Apaar Kumar

Kant claims that the transcendental self can be represented as a “feeling of existence” (Gefühl eines Daseins). Some interpreters take this claim to be inconsistent with Kant’s larger theory of self-consciousness. I consider the extent to which two eighteenth-century philosophy texts that Kant knew well - Tetens’ Philosophische Versuche über die menschliche Natur und ihre Entwickelung and Feder’s Logik und Metaphysik - can contribute to our understanding of Gefühl eines Daseins. I point to some continuities between Kant’s characterization of “Gefühl” in Gefühl eines Daseins, and Tetens’ and Feder’s conceptualizations of Selbstgefühl. I show that Gefühl eines Daseins is prima facie consistent with Feder’s clear “I” (or Selbstgefühl) and Tetens’ clear Selbstgefühl; and both Gefühl eines Daseins and clear Selbstgefühl relate to higher cognition. Finally, I discuss whether the notion of Selbstgefühl is compatible with key aspects of Kant’s conceptualization of the self - the transcendental-empirical distinction, and the atemporality of the self.

Kant has been interpreted as claiming that persons possess unconditional and incomparable value. If this claim, which I call the “absolute value claim,” entails that persons are valuable in all circumstances and cannot be valued vis-à-vis each other, then its philosophical validity may be disputed. I point to passages in which Kant can be understood as saying that persons, as opposed to non-persons, can be thought to have absolute value, but persons performing immoral actions can be denied value. I argue that if we accept these propositions, then, at least from the Kantian standpoint, some well-known cases which seem to problematize the absolute value claim—a soldier sacrifices himself in battle to save four of his comrades; a person kills another person in order to save his own life; should a scarce life-saving drug be given to a young or an old person?—need not be seen prima facie to undermine the philosophical viability of this claim.

Andrea Kern contends that perceptual experience is perceptual knowledge if our self-consciously held capacity for perceptual knowledge is “perfectly” actualized. I argue that this view requires further justification. First, Kern is unable to support her claim that an awareness of our self-conscious capacity for perceptual knowledge is “contained” in all our perceptions. Second, Kern’s claim that perception includes the idea of the conditions of perception is potentially inconsistent with her denial that perceptual experience enables perceptual knowledge.

In this essay, I investigate if self-respect as Robin Dillon conceives of it in her essay “Self-Respect: Moral, Emotional, Political” can be taught if we presuppose Barbara Herman’s theory of moral education. For Dillon, self-respect is a nonpropositionally held and emotionally forged interpretive orientation that determines one’s understanding of oneself. Further, it cannot be reconstituted through reason if it has been damaged. The claim that reason cannot remedy a lack of self-respect in persons is at odds with Herman’s reason-based training in value. I argue that we do not have sufficient grounds to think that Herman’s reason-based training in value cannot help instil Dillon-type self-respect.

By examining and comparing Gandhi’s statement that the Bihar earthquake of 1934 should be seen as divine punishment for the sin of untouchability with a similar claim in Kant’s writings, I argue that while Gandhi and Kant are, broadly speaking, remarkably similar in the way in which they relate morality, religion, and politics in conceptualising the categories of faith and superstition, they also seem to differ in their vocabularies and the propositional content of their respective moral psychologies. However, if we are committed to dialogue across cultures, then the differences between Gandhi and Kant need not preclude reflective conversation between them.

This paper provisionally offers a way of addressing the predicament of a person who does not feel at home in her own concepts, because these concepts were once forced upon her by a colonial regime. If the goal for a person in such a circumstance is to overcome this alienation through intellectual means, then one way in which this might be accomplished would be to develop a hermeneutics that would enable her to ascertain the alienating aspects of her existing concepts. To this end, I outline a hermeneutical strategy which requires that, in reading the colonizer’s textual tradition, the colonized/ex–colonized person must heuristically presuppose that her current concepts are entirely determined by this tradition unless these concepts can be shown to resist such determination on reflective–systematic grounds.

Kant interpreters have contrasting views on what Kant takes to be the basis for human dignity. Several commentators have argued that human dignity can be traced back to some feature of human beings. Others contend that humans in themselves lack dignity, but dignity can be attributed to them because the moral law demands respect for humanity. I argue, alternatively, that human dignity in Kant’s system can be seen to be grounded in the reciprocal relationship between the dignity of the moral law and the dignity inherent in the human constitution. The latter includes the dignity of personhood, construed as rational inner purposiveness, and the dignity of giving oneself the law and striving to follow it.

Samuel Scheffler has argued that people value tradition for its own sake because they view it as accumulated experience, and as playing an important role in forming their personal integrity, structuring their lives, and providing them with a sense of belonging. These reasons, according to Scheffler, are de facto justifications that people offer for choosing to act on purely traditional grounds. In this essay, I argue that these de facto reasons must be supplemented if they are to be seen as de jure rational grounds for valuing tradition for its own sake. Such a supplementation would open up the possibility of articulating a coherent theory of moderate cosmopolitanism.

In this essay, I investigate one aspect of Kant’s larger theory of the transcendental self. In the Prolegomena, Kant says that the transcendental self can be represented as a feeling of existence. In contrast to the view that Kant errs in describing the transcendental self in this fashion, I show that there exists a strand in Kant’s philosophy that permits us to interpret the representation of the transcendental self as a feeling of existence—as the obscurely conscious and temporally inaccessible modification of the state of the discursive subject, which is built into all the representations of such a subject. I also provide an account of how the transcendental self can be legitimately understood both as an epistemic condition for the possibility of experience as well as the representation of a non-naturalistic feeling of existence.

My aim in this essay is to clarify certain issues relating to Kant’s definition of sensation. I will argue that even though sensation can occur in Kant’s system only if the subject is physiologically affected by some kind of object, Kant defines sensation non-referentially, that is, as relating entirely to the subject without reference to the affecting object. In the process, I will also demonstrate that sensation for Kant is the feeling accompanying the non-durational and obscurely conscious alteration or modification in the representational state of the subject.

Kant interpreters are divided on the question of whether determinate cognition plays a role in the harmony of the faculties in aesthetic judgement. I provide a ‘non-cognitive’ interpretation that allows Kant’s statements regarding judgements of natural beauty to cohere such that determinate cognition need not be taken to perform any role in such judgements. I argue that, in aesthetic harmony, judgement privileges the free activity of the imagination over the cognizing function of the understanding for the purpose of unifying the object, although the free imagination cannot violate the obscure concepts and principles of ordinary common sense.