|
More:The link for it all is radical subjectivity. In Kant, the imagination takes the "matter" from the thing- in- itself, and gives it the forms of sensibility (time and space), and in so constituting it also subjects it to the logical categories (quantity, quality, modality, relation). Actually, Kant got the idea that time and space were modes of apperception from Liebnitz by way of Wolff, who was the standard for German universities at the time. He just drew out some of the implications... Anyway, the problem is that Kant assumes that the constitution of the object is automatic and un-problematic. On the one hand, he may be attacked by, say, Nietzsche for not realizing that the object is interpreted, but assuming that it presents itself as well- grounded and "objective". On the other hand, he may be attacked by, say, Hegel for skirting the question of the relationship between the thing- in- itself and the thing-as- appearance, most notably in the fact that objects are presented to us with an inherent relationship--- is that only an appearance? and if not, then we are left to explain the intelligibility of the world yet again...I hope I have given you a sense of the can of worms skirted by the "synthetic unity of apperception"... |
