bird (Ed.), A Companion to Kant (pp. 154-168). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
22. Prauss, G. (2000). The problem of time in Kant. In Predrag Cicovacki (Ed.), Kant’s Legacy: Essays in Honor of Lewis White Beck (pp. 133-165). Rochester: Rochester University Press.
23. Priest, S. (1981). Descartes, Kant and self-consciousness. The Philosophical Quarterly, 31(125), 348-351.
24. Rosenberg, J. F. (2005). Accessing Kant: a relaxed introduction to the critique of pure reason. Oxford: Calderon Press.
25. Rundle, B. (2009). Time, space and metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Serck-Hanssen, C. (2009). Kant on consciousness. In Sara Heimänaa - Martina Reuter (Ed.), Psychology and Philosophy: Inquiries into the Soul from Late Scholasticism to Contemporary Thought (pp. 139-157). Nedherlands: Springer.
27. Sherover, C. (1971). Heidegger, Kant and Time. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
28. Van Cleve, J. (2003). Problems from Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Wilkerson, T. (1980). Kant on self-consciousness. The Philosophical Quarterly, 30(118), 47-60.
30. Woods, M. (1998). Kant’s transcendental schematism. Dialectica, 37(3), 202-219.