Critical Responsibility

  • John Llewelyn

Abstract

Kantian critique distinguishes the faculties of mind and shows how the elements distinguished — sensibility, imagination, understanding, will, reason — should, but can fail, to cooperate with each other. Man is fully person, he tells us in Religion within the Bounds of Reason Alone, when he is fully rational, and that means fully responsible. In §13 of The Basic Problems of Phenomenology (1927) Heidegger’s rethinking of Kant (already underway in Being and Time, in lectures to be published in 1929 as Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, and continued meanwhile in the course on the first Critique) distinguishes moral personality, psychological personality and transcendental personality. Transcendental personality is man’s self-consciousness, his capacity to prefix ‘I think’ to any of his thoughts in the broad sense of thought which Descartes ascribes to cogitatio in one of his uses of that word. Hence among those thoughts of which man is conscious that he thinks them will be any thought he may have of his empirical nature, any thought of which the object is or is in his inner sense, the temporal flow of his stream of consciousness. The transcendental personality manifests itself too with those cogitationes that Descartes includes under the heading of will, thus in any action that is performed out of respect for the moral law. That is to say, the transcendental personality manifests itself in any action of the moral personality, in any act of practical reason.

Keywords

Prefix Ethos Aula 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason and Other Works on the Theory of Ethics, ed. T. K. Abbott (London: Longmans, Green, 1889) p. 169.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Meister Eckhart, Sermons, in Meister Eckhart, ed. Raymond B. Blackney (New York: Harper and Row, 1941) p. 220.Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    Jean Wahl, Le malheur de la conscience dans la philosophie de Hegel (Saint-Pierre de Salerne: Montfort, 2nd ed. 1951) pp. 26–7.Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    Jacques Derrida, ‘Mochlos ou le conflit des facultés’, Philosophie, 2 (1984) p. 30.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    ‘Philosophy is being at home with self, just like the homeliness of the Greek; it is man’s being at home in his mind, at home with himself. If we are at home with the Greeks, we must be at home more particularly with philosophy.’ G. W. F. Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy, vol. I, trans. E. S. Haldane (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1892) pp. 151–2.Google Scholar
  6. 10.
    See John Llewelyn, ‘Heidegger’s Kant and the Middle Voice’, in David Wood and Robert Bernasconi (eds), Time and Metaphysics (Warwick: Parousia Press, 1982), pp. 87–120Google Scholar
  7. John Llewelyn, Derrida on the Threshold of Sense (London: Macmillan, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1986) pp. 90–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charles E. Scott, ‘The Middle Voice in Being and Time, in John C. Sallis, Giuseppina Moneta and Jacques Taminiaux (eds) The Collegium Phaenomenologicum: The First Ten Years (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1988) pp. 159–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 11.
    Hildegard Feick, Index zu Heideggers’ sein und Zeit’ (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1968).Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    Richard Kearney, Poétique du possible (Paris: Beauchesne, 1984)Google Scholar
  11. Martin Heidegger, Zur Sache des Denkens (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1969) pp. 1–25Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    B. F. C. Atkinson, The Greek Language (London: Faber and Faber, 1931) p. 136ff.Google Scholar
  13. T. Burrow, The Sanskrit Language (London: Faber and Faber, 1955) pp. 293–4.Google Scholar
  14. Hans Krahe, Grundzüge der vergleichenden Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen (Innsbruck: Wolfgang Meid, 1972) pp. 114–16.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© John Llewelyn 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Llewelyn

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations