Schematism...

From time to time, I read the Kant’s section on ‘schematism’ in Critique of Pure Reason. I’m never quite sure I understand it, and I can certainly never quite find myself in tune with its content.

A ’schema’ in its simplest sense is a way of identifying an object in time and space, or simply in inituition, kantianly speaking. If I speak of a ‘white shirt’ and if I’m able to identify white shirts within my experience and within time and space, then I have schematized the concept of a ‘white shirt’. I am able to project it into various contexts, I understand the concept.

But this is exactly my uneasiness with the concept of a ‘schema’. On the one hand, it seems an incredibly important concept if the above relation holds. On the other hand, if the above relation holds, it is hard to see the point in saying ‘I have schematized concept x’ rather than simply saying ‘I understand concept x’. What is the difference between having a schema for something and understanding that concept?

As a philosophical concept it seems either to be incredibly important or incredibly redundant.

What sort of content does the concept of a ‘schema’ carry? How, after all, is it suppose to enlighten, supplement or expand our concept of understanding? As far can I see, the only specific thing Kant says in this connection is that having a schema for a ‘dog’ is like possessing a dim image of a ‘dog’, which I can compare to the objects in my inituition thus identifying them as dogs [Kant’s example, CPR, B 180] – But this is ostensibly wrong, my understanding does not and cannot rest upon comparison with a picture of whatever nature, since this picture would itself have to be schematized in order to apply to real objects of experience. What we need to explain is exactly how my mental imagery and the real objects of my experience can be alike at all, and it’s no explanation to say that are indeed alike. Well, of course, they are. No shit, Sherlock.

PS: I know that I’m not very faithful to Kant’s own problematic here, its placement within the architecture of CPR etc.. I know. But.