Abstract
The present article aims at highlighting the importance of Kant’s considerations about the relational mode of cognition of sensible objects in the 1768 essay On the first ground of the distinction of regions in space to comprehend entirely the cogency of the incongruent counterparts argument, and its conclusions. Firstly, I present an initial overview of Regions in space, contrasting Kant’s remarks on the three dimensionality of space with the relationality necessary to know external objects. After a brief exposition of these considerations, I present schematically a first way of understanding the incongruent-counterparts argument, without emphasizing the relationship of the human body with orientation. Then, I expose two objections from Peter Remnant, showing that the solution to both involves accepting the fundamentality of the human body for the formation of the concept of orientation. Grounded upon this solution, I try to review the manner of interpreting the incongruent-counterparts argument.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.