GENERAL CRITICISM OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL DEDUCTION OF THE CATEGORIES
The preceding account of Kant's vindication of the categories has
included much criticism. But the criticism has been as far as possible
restricted to details, and has dealt with matters of principle only so
far as has been necessary in order to follow Kant's thought. We must
now consider the position as a whole, even though this may involve
some repetition.[1] The general difficulties of the position may be
divided into two kinds, (1) difficulties involved in the working out
of the theory, even if its main principles are not questioned, and (2)
difficulties involved in accepting its main principles at all.
[1] Difficulties connected with Kant's view of
self-consciousness will be ignored, as having been
sufficiently considered.
The initial difficulty of the first kind, which naturally strikes the
reader, concerns the possibility of performing the synthesis. The mind
has certain general ways of combining the manifold, viz. the
categories. But on general grounds we should expect the mind to
possess only one mode of combining the manifold. For the character of
the manifold to be combined cannot affect the mind's power of
combination, and, if the power of the mind consists in combining, the
combining should always be of the same kind. Thus, suppose the
manifold given to the mind to be combined consisted of musical notes,
we could think of the mind's power of combination as exercised in
combining the notes by way of succession, _provided that_ this be
regarded as the only mode of combination. But if the mind were thought
also capable of combining notes by way of simultaneity, we should at
once be confronted with the insoluble problem of determining why the
one mode of combination was exercised in any given case rather than
the other. If, several kinds of synthesis being allowed, this
difficulty be avoided by the supposition that, not being incompatible,
they are all exercised together, we have the alternative task of
explaining how the same manifold can be combined in each of these
ways. As a matter of fact, Kant thinks of manifolds of different kinds
as combined or related in different ways; thus events are related
causally and quantities quantitatively. But since, on Kant's view, the
manifold as given is unrelated and all combination comes from the
mind, the mind should not be held capable of combining manifolds of
different kinds differently. Otherwise the manifold would in its own
nature imply the need of a particular kind of synthesis, and would
therefore not be unrelated.
Suppose, however, we waive the difficulty involved in the plurality of
the categories. There remains the equally fundamental difficulty that
any single principle of synthesis contains in itself no ground for the
different ways of its application.[2] Suppose it to be conceded that
in the apprehension of definite shapes we combine the manifold in
accordance with the conception of figure, and, for the purpose of the
argument, that the conception of figure can be treated as equivalent
to the category of quantity. It is plain that we apprehend different
shapes, e. g. lines[3] and triangles[4], of which, if we take into
account differences of relative length of sides, there is an infinite
variety, and houses,[5] which may also have an infinite variety of
shape. But there is nothing in the mind's capacity of relating the
manifold by way of figure to determine it to combine a given manifold
into a figure of one kind rather than into a figure of any other kind;
for to combine the manifold into a particular shape, there is needed
not merely the thought of a figure in general, but the thought of a
definite figure. No 'cue' can be furnished by the manifold itself, for
any such cue would involve the conception of a particular figure, and
would therefore imply that the particular synthesis was implicit in
the manifold itself, in which case it would not be true that all
synthesis comes from the mind.
[2] Cf. p. 207.
[3] B. 137, M. 85.
[4] A. 105, Mah. 199.
[5] B. 162, M. 99.
This difficulty takes a somewhat different form in the case of the
categories of relation. To take the case of cause and effect,
the conception of which, according to Kant, is involved in our
apprehension of a succession, Kant's view seems to be that we become
aware of two elements of the manifold A B as a succession of events in
the world of nature by combining them as necessarily successive in a
causal order, in which the state of affairs which precedes B and which
contains A contains something upon which B must follow (i. e. a cause
of B), which therefore makes it necessary that B must follow A.[6] But
if we are to do this, we must in some way succeed in selecting or
picking out from among the elements of the manifold that element A
which is to be thus combined with B. We therefore need something more
than the category. It is not enough that we should think that B has a
cause; we must think of something in particular as the cause of B,
and we must think of it either as coexistent with, or as identical
with, A.
[6] Cf. pp. 291-3.
Kant fails to notice this second difficulty,[7] and up to a certain
point avoids it owing to his distinction between the imagination and
the understanding. For he thinks of the understanding as the source of
general principles of synthesis, viz. the categories, and attributes
individual syntheses to the imagination. Hence the individual
syntheses, which involve particular principles, are already effected
before the understanding comes into play. But to throw the work of
effecting individual syntheses upon the imagination is only to evade
the difficulty. For in the end, as has been pointed out,[8] the
imagination must be the understanding working unreflectively, and,
whether this is so or not, some account must be given of the way in
which the imagination furnishes the particular principles of synthesis
required.
[7] We should have expected Kant to have noticed this
difficulty in A. 105, Mah. 199, where he describes what is
involved in the relation of representations to an object, for
his instance of representations becoming so related is the
process of combining elements into a triangle, which plainly
requires a synthesis of a very definite kind. For the reasons
of his failure to notice the difficulty cf. p. 207.
[8] Pp. 168-9.
The third and last main difficulty of the first kind concerns the
relation of the elements of the manifold and the kinds of synthesis
by which they are combined. This involves the distinction between
relating in general and terms to be related. For to perform a
synthesis is in general to relate, and the elements to be combined
are the terms to be related.[9] Now it is only necessary to take
instances to realize that the possibility of relating terms in certain
ways involves two presuppositions, which concern respectively the
general and the special nature of the terms to be related.
[9] 'To relate' is used rather than 'to recognize as
related', in order to conform to Kant's view of knowledge.
But if it be desired to take the argument which follows in
connexion with knowledge proper (cf. p. 242), it is only
necessary to substitute throughout 'to recognize as related'
for 'to relate' and to make the other changes consequent
thereon.
In the first place, it is clear that the general nature of the terms
must correspond with or be adapted to the general nature of the
relationship to be effected. Thus if two terms are to be related as
more or less loud, they must be sounds, since the relation in question
is one in respect of sound and not, e. g., of time or colour or space.
Similarly, terms to be related as right and left must be bodies in
space, right and left being a spatial relation. Again, only human
beings can be related as parent and child. Kant's doctrine, however,
does not conform to this presupposition. For the manifold to be
related consists solely of sensations, and of individual spaces, and
perhaps individual times, as elements of pure perception; and such a
manifold is not of the kind required. Possibly individual spaces may
be regarded as adequate terms to be related or combined into
geometrical figures, e. g. into lines or triangles. But a house as a
synthesis of a manifold cannot be a synthesis of spaces, or of times,
or of sensations. Its parts are bodies, which, whatever they may be,
are neither sensations nor spaces nor times, nor combinations of them.
In reality they are substances of a special kind. Again, the relation
of cause and effect is not a relation of sensations or spaces or
times, but of successive states of physical things or substances, the
relation consisting in the necessity of their succession.
In the second place, it is clear that the special nature of the
relation to be effected presupposes a special nature on the part of
the terms to be related. If one sound is to be related to another by
way of the octave, that other must be its octave. If one quantity is
to be related to another as the double of it, that quantity must be
twice as large as the other. In the same way, proceeding to Kant's
instances, we see that if we are to combine or relate a manifold into
a triangle, and therefore into a triangle of a particular size and
shape, the elements of the manifold must be lines, and lines of a
particular size. If we are to combine a manifold into a house, and
therefore into a house of a certain shape and size, the manifold must
consist of bodies of a suitable shape and size. If we are to relate a
manifold by way of necessary succession, the manifold must be such
that it can be so related; in other words, if we are to relate an
element X of the manifold with some other Y as the necessary
antecedent of X, there must be some definite element Y which is
connected with, and always occurs along with, X. To put the matter
generally, we may say that the manifold must be adapted to or 'fit'
the categories not only, as has been pointed out, in the sense that it
must be of the right kind, but also in the sense that its individual
elements must have that orderly character which enables them to be
related according to the categories.
Now it is plain from Kant's vindication of what he calls the affinity
of phenomena,[10] that he recognizes the existence of this
presupposition. But the question arises whether this vindication can
be successful. For since the manifold is originated by the thing in
itself, it seems prima facie impossible to prove that the elements of
the manifold must have affinity, and so be capable of being related
according to the categories. Before, however, we consider the chief
passage in which Kant tries to make good his position, we may notice a
defence which might naturally be offered on his behalf. It might be
said that he establishes the conformity of the manifold to the
categories at least hypothetically, i. e. upon the supposition that
the manifold is capable of entering into knowledge, and also upon the
supposition that we are capable of being conscious of our identity
with respect to it; for upon either supposition any element of the
manifold must be capable of being combined with all the rest into one
world of nature. Moreover, it might be added that these suppositions
are justified, for our experience is not a mere dream, but is
throughout the consciousness of a world, and we are self-conscious
throughout our experience; and therefore it is clear that the manifold
does in fact 'fit' the categories. But the retort is obvious. Any
actual conformity of the manifold to the categories would upon this
view be at best but an empirical fact, and, although, if the
conformity ceased, we should cease to be aware of a world and of
ourselves, no reason has been or can be given why the conformity
should not cease.
[10] Cf. A. 100-2, Mah. 195-7 (quoted pp. 171-2); A. 113,
Mah. 205; A. 121-2, Mah. 211-2.
The passage in which Kant vindicates the affinity of phenomena in the
greatest detail is the following:
"We will now try to exhibit the necessary connexion of the
understanding with phenomena by means of the categories, by beginning
from below, i. e. from the empirical end. The first that is given us
is a phenomenon, which if connected with consciousness is called
perception[11].... But because every phenomenon contains a manifold,
and consequently different perceptions are found in the mind scattered
and single, a connexion of them is necessary, which they cannot have
in mere sense. There is, therefore, in us an active power of synthesis
of this manifold, which we call imagination, and the action of which,
when exercised immediately upon perceptions, I call apprehension. The
business of the imagination, that is to say, is to bring the manifold
of intuition[12] into an _image_; it must, therefore, first receive
the impressions into its activity, i. e. apprehend them."
[11] _Wahrnehmung._
[12] _Anschauung._
"But it is clear that even this apprehension of the manifold would not
by itself produce an image and a connexion of the impressions, unless
there were a subjective ground in virtue of which one perception, from
which the mind has passed to another, is summoned to join that which
follows, and thus whole series of perceptions are presented, i. e. a
reproductive power of imagination, which power, however, is also only
empirical."
"But if representations reproduced one another at haphazard just as
they happened to meet together, once more no determinate connexion
would arise, but merely chaotic heaps of them, and consequently no
knowledge would arise; therefore the reproduction of them must have a
rule, according to which a representation enters into connexion with
this rather than with another in the imagination. This subjective and
_empirical_ ground of reproduction according to rules is called the
_association_ of representations."
"But now, if this unity of association had not also an objective
ground, so that it was impossible that phenomena should be apprehended
by the imagination otherwise than under the condition of a possible
synthetic unity of this apprehension, it would also be a pure accident
that phenomena were adapted to a connected system of human knowledge.
For although we should have the power of associating perceptions, it
would still remain wholly undetermined and accidental whether they
were associable; and in the event of their not being so, a multitude
of perceptions and even perhaps a whole sensibility would be possible,
in which much empirical consciousness would be met with in my mind,
but divided and without belonging to _one_ consciousness of myself,
which however is impossible. For only in that I ascribe all
perceptions to one consciousness (the original apperception) can I say
of all of them that I am conscious of them. There must therefore be an
objective ground, i. e. a ground to be recognized _a priori_ before
all empirical laws of the imagination, on which rests the possibility,
nay even the necessity, of a law which extends throughout all
phenomena, according to which we regard them without exception as such
data of the senses, as are in themselves associable and subjected to
universal rules of a thorough-going connexion in reproduction. This
objective ground of all association of phenomena I call the _affinity_
of phenomena. But we can meet this nowhere else than in the principle
of the unity of apperception as regards all cognitions which are to
belong to me. According to it, all phenomena without exception must so
enter into the mind or be apprehended as to agree with the unity of
apperception, which agreement would be impossible without synthetical
unity in their connexion, which therefore is also objectively
necessary."
"The objective unity of all (empirical) consciousness in one
consciousness (the original apperception) is therefore the necessary
condition even of all possible perception, and the affinity of all
phenomena (near or remote) is a necessary consequence of a synthesis
in the imagination, which is _a priori_ founded upon rules."
"The imagination is therefore also a power of _a priori_ synthesis,
for which reason we give it the name of the productive imagination;
and so far as it, in relation to all the manifold of the phenomenon,
has no further aim than the necessary unity in the synthesis of the
phenomenon, it can be called the transcendental function of the
imagination. It is therefore strange indeed, but nevertheless clear
from the preceding, that only by means of this transcendental function
of the imagination does even the affinity of phenomena, and with it
their association and, through this, lastly their reproduction
according to laws, and consequently experience itself become possible,
because without it no conceptions of objects would ever come together
into one experience."[13]
[13] A. 119-23, Mah. 210-3.
If it were not for the last two paragraphs[14], we should understand
this difficult passage to be substantially identical in meaning with
the defence of the affinity of phenomena just given.[15] We should
understand Kant to be saying (1) that the synthesis which knowledge
requires presupposes not merely a faculty of association on our part
by which we reproduce elements of the manifold according to rules, but
also an affinity on the part of the manifold to be apprehended, which
enables our faculty of association to get to work, and (2) that this
affinity can be vindicated as a presupposition at once of knowledge
and of self-consciousness.
[14] And also the first and last sentence of the fourth
paragraph, where Kant speaks not of 'phenomena which are to
be apprehended', but of the 'apprehension of phenomena' as
necessarily agreeing with the unity of apperception.
[15] p. 220.
In view, however, of the fact that, according to the last two
paragraphs, the affinity is due to the imagination,[16] it seems
necessary to interpret the passage thus:
[16] It should be noted that in the last paragraph but one
Kant does not say '_our knowledge_ that phenomena must have
affinity is a consequence of _our knowledge_ that there must
be a synthesis of the imagination', but 'the affinity of all
phenomena is a consequence of a synthesis in the
imagination'. And the last paragraph precludes the view that
in making the latter statement he meant the former. Cf. also
A. 101, Mah. 196.
'Since the given manifold of sense consists of isolated elements, this
manifold, in order to enter into knowledge, must be combined into an
image. This combination is effected by the imagination, which however
must first apprehend the elements one by one.'
'But this apprehension of the manifold by the imagination could
produce no image, unless the imagination also possessed the power of
reproducing past elements of the manifold, and, if knowledge is to
arise, of reproducing them according to rules. This faculty of
reproduction by which, on perceiving the element A, we are led to
think of or reproduce a past element B--B being reproduced according
to some rule--rather than C or D is called the faculty of association;
and since the rules according to which it works depend on empirical
conditions, and therefore cannot be anticipated _a priori_, it may be
called the subjective ground of reproduction.'
'But if the image produced by association is to play a part in
knowledge, the empirical faculty of reproduction is not a sufficient
condition or ground of it. A further condition is implied, which may
be called objective in the sense that it is _a priori_ and prior to
all empirical laws of imagination. This condition is that the act by
which the data of sense enter the mind or are apprehended, i. e. the
act by which the imagination _apprehends and combines_ the data of
sense into a sensuous image, must _make_ the elements such that they
have affinity, and therefore such that they can subsequently be
recognized as parts of a necessarily related whole.[17] Unless this
condition is satisfied, even if we possessed the faculty of
association, our experience would be a chaos of disconnected elements,
and we could not be self-conscious, which is impossible. Starting,
therefore, with the principle that we must be capable of being
self-conscious with respect to all the elements of the manifold, we
can lay down _a priori_ that this condition is a fact.'
[17] On this interpretation 'entering the mind' or 'being
apprehended' in the fourth paragraph does not refer merely to
the apprehension of elements one by one, which is preliminary
to the act of combining them, but includes the act by which
they are combined. If so, Kant's argument formally involves a
circle. For in the second and third paragraphs he argues that
the synthesis of perceptions involves reproduction according
to rules, and then, in the fourth paragraph, he argues that
this reproduction presupposes a synthesis of perceptions. We
may, however, perhaps regard his argument as being in
substance that knowledge involves _re_production by the
imagination of elements capable of connexion, and that this
reproduction involves _pro_duction by the imagination of the
data of sense, which are to be reproduced, into an image.
'It follows, then, that the affinity or connectedness of the data of
sense presupposed by the _re_production which is presupposed in
knowledge, is actually produced by the _pro_ductive faculty of
imagination, which, in combining the data into a sensuous image,
gives them the unity required.'
