Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–22 | Cite as

Kant on the epistemic role of the imagination

  • Tobias RosefeldtEmail author
S.I.: The Current Relevance of Kant's Method in Philosophy
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

In recent years, more and more people have become attracted by the idea that the imagination should play a central role in explaining our knowledge of what is possible and necessary and what would be the case if things were different from how they actually are. The biggest challenge for this account is to explain how the imagination can be restricted in such a way that it can play this epistemic role, for there are certainly also unrestricted uses of the imagination in which it fails to yield the requisite knowledge. In this paper, I inquire how Kant’s account of the imagination could inspire the contemporary debate at this point. I first give an overview about Kant’s account of the imagination and its different roles for our cognition of the real world. I then show that some recent attempts to separate the epistemically valuable uses of the imagination from the epistemically worthless ones bear some striking similarities to Kant’s ideas about how the imagination helps us to get insight into metaphysical possibility. By discussing what Kant says about the method of a priori imaginative construction in the case of concepts such as that of matter and that of disembodied minds, I also point to those aspects of his view which make his views really distinct from all contemporary accounts, but which he himself thought bear the greatest potential of making the imagination a source of modal knowledge.

Keywords

Kant Imagination Modal epistemology Conceivability Metaphysical possibility 

Notes

References

  1. Balcerak Jackson, M. (2018). Justification by imagination. In F. Dorsch & F. Macpherson (Eds.), Perceptual imagination and perceptual memory (pp. 209–226). Oxford: Oxford Universty Press.Google Scholar
  2. Chalmers, D. (2002). Does conceivability entail possibility? In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility (pp. 145–200). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Friedman, M. (2013). Kant’s construction of nature: A reading of the metaphysical foundations of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Grüne, S. (2009). Blinde Anschauung. Die Rolle von Begriffen in Kants Theorie sinnlicher Synthesis. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
  5. Haag, J. (2007). Erfahrung und Gegenstand. Das Verhältnis von Sinnlichkeit und Verstand. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
  6. Kind, A., & Kung, P. (Eds.). (2016). Knowledge through imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kripke, (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Krödel, T. (2012). Counterfactuals and the epistemology of modality. Philosophers’ Imprint, 12(12), 1–14.Google Scholar
  9. Krödel, T. (2017). Modal knowledge, evolution, and counterfactuals. In R. W. Fischer & F. Leon (Eds.), Modal epistemology after rationalism (synthese library). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Kung, P. (2010). Imagining as a guide to possibility. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81(3), 620–663.Google Scholar
  11. Kung, P. (2016). You really do imagine it: against error theories of imagination. Noûs, 50(1), 90–120.Google Scholar
  12. Kung, P. (Ms.). Imagining, inside and out.Google Scholar
  13. Longueness, B. (1998). Kant and the capacity to judge. Sensibility and discursivity in the transcendental analytic of the ‘critique of pure reason’. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Malmgren, A. (2011). Rationalism and the content of intuitive judgments. Mind, 120, 263–326.Google Scholar
  15. Nimtz, C. (2009). Conceptual truth defended. In C. Kompa, N. Nimtz, & C. Suhm (Eds.), The a priori and its role in philosophy (pp. 137–155). Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
  16. Nimtz, C. (2010). Philosophical thought experiments as exercises in conceptual analysis. Grazer Philosophical Studien, 81, 189–214.Google Scholar
  17. Roca-Royes, S. (2011). Conceivability and De Re modal knowledge. Noûs, 45, 22–49.Google Scholar
  18. Rosefeldt, T. (2000). Das logische Ich. Kant über den Gehalt des Begriffes von sich selbst. Berlin: Philo.Google Scholar
  19. Rosefeldt, T. (2003). Kant’s self: Real entity and logical identity. In H. Glock (Ed.), Strawson and Kant (pp. 141–154). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Rosefeldt, T. (2016). Subjects of Kant’s first paralogism. In A. Gomes & A. Stephenson (Eds.), Kant. Philosopher of mind (pp. 221–244). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Rosefeldt, T. (forthcoming). Kant on imagination and the intuition of time. In Gentry, G., & Pollock, K. (Eds.), The imagination in German idealism and romanticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Stang, N. (2016). Kant’s modal metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Stephenson, A. (2015). Kant on the object-dependence of intuition and hallucination. Philosophical Quarterly, 65, 486–508.Google Scholar
  24. Strohminger, M., & Yli-Vakkuri, J. (2017). The epistemology of modality. Analysis, 77, 825–838.Google Scholar
  25. van Inwagen, P. (1998). Modal epistemology. Philosophical Studies, 92, 67–84.Google Scholar
  26. Watkins, E., & Willaschek, M. (2017). Kant’s account of cognition. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 55(1), 83–112.Google Scholar
  27. Williamson, T. (2007). The philosophy of philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Yablo, S. (1993). Is conceivability a guide to possibility? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 53, 1–42.Google Scholar
  29. Yablo, S. (2002). Coulda, woulda, shoulda. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility (pp. 441–492). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Yablo, S. (2006). No fool’s cold. In M. Garcia-Carpintero & J. Macia (Eds.), Two-dimensional semantics (pp. 327–345). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations