Evaluating Kant 's Intentions For Each Premise

1477 Words Dec 10th, 2015 6 Pages
Here I hope to reflect Kant’s intentions for each premise in the order presented above. (P1): I am conscious of my experience as determined in time. P1 can be interpreted a few ways. Dicker in his first interpretation takes his second premise to mean, (P2): I am aware that I have representations in experience that occur in temporal succession (Dicker 195). In other words, I am not only conscious of my experiences; I am also in a position where I recognize the order of my experiences presented by my own mental representations. Ordering representations is only possible if these representations are determined in time.
A thing which merely persists in perception does not itself reveal whether the persisting object occurred in any particular order. (B275). So, seeing that I can determine the order in time of my own subjective experiences, then there needs an additional capacity other than my own experiences allowing me to do so.
Currently, we have rested the first two premises as possible. Accordingly, I will maintain subjective experiences do not expose the determinate time-order alone. This conclusion is not explicitly stated in Dicker’s reconstruction.
In the B-version, Kant introduces a revised third premise (included above). Kant writes, that representations need a second party persisting distinct from the representations. This idea illustrates what information from representations might be sufficient in determining time-orders. there seems to be something other than the…

More about Evaluating Kant 's Intentions For Each Premise

Open Document