Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:58:55.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Parity and Disparity between Inner and Outer Experience in Kant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2019

Katharina Kraus*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame

Abstract

This article advocates a new interpretation of inner experience – the experience that one has of one’s empirical-psychological features ‘from within’ – in Kant. It argues that for Kant inner experience is the empirical cognition of mental states, but not that of a persistent mental substance. The schema of persistence is thereby substituted with the regulative idea of the soul. This view is shown to be superior to two opposed interpretations: the parity view that regards inner experience as empirical cognition of a mental object on a par with outer experience and the disparity view that denies altogether that inner experience is empirical cognition.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Kantian Review, 2019 

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

Allison, H. (2004) Kant’s Transcendental Idealism (2nd edition). New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameriks, K. (2000) Kant’s Theory of the Mind (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, G. (2006) The Revolutionary Kant. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Chignell, A. (2017) ‘Can’t Kant Ccognize himself? Or, a Problem for (almost) Every Interpretation of the Refutation of Idealism’. In Gomes, A. and Stephenson, A. (eds), Kant and the Philosophy of Mind: New Essays on Consciousness, Judgement, and the Self (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 138–57.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. (2009) Kant and the Human Sciences: Biology, Anthropology and History. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyck, C. (2014) Kant and Rational Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emundts, D. (2007) ‘Kant über innere Erfahrung’. In Kern, U. (ed.), Was ist und Was sein soll: Natur und Freiheit bei Immanuel Kant (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), pp. 191205.Google Scholar
Emundts, D. (2010) ‘The Refutation of Idealism and the Distinction between Phenomena and Noumena’, In Guyer, P. (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 168–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Förster, E. (1987) ‘Is there a Gap in Kant’s Critical System?’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 25, 533–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. (2013) Kant’s Construction of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frierson, P. (2014) Kant’s Empirical Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, G. (2010) The Aporia of Inner Sense. Leiden/Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (1987) Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, D. (1994) The Unity of Reason: Essays on Kant’s Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Howell, R. (2001) ‘Kant, the “I Think”, and Self-Awareness’. In Cicovacki, P. (ed.), Kant’s Legacy: Essays in Honor of Lewis White Beck (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press), pp. 117–52.Google Scholar
Keller, P. (1998) Kant and the Demands of Self-Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (2011) Kant’s Thinker. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemme, H. (1996) Kants Philosophie des Subjekts. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, B. (1998) Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Trans. C. T. Wolfe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, B. (2017) I, Me, Mine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nayak, A. and Sotnak, E. (1995) ‘Kant on the Impossibility of the “Soft Sciences”’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55, 133–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollok, K. (2001) Kants ‘Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft’: Ein kritischer Kommentar. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Schmitz, F. (2015) ‘On Kant’s Conception of Inner Sense: Self-Affection by the Understanding’. European Journal of Philosophy, 23, 1044–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serck-Hanssen, C. (2011) ‘Der Nutzen von Illusionen: Ist die Idee der Seele unentbehrlich?’. In Dörflinger, B. (ed.), Über den Nutzen von Illusionen: Die regulative Ideen in Kants theoretische Philosophie (Hildesheim: Olms, 2011), pp. 5970.Google Scholar
Sturm, T. (2009) Die Wissenschaften vom Menschen. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
Sturm, T. (2017). ‘Reines und empirisches Selbstbewusstsein in Kants Anthropologie’. In Thiel, U. and Motta, G. (eds), Die Einheit des Bewusstseins (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter), pp. 195220.Google Scholar
Sutherland, D. (2006) ‘Kant on Arithmetic, Algebra, and the Theory of Proportions’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 44, 533–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Cleve, J. (1999) Problems from Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vogel, J. (1993) ‘The Problem of Self-Knowledge in Kant’s Refutation of Idealism: Two Recent Views’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 53, 875–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, K. (2004) Kant’s Transcendental Proof of Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wuerth, J. (2014) Kant on Mind, Action, and Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar