Luca Forgione

Ever since Strawson’s The Bounds of Sense, the transcendental apperception device has become a theoretical reference point to shed light on the criterionless selfascription form of mental states, reformulating a contemporary theoretical place tackled for the first time in explicit terms by Wittgenstein’s Blue Book. By investigating thoroughly some elements of the critical system the issue of the identification of the transcendental subject with reference to the I think will be singled out. In this respect, the debate presents at least two diametrically opposed attitudes: the first – exemplified in the works by Hacker, Becker, Sturma and McDowell – considers the features of the I think according to Wittgenstein’s approach to the I as subject while the second, exemplified by Kitcher and Carl, criticizes the various commentators who turn to Wittgenstein in order to interpret Kant’s I think. The hypothesis that I will attempt at articulating in this paper starts off not only from the transcendental apperception form, but also from the characterizations of empirical apperception. It may be assumed that Kant’s reflection on the problem of self-identification lies right here, truly prefiguring some features of Wittgenstein’s uses of I, albeit from different metaphysical assumptions and philosophical horizons.

The aim of this paper is to focus on certain characterizations of “I think” and the “transcendental subject” in an attempt to verify a connection with certain metaphysical characterizations of the thinking subject that Kant introduced in the critical period. Most importantly, two distinct meanings of “I think” need be distinguished: (1) in the Transcendental Deduction “I think” is the act of apperception; (2) in the Transcendental Deduction and in the section of Paralogisms “I think” is taken in its representational nature. It proves helpful to interpret the “transcendental subject” in formal terms as a concept that, mutatis mutandis, has the same function of the concept of the “transcendental object.”

Approfondendo lo schema dell’immaginazione, introdotto da Kant nella Critica della Ragione Pura per risolvere l’applicazione tra concetti e intuizioni, diversi commentatori hanno individuato alcuni legami con l’impostazione di Wittgenstein, soprattutto con le nozioni di immagine del Tractatus logico-philosophicus e di regola delle Ricerche filosofiche. Partendo da una prospettiva filosofico-linguistica, in particolare dalla questione della denominazione, questo saggio prova a ripercorrere alcuni punti critici che emergono dal tale confronto (§ 1),affrontando sia le difficoltà epistemiche interne alla riflessione kantiana sia gli aspetti che caratterizzano il suo paradigma procedurale (§ 2e § 3), per individuare un accostamento plausibile all’impresa filosofica di Wittgenstein (§ 4 e § 5).