Deleuze's Use of Kant's Argument from Incongruent Counterparts

2013 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 345-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Somers-Hall
Keyword(s):  
Incongruent Counterparts

The Asymmetry of Space: Kant’s Theory of Absolute Space in 1768

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 415-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew S. Rukgaber
Keyword(s):  
Directional Asymmetry ◽  
Absolute Space ◽  
Dynamic Features ◽  
Critical Thought ◽  
The Asymmetry ◽  
Incongruent Counterparts ◽  
Ultimate Ground

AbstractI propose that we interpret Kant’s argument from incongruent counterparts in the 1768 article ‘Concerning the Ultimate Ground of the Differentiation of Directions in Space’ in light of a theory of dynamic absolute space that he accepted throughout the 1750s and 1760s. This force-based or material conception of space was not an unusual interpretation of the Newtonian notion of absolute space. Nevertheless, commentators have continually argued that Kant’s argument is an utter failure that shifts from the metaphysics of space to its epistemology, because he has no way to connect ‘directionality’ and ‘handedness’ to absolute space. This supposed failure is based on an understanding of absolute space in purely mathematical terms and as an absolute void that lacks any qualitative or dynamic features. If we recognize that Kant held that space had an intrinsic directional asymmetry then his argument successfully connects incongruent counterparts to absolute space. The presence of this notion in Kant’s pre-Critical thought is rarely noted, and its necessity in understanding his incongruence argument is novel.

scholarly journals Hands, screws, triangles and absolute space

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-302
Author(s):  
Nenad Filipovic
Keyword(s):  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Absolute Space ◽  
Original Argument ◽  
Critical Writings ◽  
Incongruent Counterparts

Hands and other incongruent counterparts are enough argument against relationist, at least Kant thought so, since some of his pre-critical writings. Arguments with incongruent counterparts are elegant and effective and they are quite attracted great attention of numerous authors who have criticized or defended the arguments in different ways. In a meanwhile discussions have gone too far from Kant's original argument, and from the spirit of that time, and received characteristics of modern philosophy and geometry. This text should show that Kant, as well as those who later defended him, did not achieve their goal - no conclusive argument against relationist have been brought by them.

Embodied Cognition in Berkeley and Kant: The Body’s Own Space

2019 ◽  
pp. 74-94
Author(s):  
Jennifer Mensch
Keyword(s):  
Embodied Cognition ◽  
Mental Representations ◽  
Transcendental Idealism ◽  
Spatial Distance ◽  
Spatial Intuition ◽  
Incongruent Counterparts

Berkeley and Kant are known for having developed philosophical critiques of materialism, critiques which lead them to propose instead an epistemology based on the coherence of our mental representations. For all that the two had in common, however, Kant was adamant in distinguishing his own ‘transcendental idealism’ from the immaterialist consequences entailed by Berkeley’s account. In this essay I return to their respective theories of spatial intuition, since it is by paying attention to Berkeley’s account of space that we discover a surprising account of embodied cognition, of spatial distance and size that can only be known by way of the body’s motion and touch. More striking than this, is the manner in which Kant’s approach to the problem of incongruent counterparts also relies on a proprioceptive cognition. Thus while cognition theorists today have recognized that certain challenges faced by perception and cognition can only be resolved by way of an appeal to the facts of embodiment, my aim in this essay is to show that such recourse is not new.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document