Imagination Bound: a Theoretical Imperative
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--Philosophy Philosophy 2016 Imagination Bound: A Theoretical Imperative Robert Michael Guerin University of Kentucky, [email protected] Digital Object Identifier: http://dx.doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2016.017 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Guerin, Robert Michael, "Imagination Bound: A Theoretical Imperative" (2016). Theses and Dissertations-- Philosophy. 8. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/philosophy_etds/8 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Philosophy by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I agree that the document mentioned above may be made available immediately for worldwide access unless an embargo applies. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of my work. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of my work. I understand that I am free to register the copyright to my work. REVIEW, APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE The document mentioned above has been reviewed and accepted by the student’s advisor, on behalf of the advisory committee, and by the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS), on behalf of the program; we verify that this is the final, approved version of the student’s thesis including all changes required by the advisory committee. The undersigned agree to abide by the statements above. Robert Michael Guerin, Student Dr. Daniel Breazeale, Major Professor Dr. David Bradshaw, Director of Graduate Studies IMAGINATION BOUND: A THEORETICAL IMPERATIVE DISSERTATION A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky By Robert M. Guerin Lexington, Kentucky Director: Dr. Daniel Breazeale, Professor of Philosophy Lexington, Kentucky 2016 Copyright © Robert M. Guerin 2016 ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION IMAGINATION BOUND: A THEORETICAL IMPERATIVE Kant’s theory of productive imagination falls at the center of the critical project. This is evident in the 1781 Critique of Pure Reason, where Kant claims that the productive imagination is a “fundamental faculty of the human soul” and indispensable for the construction of experience. And yet, in the second edition of 1787 Kant seemingly demotes this imagination as a mere “effect of the understanding on sensibility” and all but withdraws its place from the Transcendental Deduction. In his 1929 Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, Martin Heidegger provided an explanation for the revisions between 1781 and 1787. Heidegger suggested that the Critique was supposed to be a foundation for Kant’s metaphysics of morals, which holds that practical reason is freely bound by a categorical imperative. Yet after 1781 Kant recognized that the Critique implicates the productive imagination as the “unknown root” of the faculties of understanding and sensibility. If the 1781 Critique reveals this imagination to be the source of theoretical rules and practical imperatives, then, according to Heidegger, Kant could not but “shrink back” from this shocking discovery. A faculty so intimately tied to sensibility, and hence contingency and particularity, is a poor progenitor of freedom and universal rules. I think there is some truth to Heidegger’s explanation. But I also think there is something more important to draw from the revisions between 1781 and 1787. In this dissertation, I assume that something about the productive imagination did frighten Kant. But, pace Heidegger, I do not think that Kant shrank back from his initial position. Rather, I argue that the revisions clarify a theory that was implicit in 1781 but made explicit by 1787. If the imagination is a power for representation, which is at times a dream and at times a veridical experience, then the difference lies in the rule according to which the construction of the representation is bound. Furthermore, I argue that Kant’s revisions reveal a duty to bind the reproductive imagination according to a common concept, what Kant sometimes refers to as common sense. This is what I call the theoretical imperative. Robert Michael Guerin Student’s Signature 20 January 2016 Date IMAGINATION BOUND: A THEORETICAL IMPERATIVE By Robert M. Guerin Daniel Breazeale Director of Dissertation David Bradshaw Director of Graduate Studies 20 January 2016 Date TO MY PARENTS, ROBERT AND THERESA. Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................. VIII LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... IX 1, INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1,1 The Problem .................................................................................................... 1 1,2 The Thesis in Two Parts ................................................................................. 3 1,3 The Method ..................................................................................................... 6 1,4 Caveat Lector .................................................................................................. 7 2, PRODUKTIVE EINBILDUNGSKRAFT ................................................................. 11 2,1 Problem and Task of the A-Deduction ......................................................... 11 2,2 Synthesis in General ..................................................................................... 18 2,3 The Threefold Synthesis ............................................................................... 22 2,4 Heidegger’s Kant .......................................................................................... 33 3, PROMETHEUS BOUND: A CONCEPTUAL HISTORY OF IMAGINATION . 44 3,1 Introductory Remarks ................................................................................... 44 3,2 The Hebraic Yetser ........................................................................................ 45 3,3 The Hellenic Eikasía ..................................................................................... 48 3,3,1 Plato ...................................................................................................... 50 3,3,2 Aristotle ................................................................................................. 53 3,4 Early Conclusions ......................................................................................... 55 3,5 The Onto-Theological Phantasie .................................................................. 55 3,5,1 Bonaventure .......................................................................................... 56 3,5,2 Aquinas ................................................................................................. 58 3,6 Renaissance ................................................................................................... 61 3,6,1 The Image ............................................................................................. 61 3,6,2 The Occult Vitus Imaginativa ............................................................... 66 3,7 Modernity ...................................................................................................... 67 3,7,1 Descartes ............................................................................................... 68 3,7,2 Hume ..................................................................................................... 71 3,8 Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................... 78 4, PHANTASIE UNBOUND: REVERSALS OF COGNITION ................................ 79 4,1 1760s: Kant and the Philosophical Zeitgeist ................................................. 79 4,2 Sympathy Sans Principle .............................................................................. 84 4,3 Psychopathology ........................................................................................... 93 4,4 Fanatical Intuition ....................................................................................... 105 4,5 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................... 119 5, FROM PHANTASIE TO VERSTANDES-DICHTUNGSKRAFT .......................... 121 5,1 The Transcendental Turn: Theoretical Implications ................................... 121 5,2 The Transcendental Turn: Moral Implications ........................................... 128 5,3 Lectures on Logic ......................................................................................