Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T03:08:31.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kant, Animal Minds, and Conceptualism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2021

James Hutton Open the ORCID record for James Hutton [Opens in a new window]
James Hutton*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University College London, London, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kant holds that some nonhuman animals “are acquainted with” objects, despite lacking conceptual capacities (“understanding”). What does this tell us about his theory of human cognition? Numerous authors have argued that this is a significant point in favour of Nonconceptualism—the claim that, for Kant, sensible representations of objects do not depend on the understanding. Against this, I argue that Kant’s views about animal minds can readily be accommodated by a certain kind of Conceptualism. It remains viable to think that, for Kant, (i) humans’ sensible representations necessarily represent objects as temporally structured in ways that allow us to have thoughts about them, and (ii) such representations are produced, and could only be produced, by the understanding. This allows Conceptualists to maintain that humans’ sensible representations depend on the understanding, while accepting that animals have sensible representations of objects too. We must, therefore, reassess both the warrant for Nonconceptualism and the shape Conceptualist readings must take.

Keywords

Kantnonconceptualismintuitionsynthesisanimal minds
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 50 , Issue 8 , November 2020 , pp. 981 - 998
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Canadian Journal of Philosophy

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

References to the first Critique follow the A/B pagination, to other works the pagination of Kant’s Gesammelte Schriften, vols. 1–29 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1902–). Abbreviations follow the Kant-Gesellschaft’s conventions (http://www.kant-gesellschaft.de/en/ks/e_HinweiseAutorenSiglen_neu.pdf) with one additional abbreviation: “H” for the Rostocker Anthropologiehandschrift (7:395–415). Translations are mostly based on The Cambridge Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992–2012), but frequently amended tacitly.Google Scholar
References to the first Critique follow the A/B pagination, to other works the pagination of Kant’s Gesammelte Schriften, vols. 1–29 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1902–). Abbreviations follow the Kant-Gesellschaft’s conventions (http://www.kant-gesellschaft.de/en/ks/e_HinweiseAutorenSiglen_neu.pdf) with one additional abbreviation: “H” for the Rostocker Anthropologiehandschrift (7:395–415). Translations are mostly based on The Cambridge Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992–2012), but frequently amended tacitly.Google Scholar

Secondary Literature

Allais, Lucy. 2009. “Kant, Non-Conceptual Content and the Representation of Space.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 47 (3): 383–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allais, Lucy. 2015. Manifest Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allais, Lucy. 2016. “Conceptualism and Nonconceptualism in Kant.” In Kantian Nonconceptualism, edited by Schulting, Dennis, 1–25. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Allais, Lucy. 2017. “Synthesis and Binding.” In Kant and the Philosophy of Mind, edited by Gomes, Anil and Stephenson, Andrew, 25–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Nathan. 2012. “A Peculiar Intuition: Kant’s Conceptualist Account of Perception.” Inquiry 55 (3): 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boswell, Terry. 1988. “On the Textual Authenticity of Kant’s Logic .” History and Philosophy of Logic 9 (2): 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, Matthew. 2014. “Essentially Rational Animals.” In Rethinking Epistemology Vol. 2, edited by Abel, Günter and Conant, James, 395–427. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ginsborg, Hannah. 2008. “Was Kant a Nonconceptualist?” Philosophical Studies 137: 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomes, Anil. 2014. “Kant on Perception: Naive Realism, Non-Conceptualism, and the B-Deduction.” Philosophical Quarterly 64 (254): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomes, Anil. 2016. “Naïve Realism In Kantian Phrase.” Mind 126 (502): 529–78.Google Scholar
Griffith, Aaron. 2012. “Perception and the Categories: A Conceptualist Reading of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.” European Journal of Philosophy 20 (2): 193–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüne, Stephanie. 2009. Blinde Anschauung. Frankfurt, Ger.: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Hanna, Robert. 2005. “Kant and Nonconceptual Content.” European Journal of Philosophy 13 (2): 247–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, Robert. 2011. “Kant’s Non-conceptualism, Rogue Objects, and the Gap in the B Deduction.” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (3): 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutton, James. 2019. “Epistemic Normativity in Kant’s ‘Second Analogy’.” European Journal of Philosophy 27 (3): 593–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Land, Thomas. 2006. “Kant’s Spontaneity Thesis.” Philosophical Topics 34 (1–2): 189–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Land, Thomas. 2011. “Kantian Conceptualism.” In Rethinking Epistemology Vol. 1, edited by Abel, Günter and Conant, James, 197–239. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Land, Thomas. 2014. “Spatial Representation, Magnitude and the Two Stems of Cognition.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 44 (5–6): 524–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Land, Thomas. 2018. “Conceptualism and the Objection from Animals.” In Natur und Freiheit: Akten des XII. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, edited by Waibel, Violetta and Ruffing, Margit, 1269–76. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matherne, Samantha. 2015. “Images and Kant’s Theory of Perception.” Ergo 2 (29): 737–77.Google Scholar
McDowell, John. 1994. Mind and World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McLear, Colin. 2011. “Kant on Animal Consciousness.” Philosophers’ Imprint 11 (15): 1–16.Google Scholar
McLear, Colin. 2014. “The Kantian (Non)-conceptualism Debate.” Philosophy Compass 9 (11): 769–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLear, Colin. 2015. “Two Kinds of Unity in the Critique of Pure Reason.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 53 (1): 79–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLear, Colin. 2020. “Animals and Objectivity.” In Kant and Animals, edited by Allais, Lucy and Callanan, John, 42–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Georg Friedrich. 1749. Versuch eines neuen Lehrgebäudes von den Seelen der Thiere. Halle, Ger.: Carl Hermann Hemmerde.Google Scholar
Naragon, Steven. 1990. “Kant on Descartes and the Brutes.” Kant-Studien 81 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onof, Christian, and Schulting, Dennis. 2015. “Space as Form of Intuition and as Formal Intuition.” Philosophical Review 124 (1): 1–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohs, Peter. 2001. “Bezieht sich nach Kant die Anschauung unmittelbar auf Gegenstände?” In Akten des IX. Kant-Kongresses Vol. 1, edited by Schumacher, Ralph, Horstmann, Rolf-Peter, and Gerhardt, Volker, 214–28. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rosefeldt, Tobias. Manuscript. “Kant on Decomposing Synthesis and the Intuition of Infinite Space.”Google Scholar
Rosefeldt, Tobias. 2000. Das logische Ich. Berlin: Philo.Google Scholar
Tolley, Clinton. 2013. “The Non-Conceptuality of the Content of Intuitions: A New Approach.” Kantian Review 18 (1): 107–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Berg, Hein. 2018. “A Blooming and Buzzing Confusion: Buffon, Reimarus, and Kant on Animal Cognition.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 72: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watkins, Eric, and Willaschek, Marcus. 2017. “Kant’s Account of Cognition.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 55 (1): 83–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Jessica. 2018. “Kant on the Original Synthesis of Understanding and Sensibility.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 26 (1): 66–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. Michael, ed., trans. 1992. “Translator’s Introduction.” In Immanuel Kant: Lecture’s on Logic, xv–xxxii. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar