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