If, as it seems necessary to believe, this be the correct
interpretation of the passage,[18] Kant is here trying to carry out
to the full his doctrine that _all_ unity or connectedness comes from
the mind's activity. He is maintaining that the imagination, acting
_pro_ductively on the data of sense and thereby combining them into an
image, gives the data a connectedness which the understanding can
subsequently recognize. But to maintain this is, of course, only to
throw the problem one stage further back. If reproduction, in order to
enter into knowledge, implies a manifold which has such connexion that
it is capable of being reproduced according to rules, so the
production of sense-elements into a coherent image in turn implies
sense-elements capable of being so combined. The act of combination
cannot confer upon them or introduce into them a unity which they do
not already possess.
[18] If the preceding interpretation (pp. 223-4) be thought
the correct one, it must be admitted that Kant's vindication
of the affinity breaks down for the reason given, p. 220.
The fact is that this step in Kant's argument exhibits the final
breakdown of his view that all unity or connectedness or relatedness
is conferred upon the data of sense by the activity of the mind.
Consequently, this forms a convenient point at which to consider what
seems to be the fundamental mistake of this view. The mistake stated
in its most general form appears to be that, misled by his theory of
perception, he regards 'terms' as given by things in themselves
acting on the sensibility, and 'relations' as introduced by the
understanding,[19] whereas the fact is that in the sense in which terms
can be said to be given, relations can and must also be said to be
given.
[19] The understanding being taken to include the
imagination, as being the faculty of _spontaneity_ in
distinction from the _passive_ sensibility.
To realize that this is the case, we need only consider Kant's
favourite instance of knowledge, the apprehension of a straight line.
According to him, this presupposes that there is given to us a
manifold, which--whether he admits it or not--must really be parts of
the line, and that we combine this manifold on a principle involved in
the nature of straightness. Now suppose that the manifold given is the
parts AB, BC, CD, DE of the line AE. It is clearly only possible to
recognize AB and BC as contiguous parts of a straight line, if we
immediately apprehend that AB and BC form one line of which these
parts are identical in direction. Otherwise, we might just as well
join AB and BC at a right angle, and in fact at any angle; we need not
even make AB and BC contiguous.[20] Similarly, the relation of BC to
CD and of CD to DE must be just as immediately apprehended as the
parts themselves. Is there, however, any relation of which it could be
said that it is not given, and to which therefore Kant's doctrine
might seem to apply? There is. Suppose AB, BC, CD to be of such a size
that, though we can see AB and BC, or BC and CD, together, we cannot
see AB and CD together. It is clear that in this case we can only
learn that AB and CD are parts of the same straight line through an
inference. We have to infer that, because each is in the same straight
line with BC, the one is in the same straight line with the other.
Here the fact that AB and CD are in the same straight line is not
immediately apprehended. This relation, therefore, may be said not to
be given; and, from Kant's point of view, we could say that we
introduce this relation into the manifold through our activity of
thinking, which combines AB and CD together in accordance with the
principle that two straight lines which are in the same line with a
third are in line with one another. Nevertheless, this case is no
exception to the general principle that relations must be given
equally with terms; for we only become aware of the relation between
AB and CD, which is not given, because we are already aware of other
relations, viz. those between AB and BC, and BC and CD, which are
given. Relations then, or, in Kant's language, particular syntheses
must be said to be given, in the sense in which the elements to be
combined can be said to be given.
[20] In order to meet a possible objection, it may be pointed
out that if AB and BC be given in isolation, the contiguity
implied in referring to them as A_B_ and _B_C will not be
known.
Further, we can better see the nature of Kant's mistake in this
respect, if we bear in mind that Kant originally and rightly
introduced the distinction between the sensibility and the
understanding as that between the passive faculty by which an
individual is given or presented to us and the active faculty by which
we bring an individual under, or recognize it as an instance of a
universal.[21] For we then see that Kant in the _Transcendental
Deduction_, by treating what is given by the sensibility as terms and
what is contributed by the understanding as relations, is really
confusing the distinction between a relation and its terms with that
between universal and individual; in other words, he says of terms
what ought to be said of individuals, and of relations what ought to
be said of universals. That the confusion is a confusion, and not a
legitimate identification, it is easy to see. For, on the one hand, a
relation between terms is as much an individual as either of the
terms. That a body A is to the right of a body B is as much an
individual fact as either A or B.[22] And if terms, as being
individuals, belong to perception and are given, in the sense that
they are in an immediate relation to us, relations, as being
individuals, equally belong to perception and are given. On the other
hand, individual terms just as much as individual relations imply
corresponding universals. An individual body implies 'bodiness', just
as much as the fact that a body A is to the right of a body B implies
the relationship of 'being to the right of something'. And if, as is
the case, thinking or conceiving in distinction from perceiving, is
that activity by which we recognize an individual, given in
perception, as one of a kind, conceiving is involved as much in the
apprehension of a term as in the apprehension of a relation. The
apprehension of 'this red body' as much involves the recognition of an
individual as an instance of a kind, i. e. as much involves an act of
the understanding, as does the apprehension of the fact that it is
brighter than some other body.
[21] Cf. pp. 27-9.
[22] I can attach no meaning to Mr. Bertrand Russell's
assertion that relations have no instances. See _The
Principles of Mathematics_, Sec. 55.
Kant has failed to notice this confusion for two reasons. In the first
place, beginning in the _Analytic_ with the thought that the thing in
itself, by acting on our sensibility, produces isolated sense data, he
is led to adopt a different view of the understanding from that which
he originally gave, and to conceive its business as consisting in
relating these data. In the second place, by distinguishing the
imagination from the understanding, he is able to confine the
understanding to being the source of universals or principles of
relation in distinction from individual relations.[23] Since, however,
as has been pointed out, and as Kant himself sees at times, the
imagination is the understanding working unreflectively, this
limitation cannot be successful.
[23] Cf. p. 217.
There remain for consideration the difficulties of the second kind,
i. e. the difficulties involved in accepting its main principles at
all. These are of course the most important. Throughout the deduction
Kant is attempting to formulate the nature of knowledge. According to
him, it consists in an activity of the mind by which it combines the
manifold of sense on certain principles and is to some extent aware
that it does so, and by which it thereby gives the manifold relation
to an object. Now the fundamental and final objection to this account
is that what it describes is not knowledge at all. The justice of this
objection may be seen by considering the two leading thoughts
underlying the view, which, though closely connected, may be treated
separately. These are the thought of knowledge as a process by which
representations acquire relation to an object, and the thought of
knowledge as a process of synthesis.
It is in reality meaningless to speak of 'a process by which
representations or ideas acquire relation to an object'.[24] The
phrase must mean a process by which a mere apprehension, which, as
such, is not the apprehension of an object, becomes the apprehension
of an object. Apprehension, however, is essentially and from the very
beginning the apprehension of an object, i. e. of a reality
apprehended. If there is no object which the apprehension is 'of',
there is no apprehension. It is therefore wholly meaningless to speak
of a process by which an apprehension _becomes_ the apprehension of an
object. If when we reflected we were not aware of an object, i. e. a
reality apprehended, we could not be aware of our apprehension; for
our apprehension is the apprehension of it, and is itself only
apprehended in relation to, though in distinction from, it. It is
therefore impossible to suppose a condition of mind in which, knowing
what 'apprehension' means, we proceed to ask, 'What is meant by an
object of it?' and 'How does an apprehension become related to an
object?'; for both questions involve the thought of a mere
representation, i. e. of an apprehension which as yet is not the
apprehension of anything.
[24] Cf. p. 180, and pp. 280-3.
These questions, when their real nature is exhibited, are plainly
absurd. Kant's special theory, however, enables him to evade the real
absurdity involved. For, according to his view, a representation is
the representation or apprehension of something only from the point of
view of the thing in itself. As an appearance or perhaps more strictly
speaking as a sensation, it has also a being of its own which is not
relative[25]; and from this point of view it _is_ possible to speak of
'mere' representations and to raise questions which presuppose their
reality.[26]
[25] Cf. p. 137 init.
[26] The absurdity of the problem really propounded is also
concealed from Kant in the way indicated, pp. 180 fin.-181
init.
But this remedy, if remedy it can be called, is at least as bad as the
disease. For, in the first place, the change of standpoint is
necessarily illegitimate. An appearance or sensation is not from any
point of view a representation in the proper sense, i. e. a
representation or apprehension of something. It is simply a reality to
be apprehended, of the special kind called mental. If it be called a
representation, the word must have a new meaning; it must mean
something represented, or presented,[27] i. e. object of apprehension,
with the implication that what is presented, or is object of
apprehension, is mental or a modification of the mind. Kant therefore
only avoids the original absurdity by an illegitimate change of
standpoint, the change being concealed by a tacit transition in the
meaning of representation. In the second place, the change of
standpoint only saves the main problem from being absurd by rendering
it insoluble. For if a representation be taken to be an appearance or
a sensation, the main problem becomes that of explaining how it is
that, beginning with the apprehension of mere appearances or
sensations, we come to apprehend an object, in the sense of an object
in nature, which, as such, is not an appearance or sensation but a
part of the physical world. But if the immediate object of
apprehension were in this way confined to appearances, which are, to
use Kant's phrase, determinations of our mind, our apprehension would
be limited to these appearances, and any apprehension of an object in
nature would be impossible.[28] In fact, it is just the view that the
immediate object of apprehension consists in a determination of the
mind which forms the basis of the solipsist position. Kant's own
solution involves an absurdity at least as great as that involved in
the thought of a mere representation, in the proper sense of
representation. For the solution is that appearances or sensations
become related to an object, in the sense of an object in nature, by
being combined on certain principles. Yet it is plainly impossible to
combine appearances or sensations into an object in nature. If a
triangle, or a house, or 'a freezing of water'[29] is the result of
any process of combination, the elements combined must be respectively
lines, and bricks, and physical events; these are objects in the sense
in which the whole produced by the combination is an object, and are
certainly not appearances or sensations. Kant conceals the difficulty
from himself by the use of language to which he is not entitled. For
while his instances of objects are always of the kind indicated, he
persists in calling the manifold combined 'representations', i. e.
presented mental modifications. This procedure is of course
facilitated for him by his view that nature is a phenomenon or
appearance, but the difficulty which it presents to the reader
culminates when he speaks of the very same representations as having
both a subjective and an objective relation, i. e. as being both
modifications of the mind and parts of nature.[30]
[27] _Vorgestellt._
[28] Cf. p. 123.
[29] B. 162, M. 99.
[30] B. 139-42, M. 87-8. Cf. 209, note 3, and pp. 281-2.
We may now turn to Kant's thought of knowledge as a process of
synthesis. When Kant speaks of synthesis, the kind of synthesis of
which he usually is thinking is that of spatial elements into a
spatial whole; and although he refers to other kinds, e. g. of units
into numbers, and of events into a temporal series, nevertheless it is
the thought of spatial synthesis which guides his view. Now we must in
the end admit that the spatial synthesis of which he is thinking is
really the _construction_ or _making_ of spatial objects in the
literal sense. It would be rightly illustrated by making figures out
of matches or spelicans, or by drawing a circle with compasses, or by
building a house out of bricks. Further, if we extend this view of the
process of which Kant is thinking, we have to allow that the process
of synthesis in which, according to Kant, knowledge consists is that
of making or constructing parts of the physical world, and in fact the
physical world itself, out of elements given in perception.[31] The
deduction throughout presupposes that the synthesis is really
_manufacture_, and Kant is at pains to emphasize the fact. "The order
and conformity to law in the phenomena which we call _nature_ we
ourselves introduce, and we could not find it there, if we or the
nature of our mind had not originally placed it there."[32] He
naturally rejoices in the manufacture, because it is just this which
makes the categories valid. If knowing is really making, the
principles of synthesis must apply to the reality known, because it is
by these very principles that the reality is made. Moreover,
recognition of this fact enables us to understand certain features of
his view which would otherwise be inexplicable. For if the synthesis
consists in literal construction, we are able to understand why Kant
should think (1) that in the process of knowledge the mind
_introduces_ order into the manifold, (2) that the mind is limited in
its activity of synthesis by having to conform to certain principles
of construction which constitute the nature of the understanding, and
(3) that the manifold of phenomena must possess affinity. If, for
example, we build a house, it can be said (1) that we introduce into
the materials a plan or principle of arrangement which they do not
possess in themselves, (2) that the particular plan is limited by, and
must conform to, the laws of spatial relation and to the general
presuppositions of physics, such as the uniformity of nature, and (3)
that only such materials are capable of the particular combination as
possess a nature suitable to it. Moreover, if, for Kant, knowing is
really making, we are able to understand two other prominent features
of his view. We can understand why Kant should lay so much stress upon
the 'recognition' of the synthesis, and upon the self-consciousness
involved in knowledge. For if the synthesis of the manifold is really
the making of an object, it results merely in the existence of the
object; knowledge of it is still to be effected. Consequently,
knowledge of the object only finds a place in Kant's view by the
_recognition_ (on the necessity of which he insists) of the manifold
as combined on a principle. This recognition, which Kant considers
only an element in knowledge, is really the knowledge itself. Again,
since the reality to be known is a whole of parts which we construct
on a principle, we know that it is such a whole, and therefore that
'the manifold is related to one object', because, and only because, we
know that we have combined the elements on a principle.
Self-consciousness therefore _must_ be inseparable from consciousness
of an object.
[31] It is for this reason that the mathematical
illustrations of the synthesis are the most plausible for his
theory. While we can be said to construct geometrical
figures, and while the construction of geometrical figures
can easily be mistaken for the apprehension of them, we
cannot with any plausibility be said to construct the
physical world.
[32] A. 125, Mah. 214. Cf. the other passages quoted pp.
211-12.
The fundamental objection to this account of knowledge seems so
obvious as to be hardly worth stating; it is of course that knowing
and making are not the same. The very nature of knowing presupposes
that the thing known is already made, or, to speak more accurately,
already exists.[33] In other words, knowing is essentially the
discovery of what already is. Even if the reality known happens to be
something which we make, e. g. a house, the knowing it is distinct
from the making it, and, so far from being identical with the making,
presupposes that the reality in question is already made. Music and
poetry are, no doubt, realities which in some sense are 'made' or
'composed', but the apprehension of them is distinct from and
presupposes the process by which they are composed.
[33] Cf. Ch. VI.
How difficult it is to resolve knowing into making may be seen by
consideration of a difficulty in the interpretation of Kant's phrase
'relation of the manifold to an object', to which no allusion has yet
been made. When it is said that a certain manifold is related to, or
stands[34] in relation to, an object, does the relatedness referred to
consist in the fact that the manifold is combined into a whole, or in
the fact that we are conscious of the combination, or in both? If we
accept the first alternative we must allow that, while relatedness to
an object implies a process of synthesis, yet the relatedness, and
therefore the synthesis, have nothing to do with knowledge. For the
relatedness of the manifold to an object will be the combination of
the elements of the manifold as parts of an object constructed, and
the process of synthesis involved will be that by which the object is
constructed. This process of synthesis will have nothing to do with
knowledge; for since it is merely the process by which the object is
constructed, knowledge so far is not effected at all, and no clue is
given to the way in which it comes about. If, however, we accept the
second alternative, we have to allow that while relatedness to an
object has to do with knowledge, yet it in no way implies a process of
synthesis. For since in that case it consists in the fact that we are
conscious of the manifold as together forming an object, it in no way
implies that the object has been produced by a process of synthesis.
Kant, of course, would accept the third alternative. For, firstly,
since it is knowledge which he is describing, the phrase 'relatedness
to an object' cannot refer simply to the _existence_ of a combination
of the manifold, and of a process by which it has been produced; its
meaning must include _consciousness_ of the combination. In the second
place, it is definitely his view that we cannot represent anything as
combined in the object without having previously combined it
ourselves.[35] Moreover, it is just with respect to this connexion
between the synthesis and the consciousness of the synthesis that his
reduction of knowing to making helps him; for to make an object, e. g.
a house, is to make it consciously, i. e. to combine materials on a
principle of which we are aware. Since, then, the combining of which
he speaks is really making, it seems to him impossible to combine a
manifold without being aware of the nature of the act of combination,
and therefore of the nature of the whole thereby produced.[36] But
though this is clearly Kant's view, it is not justified. In the first
place, 'relatedness of the manifold to an object' ought not to refer
_both_ to its combination in a whole _and_ to our consciousness of the
combination; and in strictness it should refer to the former only. For
as referring to the former it indicates a relation of the manifold _to
the object_, as being the parts of the object, and as referring to the
latter it indicates a relation of the manifold _to us_, as being
apprehended by us as the parts of the object. But two relations which,
though they are of one and the same thing, are nevertheless relations
of it to two different things, should not be referred to by the same
phrase. Moreover, since the relatedness is referred to as relatedness
to an object, the phrase properly indicates the relation of the
manifold to an object, and not to us as apprehending it. Again, in the
second place, Kant cannot successfully maintain that the phrase is
primarily a loose expression for our consciousness of the manifold as
related to an object, and that since this implies a process of
synthesis, the phrase may fairly include in its meaning the thought of
the combination of the manifold by us into a whole. For although Kant
asserts--and with some plausibility--that we can only apprehend as
combined what we have ourselves combined, yet when we consider this
assertion seriously we see it to be in no sense true.
