Schopenhauer's Criticism of Kant's Schemata - References To Schopenhauer's Discussion

References To Schopenhauer's Discussion

In his 1909 book Kant's Philosophy as Rectified by Schopenhauer, Michael Kelly drew attention to Schopenhauer's discussion of Kant's Schemata. In his Preface, Dr. Kelly justified his book by saying: "…a short exposition of Transcendental Idealism with Schopenhauer's constructive and destructive criticism may be of use to those that cannot make a simultaneous study of Kant and Schopenhauer in the original. To think that the former can be understood without the latter is a fatal delusion. If anybody should doubt this, let him try to make out what Kant meant by the ' Schematismus,' and he will soon find it advisable to avail himself of the assistance of a man who is worth ten times more than all the post-Kantian philosophers and professors put together."

In Chapter XI, Dr. Kelly provided a condensation of Schopenhauer's explanation of Kant's false analogy between empirical and pure cognitions:

Having sought to find an a priori cognitive faculty corresponding to every empirical one, Kant remarked that, in order to make sure that we are not leaving the solid ground of perception, we often refer back from the empirical abstract idea to the latter . The temporary representative of the idea thus called forth, and which is never fully adequate to it, he calls a 'schema,' in contradistinction to the complete image. He now maintains that, as such a schema stands between the empirical idea and the clear sensual perception, so also similar ones stand between the a priori perceptive faculty of the sensibility and the a priori thinking faculty of the pure understanding. To each category, accordingly, corresponds a special schema. But Kant overlooks the fact that, in the case of the empirically acquired ideas, we refer back to the perception from which they have obtained their content, whereas the a priori ideas, which have as yet no content, come to the perception from within in order to receive something from it. They have, therefore, nothing to which they can refer back, and the analogy with the empirical schema falls to the ground.