Constructive Semantics: On the Necessity of an Appropriate Concept of Schematization

  • Christina WeissEmail author
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 44)


The issue of constructivity in general is by no means new, when it enters the stage of discussions concerning the foundations of mathematics at the beginning of the twentieth century, especially through L. E. J. Brouwer’s supposedly radical reformation of the basic elements of mathematics. (The impression of radicalness that Brouwer obviously had on contemporaries expresses itself among others in the political names people chose for Brouwer’s intuitionistic endeavour: Weyl called it “the revolution”, Hilbert accordingly named it “attempted coup”.) The contrary is the case: Since Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason with its separation of the faculty of sensibility (receptivity) on the one side from the faculty of the intellect (spontaneity) on the other side, and the interconnected separation of different fields of knowledge, the intuitive-constructive and the discursive realm, (See Sect. 8.1 of the Transcendental Aesthetic for the introduction of the different faculties of knowledge.) a broad engagement with respect to the general form of knowledge, even and in particular of philosophy itself as a theory of knowledge, came into existence. Among others especially G. W. F. Hegel criticized the Kantian approach for its too narrow concept of constructivity. (The idealistic system-designs of Fichte and Schelling of course also comprise a criticism of Kantian thinking.) Along the main lines of Hegel’s critique of Kant’s limitation of constructivity to intuitive constructivity—schematic construction in pure intuition—and his closely related critique of the non-dialectical methodology of Kantian philosophy in general, we want to open up a discussion of the general form and methodology of constructive semantics as a philosophical endeavour. In this connection it turns out that Kant’s idea of the necessary schematization of linguistic concepts into temporal forms of constitution, after having undergone a Hegelian revision, proves to be quite useful for clarifying the problems and challenges of and for constructive philosophy, even today.


Transcendental schematism Homogeneity Pure time Universal Singular Dialectical schematization Self-appearance Pragmatics Semantics Dialogical constructivism Presentational logics 


  1. Brandom, R. (2015). Wiedererinnerter Idealismus. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  2. Eley, L. (1976). Hegels Wissenschaft der Logik. München: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
  3. Eley, L. (1985). Philosophie der Logik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  4. Hegel, G. W. F. (1977a). Faith and knowledge (W. Cerf & H. S. Harris, Trans.). New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hegel, G. W. F. (1977b). Phenomenology of spirit (A. V. Miller, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hegel, G. W. F. (2010). The science of logic (G. di Giovanni, Trans. and Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Heinzmann, G. (2013). L’intuition épistémique. Une approche pragmatique du contexte de compréhension et de justification en mathématiques et en philosophie. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  8. Kamlah, W., & Lorenzen, P. (1987). Logische Propädeutik. Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
  9. Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Trans. and Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lorenz, K. (2008). Das Vorgefundene und das Hervorgebrachte. Zum Hintergrund der >Erlanger Schule< des Konstruktivismus. In J. Mittelstraß (Ed.), Der Konstruktivismus in der Philosophie im Ausgang von Wilhelm Kamlah und Paul Lorenzen (pp. 19–31). Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
  11. Lorenz, K. (2009a). Dialogischer Konstruktivismus. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Lorenz, K. (2009b). Artikulation und Prädikation. In: K. Lorenz (Ed.), pp. 24–71.Google Scholar
  13. Lorenz, K. (2009c). Grammatik zwischen Psychologie und Logik. In: K. Lorenz (Ed.), pp. 94–117.Google Scholar
  14. Lorenz, K., & Mittelstraß, J. (2011). Philosophische Variationen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Scherer, B. M. (1984). Prolegomena zu einer einheitlichen Zeichentheorie. Tübingen: Stauffenburg-Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Spencer-Brown, G. (1972). Laws of Form. New York: The Julian Press.Google Scholar
  17. Weiss, C. (2006). Form und In-formation. Zur Logik selbstreferentieller Strukturgenese. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
  18. Weiss, C. (2018). Towards a phenomenology of schematization. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 24, 245–260.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Philosophy, Technical University of DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations