Originally, I had thought that monastic Sean Connery using Aristotelian deduction to solve mysteries was a fun use of deduction.


But then I found out that you can use a transcendental deduction to prove the quid juris of the Copernican turn!



Anyways, I think that there are three general points which the first half of the 'B' Deduction establishes: (1) that combination presupposes unity of the manifold, (2) that this unity is grounded in the “transcendental unity of self-consciousness,” and (3) that this unity provides us with objective knowledge.

I'm wondering if I understand (3) correctly. Here's an excerpt from my paper on it (already turned in- you're not doing my homework for me!) Comments/corrections?




The transcendental unity of self consciousness is the supreme principle for the possibility of understanding. This principle is an identical and analytic proposition. This principle necessitates the synthesis of the manifold. That is, the fact that the “I think” is in each case a unified “I” makes it necessary that, according to the unity of this self-consciousness, the manifold given in intuition be synthesized.

In order to have objects in the first place, representations must be unified into them. The idea of an “object” is a “concept in which the manifold of a given intuition is united.”1 This unity comes out of the unification of self consciousness, making the unity of self consciousness the basis of objective validity. Every intuition, in order to become an object, must conform to the synthetic unity of consciousness;. that is, the unity which is imparted to the manifold that belongs to consciousness through synthesis.

Knowledge, as Kant defines it, “the determinate relation of given representations to an object.” In this sense, through the synthesis of the unity of self-consciousness with the manifold of representations, we are able to determine certain representations as belonging to an object.



In other words, our unified consciousness of the line synthetically determines the line as unified. Knowledge of a line comes out of a unified conscious experience of it, imparted in the synthesis of the unity of self consciousness. In the same way, when we say something 'is,' we are simply saying that it is brought into the objective unity of apperception. When we bring something into the objective unity of apperception, we have objective knowledge.

Is it the unified Consciousness, or was it the unified historical Experience leading to transcendence of the presence of mind to History? I'm just being unintelligent about the Situation.

Is there a situation, even if I have to vote?