No. 67 (2023): Septiembre-diciembre
Articles

Heterogeneity and Application in Kant's Transcendental Schematism

PDF (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))
  • Efraín Lazos
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v670.2408

Published 2023-08-01

Keywords

How to Cite

Lazos, E. (2023). Heterogeneity and Application in Kant’s Transcendental Schematism. Tópicos, Revista De Filosofía, (67), 117–153. https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v670.2408

Copyright (c) 2023 Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Altmetrics

Citas

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

This paper discusses the concept of heterogeneity and the problem of application in the Schematism of pure concepts, the first chapter of the Analytic of principles in Kant´s Critique of Pure Reason. It puts forward a distinction between the thesis of heterogeneity as metaphysical independence between concepts and intuitions, on the one hand, and heterogeneity as lack of homogeneity in the components of judgment, on the other. The paper claims that the latter, not the former, generates the problem of the application of categories to appearances. It also claims that, although the concept of application is present in the problem of the objective validity of the categories in the Transcendental deduction, application only appears as a problem in the Schematism chapter. On these grounds, and in contrast to those continuist readings which take the Schematism chapter to be a part of the problematic raised in the Deduction, this essay proposes that Schematism represents a new problem in Kant´s program of a critique of pure reason. Although akin to Mario Caimi´s “discontinuist” reading of Schematism (2015 and 2017), my proposal differs from it in one vital point, namely, on how to understand the distinction between transcendental schemata and schemata of empirical concepts. According to my proposal, heterogeneity as lack of homogeneity arises only for the application of categories to appearances, but not for empirical and mathematical concepts, so the role of schemata for these is not as a mediator between concepts and their objects. Finally, the paper argues for a central, exemplary role for mathematical schemata in the solution to the application problem. Kant takes the idea of schemata as ruled processes from his view of mathematical cognition, and it is precisely in this role that transcendental schemata are meant to solve the application problem.

PDF (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))

