Subject:

Comments:
: In the discussion of the rainbow within the Transcendental Aesthetic (I forget the references) Kant's mind seems to wander when he gives his explanation of the rainbow. He tries to say it is but an illusory representation of rain or of rain drops. I think he is on the wrong track. He seems to have missed the point that a rainbow is but a reflection of the sun, though I'm sure he understands the optical properties of rain. : Throughout the Aesthetic it seems to me he completely misses the point that mediated intuitions (mediated by some lens or reflective surface in this case) can tell you something about the world, though he must have been aware of this possibility. What am I looking at when I look at myself in a mirror? Kant never seems to address this situation, except possibly to call it an illusion. It seems to me that this sort of representation would challenge the givenness of objects in intuition. In this respect I would think he needs some category of understanding so as to represent the transmission of light and its use as a medium for capturing experience. Though it may be an a posteriori phenomenon, I think our ability to notice certain regular irregularities (such as how we don't actually approach a rainbow as we do when we approach regular objects but instead the rainbow "moves" as we do (in relation to the sun) could be a separate category over and above the a priori status of space and time. : Am I wrong here? (Note I'm told that Husserl was the one who carried this thought further, though I have yet to pursue this avenue.) : Jim

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: