This research aims to analyze the concept of unconscious representations in Kant and its relation with the concept of transcendental apperception, or the I think. The existence of a gender itself for representations, the unconscious ones, are pointed in several of Kant’s works. Among them can be mentioned in Anthropology in a pragmatic point of view and Criticism on pure reason. They are representations that can be bolded in Kant’s philosophy in two main aspects. The fist one the amplitude, for it holds the theoretical field, that is practical and aesthetic. The second one the positivity, in the sense of performing a positive role both in knowledge production, and in the other mental processes – aesthetic and moral. However, when considering the unconscious concept as opposite of the transcendental apperception principle, a problematical appears: how to understand the existence of those mentioned representations in Kant’s philosophy, if the I think implies in a necessary reference of all representation to the conscience? Kant is very emphatic affirming that, if the representations don’t refer to this principle, they are but nothing to the subject (Criticism of pure reason, B131). As an effect, proposing to give a solution to the problematical, three relevant hypotheses will be raised about this matter. The first one is Locke’s thesis, in which the unconscious representations are not admitted, for the fact that they indicate a contradiction in its own conscience. After all, when the matter is an “I” that not always has conscience of its actions, it is possible to say that there is a certain indetermination concerning the identity of this “I”. The second one is Heidemann’s thesis (2012), according to it, the unconscious representation is divided in two species, in which just one of them, the unconscious by degrees representations, refer to the transcendental apperception. At last, the third thesis is La Rocca’s (2007), in which we agree in almost its whole. Through it, it is possible to understand the transcendental apperception principle, always with a structural possibility, and not as an affectivity in psychological terms – to be conscious or unconscious -, but as a logic structure that concerns to the form by which the representation needs to refer itself.
|