References

  1. Arenas, L. (1998). El esquematismo de los conceptos matemáticos: una interpretación. Éndoxa, 8, 111-136.
  2. Arias Albisu, M. (2009). Una relación de homogeneidad entre términos heterogéneos. El concepto de homogeneidad en el capítulo del esquematismo en la Crítica de la razón pura. Diánoia. 54(63), 71-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21898/dia.v54i63.236.
  3. Arias Albisu, M. (2010). Los esquemas trascendentales como procedimientos y productos. Revista de Filosofía, 35(2), 27-42.
  4. Aristóteles. (1987). Acerca de la memoria y la reminiscencia. En Acerca de la generación y la corrupción. Tratados breves de historia natutal. (pp. 233-256). A. B. Pajares (trad.). Gredos.
  5. Armstrong, D. (1978). A Theory of Universals: Universals and Scientific Realism. Cambridge University Press.
  6. Berkeley, G. ([1710] 1957). A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. The Library of Liberal Arts.
  7. Caimi, M. (2006). Der Teller, die Rundung, das Schema. Kant über den Begriff der Gleichartigkeit. En D. Fonfara (ed.), Metaphysik als Wissenschaft. Festschrift für Klaus Düsing. (pp. 211-220). Alber.
  8. Caimi, M. (2015). Der Schematismus der reinen Verstandesberiffe. En R. Enskat (ed.), Kants Theorie der Erfahrung. (pp. 211-237). De Gruyter.
  9. Caimi, M. (2017). El esquematismo de los conceptos empíricos. En L. E. Hoyos y P. Stepanenko (eds.), La “Crítica de la razón pura”: una antología hispanoamericana. (pp. 175-190). UNC-UNAM.
  10. Carson, E. (1997). Kant on Intuition in Geometry. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 27(4), 489-512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1997.10717483.
  11. Carson, E. (1999). Kant on the Method of Mathematics. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 37(4), 629-652.
  12. Detel, W. (1978). Zur Funktion des Schematismuskapitels in Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Kant-Studien, 69(1-4), 17-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/kant.1978.69.1-4.17.
  13. Guyer, P. (1987). Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press.
  14. Guyer, P. (2017). What Does the Transcedental Deduction Prove? And When Does It Prove It? Henry Allison on Kant´S Transcendental Deduction. Kant-Studien, 108(4), 589-600.
  15. Horstmann, R.-P. (2018). Kant and the Power of Judgment. Cambridge University Press.
  16. Kant, I. (1922). Gesammelte Schriften. Band XII. Briefwechsel. 1795-1803, Anhang. Herausgegeben von der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. De Gruyter.
  17. Kant, I. (1923). Gesammelte Schriften. Band IX. Logik. Physische Geographie, Pädagogik. [Jäsche Logik]. Herausgegeben von der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. De Gruyter.
  18. Kant, I. (1928). Gesammelte Schriften. Band XVIII. Handschriftlicher Nachlaß. Metaphysik. Zweiter Teil. Herausgegeben von der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. De Gruyter.
  19. Kant, I. (1966). Gesammelte Schriften. Band XXIV. Vorlesungen über Logik. Herausgegeben von der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. De Gruyter.
  20. Kant, I. (1968a). Gesammelte Schriften. Band III. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. (2. Auflage 1787). Herausgegeben von der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. De Gruyter.
  21. Kant, I. (1968b). Gesammelte Schriften. Band IV. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. (1. Auflage 1781). Prolegomena. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft. Herausgegeben von der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. De Gruyter.
  22. Kant, I. (1992). Lectures on Logic. J. M. Young (ed. y trad.). Cambridge University Press.
  23. Kant, I. (1997). Critique of Pure Reason. P. Guyer y A. Wood (eds. y trads.). Cambridge University Press.
  24. Kant, I. (1999). Prolegómenos a toda metafísica futura que haya de poder presentarse como ciencia. M. Caimi (trad.). Istmo.
  25. Kant, I. (2000). Lógica: un manual de lecciones. M. J. Vázquez Lobeiras (ed. y trad.). Akal.
  26. Kant, I. (2010). Crítica de la razón pura. M. Caimi (trad.). Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  27. Land, T. (2015). Nonconceptualist Readings of Kant and the Transcendental Deduction. Kantian Review, 20(1), 25-51.
  28. La Rocca, C. (1989). Schematismus und Anwendung. Kant-Studien, 80(2), 129-154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/kant.1989.80.1-4.129.
  29. Lazos, E. (2014). Disonancias de la Crítica. Variaciones sobre cuatro temas kantianos. UNAM.
  30. Lazos, E.(2018a). Heterogeneidad y dependencia sintética. Más sobre Kant y el (anti) conceptualismo. Praxis Filosófica, 47(2), 47-69.
  31. Lazos, E. (2018b, 27 de junio). Reply to Valdez. Critique. Discussing New Books on Kant, German Idealism, & Beyond. URL: https://virtualcritique.wordpress.com/2018/06/27/reply-to-edgar-valdez/.
  32. Lazos, E.(2018c). Unidad del espacio, mereología y geometría desde la Estética Trascendental. Revista de Estudios Kantianos, 3(1), 46-68.
  33. Moledo, F. (2011). Función sistemática y naturaleza del Esquematismo trascendental. Ágora. Papeles de Filosofía, 30(2), 163-185.
  34. Nuzzo, A. (2013). Imaginative Sensibility Understanding, Sensibility and Imagination in the Critique of Pure Reason. En M. Thompson (ed.), Imagination in Kant´s Critical Philosophy. (pp. 19-48). De Gruyter.
  35. Peláez, A. (2021). El contenido no conceptual y la necesidad del esquematismo. Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía, 60, 351-374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v0i60.1141.
  36. Philolenko, A. (1982). Lecture du schématisme trascendantal. En A. Philolenko, Études kantiennes. (pp. 11-32). Vrin.
  37. Pippin, R. (1976). The Schematism of Empirical Concepts. Kant-Studien, 67(2), 156-171.
  38. Pippin, R. (1982). Kant´s Theory of Form. An Essay on the Critique of Pure Reason. Yale University Press.
  39. Rawls, J. (1951). Two Concepts of Rules. The Philosophical Review, 64(1), 3 -31.
  40. Scaglia, L. (2020). Kant’s Notion of a Transcendental Schema: The Constitution of Objective Cognition between Epistemology and Psychology. Peter Lang.
  41. Schopenhauer, A. (1968). [WWV]. Sämtliche Werke. Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. I. Wissenschäftliche Buchgesellschaft.
  42. Schulting, D. (2018). The Current Status of Research on Kant´s Transcendental Deduction. Revista de Estudios Kantianos, 1(3), 69-88.
  43. Valdez, E. (2018, 24 de junio). Edgar Valdez on Efraín Lazos’s “Disonancias de la Crítica”. Critique. Discussing New Books on Kant, German Idealism, & Beyond. URL: https://virtualcritique.wordpress.com/2018/06/24/edgar-valdez-on-efrain-lazoss-disonancias-de-la-critica/.
  44. Watkins, E. (2001). Kant and the Sciences. Oxford University Press.
  45. Young, J. M. (1992). Construction, Schematism and Imagination. En C. Posy (ed.), Kant and the Philosophy of Mathematics. (pp. 159-175). Kluwer.