Kant’s normative understanding of discursive practice1
How do we understand the difference between concept-using, sapient beings from mere responders to the natural environment? Here are two possible ways to think of it:
\(O\): An ontological distintion: knowers are an actually different kind of thing (perhaps there is a presence of ‘mind stuff’ or ‘spirit stuff’).
\(D\): A deontological distinction: we treat knowers differently from objects. There are things that the agents are in a distinctive sense responsible for 2.
Both sides treat \(D\) as true, but Team \(O\) furthermore believes \(O\) is true and that the order of explanation is \(O \implies D\). However, Team \(D\) takes \(D\) as essential and needs not make any claim about ontology.
Downstream of this are many of Kant’s innovations.
The minimum unit of awareness/experience is the judgment
this comes from taking \(D\) to be fundmental: it is the smallest thing we can be held responsible for
Everything else (particular concepts like Fido the dog, universal concepts like triangularity, logical concepts) has to be understood in terms of the function it plays with respect to judgment.
The subjective form of judgment (the “I think…” that can accompany all judgments)
Because it can accompany all representations, this is the emptiest form of judgment.
The mark of “who is responsible for the judgment”.
To say “I think it is raining now.” is to emphasize that I am responsible (e.g. subject to criticism if you go outside and don’t get wet).
The objective form of judgment (the “\(x\) is …” or “\(x\) = …” for some object \(x\)).
Mark of what you’ve made yourself responsible to.
When saying “That stone is 50 pounds.”, the stone has a certain authority over me (one looks to the stone to see whether I am right or wrong; it sets the standards of correctness). See the shopping list scenario.
i.e. practice relating to concepts.↩︎
This point is shared by the later Wittgenstein. The \(\ref{childrens_game|puzzles|reference}\) that Wittgenstein offers us (along the way to trying to dissolve the presuppositions that make it puzzling) center around the normative significance of beliefs/desires/intentions.↩︎