[34] A. 109, Mah. 202.
[35] B. 130, M. 80.
[36] To say that 'combining', in the sense of making,
_really_ presupposes consciousness of the nature of the whole
produced, would be inconsistent with the previous assertion
that even where the reality known is something made, the
knowledge of it presupposes that the reality is already made.
Strictly speaking, the activity of combining presupposes
consciousness not of the whole which we _succeed_ in
producing, but of the whole which we _want_ to produce.
It may be noted that, from the point of view of the above
argument, the activity of combining presupposes actual
consciousness of the act of combination and of its principle,
and does not imply merely the possibility of it. Kant, of
course, does not hold this.
The general conclusion, therefore, to be drawn is that the process of
synthesis by which the manifold is said to become related to an object
is a process not of knowledge but of construction in the literal
sense, and that it leaves knowledge of the thing constructed still to
be effected. But if knowing is obviously different from making, why
should Kant have apparently felt no difficulty in resolving knowing
into making? Three reasons may be given.
In the first place, the very question, 'What does the process of
knowing consist in?' at least suggests that knowing can be resolved
into and stated in terms of something else. In this respect it
resembles the modern phrase '_theory_ of knowledge'. Moreover, since
it is plain that in knowing we are active, the question is apt to
assume the form, 'What do we _do_ when we know or think?' and since
one of the commonest forms of doing something is to perform a physical
operation on physical things, whereby we effect a recombination of
them on some plan, it is natural to try to resolve knowing into this
kind of doing, i. e. into making in a wide sense of the word.
In the second place, Kant never relaxed his hold upon the thing in
itself. Consequently, there always remained for him a reality which
existed in itself and was not made by us. This was to him the
fundamental reality, and the proper object of knowledge, although
unfortunately inaccessible to _our_ faculties of knowing. Hence to
Kant it did not seriously matter that an inferior reality, viz. the
phenomenal world, was made by us in the process of knowing.
In the third place, it is difficult, if not impossible, to read the
_Deduction_ without realizing that Kant failed to distinguish knowing
from that formation of mental imagery which accompanies knowing. The
process of synthesis, if it is even to seem to constitute knowledge
and to involve the validity of the categories, must really be a
process by which we construct, and recognize our construction of,
an individual reality in nature out of certain physical data.
Nevertheless, it is plain that what Kant normally describes as the
process of synthesis is really the process by which we construct an
imaginary picture of a reality in nature not present to perception,
i. e. by which we imagine to ourselves what it would look like if we
were present to perceive it. This is implied by his continued use of
the terms 'reproduction' and 'imagination' in describing the
synthesis. To be aware of an object of past perception, it is
necessary, according to him, that the object should be _re_produced.
It is thereby implied that the object of our present awareness is not
the object of past perception, but a mental image which copies or
reproduces it. The same implication is conveyed by his use of the term
'imagination' to describe the faculty by which the synthesis is
effected; for 'imagination' normally means the power of making a
mental image of something not present to perception, and this
interpretation is confirmed by Kant's own description of the
imagination as 'the faculty of representing an object even without
its presence in perception'.[37] Further, that Kant really fails
to distinguish the construction of mental imagery from literal
construction is shown by the fact that, although he insists that
the formation of an image and reproduction are both necessary for
knowledge, he does not consistently adhere to this. For his general
view is that the elements combined and recognized as combined are the
original data of sense, and not reproductions of them which together
form an image, and his instances imply that the elements retained in
thought, i. e. the elements of which we are aware subsequently to
perception, are the elements originally perceived, e. g. the parts of
a line or the units counted.[38] Moreover, in one passage Kant
definitely describes certain _objects_ of _perception_ taken together
as an _image_ of that 'kind' of which, when taken together, they are
an instance. "If I place five points one after another, . . . . . this
is an image of the number five."[39] Now, if it be granted that Kant
has in mind normally the process of imagining, we can see why he found
no difficulty in the thought of knowledge as construction. For while
we cannot reasonably speak of making _an object of knowledge_, we can
reasonably speak of making _a mental image_ through our own activity,
and also of making it in accordance with the categories and the
empirical laws which presuppose them. Moreover, the ease with which it
is possible to take the imagining which accompanies knowing for
knowing[40]--the image formed being taken to be the object known and
the forming it being taken to be the knowing it--renders it easy to
transfer the thought of construction to the knowledge itself. The only
defect, however, under which the view labours is the important one
that, whatever be the extent to which imagination must accompany
knowledge, it is distinct from knowledge. To realize the difference we
have only to notice that the process by which we present to ourselves
in imagination realities not present to perception presupposes, and is
throughout guided by, the knowledge of them. It should be noted,
however, that, although the process of which Kant is normally thinking
is doubtless that of constructing mental imagery, his real view must
be that knowledge consists in constructing a world out of the data of
sense, or, more accurately, as his instances show, out of the objects
of isolated perceptions, e. g. parts of a line or units to be counted.
Otherwise the final act of recognition would be an apprehension not of
the world of nature, but of an image of it.
[37] B. 152, M. 93; cf. also Mah. 211, A. 120.
[38] Cf. A. 102-3, Mah. 197-8. The fact is that the appeal to
reproduction is a useless device intended by Kant--and by
'empirical psychologists'--to get round the difficulty of
allowing that in the apprehension (in memory or otherwise) of
a reality not present to perception, we are really aware of
the reality. The difficulty is in reality due to a
sensationalistic standpoint, avowed or unavowed, and the
device is useless, because the assumption has in the end to
be made, covertly or otherwise, that we are really aware of
the reality in question.
