In this essay I aim to critically discuss the changes that take place from Descartes’s to Kant’s conception of the ‘I think.’ To do this, I will start by discussing the key conception of Descartes ‘I think’, before discussing the key conception of Kant’s ‘I think’, while highlighting and discussing the conceptual moves that take place between the two along the way. I will then use Nietzsche to show the weaknesses of the claims made and finish by demonstrating why Nietzsche has convinced me that both conceptions are false and why I believe his interpretation holds the most validity.
First, I will discuss Descartes conception of ‘I think.’ To do this, it is important for me to start by defining subjectivity in order to provide some background …show more content…
In contrast to Descartes, it can be argued that Kant’s conception of the ‘I think’ originates in the Copernican Turn. The Copernican Turn is derived from Copernican’s theory of science, which was to change the geocentric conception of the universe into a heliocentric one. However, in comparison to Copernicus, Kant reverses the relationship between the subject and object – ‘the theory of knowledge was founded on the idea of a correspondence between subject and object.’ (Deleuze, 1984, p.62) This means that in contrast to traditional philosophy, the subject and object work in solidarity, which shows the foundation for Kant’s conception of the subject. This idea is developed further in the Critique of Pure Reason, where Kant criticises Descartes conception of the ‘I think.’ For Kant, Descartes takes ‘I think’ to mean much more than a syllogism allows him to. A syllogism is a formal argument that consists of a major premise, for example, all mammals are warm-blooded, a minor premise, for example, all elephants are mammals, and a conclusion, for example, all elephants are warm-blooded. For Kant, it is the step between the minor premise and the conclusion where Descartes goes wrong in his use of a syllogism. Within Descartes method, the minor premise ‘I think’ would have the conclusion of drawing inferences about the
First, I will discuss Descartes conception of ‘I think.’ To do this, it is important for me to start by defining subjectivity in order to provide some background …show more content…
In contrast to Descartes, it can be argued that Kant’s conception of the ‘I think’ originates in the Copernican Turn. The Copernican Turn is derived from Copernican’s theory of science, which was to change the geocentric conception of the universe into a heliocentric one. However, in comparison to Copernicus, Kant reverses the relationship between the subject and object – ‘the theory of knowledge was founded on the idea of a correspondence between subject and object.’ (Deleuze, 1984, p.62) This means that in contrast to traditional philosophy, the subject and object work in solidarity, which shows the foundation for Kant’s conception of the subject. This idea is developed further in the Critique of Pure Reason, where Kant criticises Descartes conception of the ‘I think.’ For Kant, Descartes takes ‘I think’ to mean much more than a syllogism allows him to. A syllogism is a formal argument that consists of a major premise, for example, all mammals are warm-blooded, a minor premise, for example, all elephants are mammals, and a conclusion, for example, all elephants are warm-blooded. For Kant, it is the step between the minor premise and the conclusion where Descartes goes wrong in his use of a syllogism. Within Descartes method, the minor premise ‘I think’ would have the conclusion of drawing inferences about the