[39] B. 179, M. 109. Cf. the whole passage B. 176-81, M.
107-10 (part quoted pp. 249-51), and p. 251.
[40] Cf. Locke and Hume.
'This criticism,' it may be said, 'is too sweeping. It may be true
that the process which Kant describes is really making in the literal
sense and not knowing, but Kant's mistake may have been merely that of
thinking of the wrong kind of synthesis. For both ordinary language
and that of philosophical discussion imply that synthesis plays some
part in knowledge. Thus we find in ordinary language the phrases
'_putting_ 2 and 2 _together_' and '2 and 2 _make_ 4'. Even in
philosophical discussions we find it said that a complex conception,
e. g. gold, is a _synthesis_ of simple conceptions, e. g. yellowness,
weight, &c.; that in judgement we _relate_ or _refer_ the predicate to
the subject; and that in inference we _construct_ reality, though only
mentally or ideally. Further, in any case it is by thinking or knowing
that the world comes to be _for us_; the more we think, the more of
reality there is for us. Hence at least the world _for us_ or _our_
world is due to our activity of knowing, and so is in some sense made
by us, i. e. by our relating activity.'
This position, however, seems in reality to be based on a simple but
illegitimate transition, viz. the transition to the assertion that in
knowing we relate, or combine, or construct from the assertion that in
knowing we recognize as related, or combined, or constructed--the last
two terms being retained to preserve the parallelism.[41] While the
latter assertion may be said to be true, although the terms 'combined'
and 'constructed' should be rejected as misleading, the former
assertion must be admitted to be wholly false, i. e. true in no sense
whatever. Moreover, the considerations adduced in favour of the
position should, it seems, be met by a flat denial of their truth or,
if not, of their relevance. For when it is said that _our_ world, or
the world _for us_, is due to our activity of thinking, and so is in
some sense _made_ by us, all that should be meant is that our
_apprehending_ the world as whatever we apprehend it to be
_presupposes_ activity on our part. But since the activity is after
all only the activity itself of apprehending or knowing, this
assertion is only a way of saying that apprehending or knowing is not
a condition of mind which can be produced in us _ab extra_, but is
something which we have to do for ourselves. Nothing is implied to be
made. If anything is to be said to be made, it must be not our world
but our activity of apprehending the world; but even we and our
activity of apprehending the world are not related as maker and thing
made. Again, to speak of a complex conception, e. g. gold, and to say
that it involves a synthesis of simple conceptions by the mind is mere
'conceptualism'. If, as we ought to do, we replace the term
'conception' by 'universal', and speak of gold as a synthesis of
universals, any suggestion that the mind performs the synthesis will
vanish, for a 'synthesis of universals' will mean simply a connexion
of universals. All that is mental is our apprehension of their
connexion. Again, in judgement we cannot be said to _relate_ predicate
to subject. Such an assertion would mean either that we relate a
conception to a conception, or a conception to a reality[42], or a
reality to a reality; and, on any of these interpretations, it is
plainly false. To retain the language of 'relation' or of
'combination' at all, we must say that in judgement we recognize real
elements as related or combined. Again, when we infer, we do not
construct, ideally or otherwise. 'Ideal construction'[43] is a
contradiction in terms, unless it refers solely to mental imagining,
in which case it is not inference. Construction which is not 'ideal',
i. e. literal construction, plainly cannot constitute the nature of
inference; for inference would cease to be inference, if by it we
made, and did not apprehend, a necessity of connexion. Again, the
phrase '2 and 2 _make_ 4' does not justify the view that in some sense
we 'make' reality. It of course suggests that 2 and 2 are not 4 until
they are added, i. e. that the addition makes them 4.[44] But the
language is only appropriate when we are literally making a group of 4
by physically placing 2 pairs of bodies in one group. Where we are
counting, we should say merely that 2 and 2 _are_ 4. Lastly, it must
be allowed that the use of the phrase 'putting two and two together',
to describe an inference from facts not quite obviously connected, is
loose and inexact. If we meet a dog with a blood-stained mouth and
shortly afterwards see a dead fowl, we may be said to put two and two
together and to conclude thereby that the dog killed the fowl. But,
strictly speaking, in drawing the inference we do not put anything
together. We certainly do not put together the facts that the mouth of
the dog is blood-stained and that the fowl has just been killed. We do
not even put the premises together, i. e. our apprehensions of these
facts. What takes place should be described by saying simply that
seeing that the fowl is killed, we also remember that the dog's mouth
was stained, and then apprehend a connexion between these facts.
[41] Cf. Caird, i. 394, where Dr. Caird speaks of 'the
distinction of the activity of thought from the matter which
it _combines or recognizes as combined_ in the idea of an
object'. (The italics are mine.) The context seems to
indicate that the phrase is meant to express the truth, and
not merely Kant's view.
[42] Cf. the account of judgement in Mr. Bradley's _Logic_.
[43] Cf. the account of inference in Mr. Bradley's _Logic_.
[44] Cf. Bradley, _Logic_, pp. 370 and 506.
The fact seems to be that the thought of synthesis in no way helps to
elucidate the nature of knowing, and that the mistake in principle
which underlies Kant's view lies in the implicit supposition that it
is possible to elucidate the nature of knowledge by means of something
other than itself. Knowledge is _sui generis_ and therefore a 'theory'
of it is impossible. Knowledge is simply knowledge, and any attempt to
state it in terms of something else must end in describing something
which is not knowledge.[45]
[45] Cf. p. 124.