Хиты и новинки в хорошем качестве. Чтобы скачать песни исполнителя Immanuel Kant, установите приложение Звук и слушайте бесплатно оффлайн и онлайн по подписке Прайм.
I Kant Even: German Chancellor Triggered After Putin Quotes Legendary Philosopher
To have done so would have been impolitic. Hence the members of the idealist school were careful never to attack these terms—they were merely so reinterpreted as to become meaningless. McGovern understood that some idealists those who argued that reality as we know it is largely a construction of the human mind , most notably Kant, were liberal individualists in their political theory, whereas other idealists, such as Hegel, were far more authoritarian. Instead, I wish to conclude by calling attention to the disdain that some fascist philosophers displayed toward Kant. But here we need to consider the crucial question: To what extent should a philosopher be held responsible for how later thinkers used his ideas, especially when those later interpretations differ radically from how the original philosopher understood his own system? In truth, the philosophy of fascism and National Socialism was a patchwork, a stitching together of disparate ideas taken, frequently out of context, from whatever sources would lend credibility to their quest to justify a totalitarian state. With the possible exception of Martin Heidegger, who joined the Nazi Party in 1933, no philosophy written by a fascist was worth the paper it was written on.
He first attended the Collegium Fridericianum , from which he graduated at the end of the summer of 1740. Knutzen dissuaded Kant from the theory of pre-established harmony , which he regarded as "the pillow for the lazy mind". The theory of transcendental idealism that Kant later included in the Critique of Pure Reason was developed partially in opposition to traditional idealism. Kant had contacts with students, colleagues, friends and diners who frequented the local Masonic lodge. In 1749, he published his first philosophical work, Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces written in 1745—1747. In his 1756 essay on the theory of winds, Kant laid out an original insight into the Coriolis force. In 1756, Kant also published three papers on the 1755 Lisbon earthquake. In 1757, Kant began lecturing on geography making him one of the first lecturers to explicitly teach geography as its own subject. After Kant became a professor in 1770, he expanded the topics of his lectures to include lectures on natural law, ethics, and anthropology, along with other topics. Kant also correctly deduced that the Milky Way was a large disk of stars , which he theorized formed from a much larger spinning gas cloud. He further suggested that other distant "nebulae" might be other galaxies. These postulations opened new horizons for astronomy, for the first time extending it beyond the solar system to galactic and intergalactic realms. In the early 1760s, Kant produced a series of important works in philosophy. In defense of this appointment, Kant wrote his inaugural dissertation On the Form and Principles of the Sensible and the Intelligible World [c] This work saw the emergence of several central themes of his mature work, including the distinction between the faculties of intellectual thought and sensible receptivity. To miss this distinction would mean to commit the error of subreption , and, as he says in the last chapter of the dissertation, only in avoiding this error does metaphysics flourish. While it is true that Kant wrote his greatest works relatively late in life, there is a tendency to underestimate the value of his earlier works. Recent Kant scholarship has devoted more attention to these "pre-critical" writings and has recognized a degree of continuity with his mature work. In correspondence with his ex-student and friend Markus Herz , Kant admitted that, in the inaugural dissertation, he had failed to account for the relation between our sensible and intellectual faculties. Kant also credited David Hume with awakening him from a "dogmatic slumber" in which he had unquestioningly accepted the tenets of both religion and natural philosophy. Ideas such as causality , morality , and objects are not evident in experience, so their reality may be questioned. Kant felt that reason could remove this skepticism, and he set himself to solving these problems. Kant was quite upset with its reception. Recognizing the need to clarify the original treatise, Kant wrote the Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics in 1783 as a summary of its main views. In 1786, Karl Leonhard Reinhold published a series of public letters on Kantian philosophy. Friedrich Jacobi had accused the recently deceased Gotthold Ephraim Lessing a distinguished dramatist and philosophical essayist of Spinozism. The controversy gradually escalated into a debate about the values of the Enlightenment and the value of reason. Most of his subsequent work focused on other areas of philosophy. The 1790 Critique of the Power of Judgment the third Critique applied the Kantian system to aesthetics and teleology. There were several journals devoted solely to defending and criticizing Kantian philosophy. Despite his success, philosophical trends were moving in another direction. In what was one of his final acts expounding a stance on philosophical questions, Kant opposed these developments and publicly denounced Fichte in an open letter in 1799. Kant always cut a curious figure in his lifetime for his modest, rigorously scheduled habits, which have been referred to as clocklike.
У него изначально было слабое здоровье, но он прожил почти 80 лет. Он был на званых вечерах, даже блистал, хотя все считали его не очень красивым. Впрочем, и званые вечера были весьма провинциальны, а одна из дам, почтившая своим вниманием Канта, писала ему письма с орфографическими ошибками. У нее ничего особенного не вышло, и Кант прослыл женоненавистником. Что подтверждал и в высказываниях, называя брак рабством. Женщин же он считал существами, не способными логически мыслить. Рецепт один — отойти в сторону, чтобы не заразиться. Был момент, когда Кант в Кенигсберге оказался практически рок-звездой. Его работы мало кто мог прочесть и осмыслить, но это добавляло загадочности персонажу. В городе его знали все, и все делали вид, что понимают хоть что-нибудь. С другой стороны, если уж Генрих Гейне, которому было семь лет, когда Кант умер, так сильно спустя годы реагировал на упоминание философских трудов чудака из Кенигсберга не любил Гейне «Критику чистого разума», что тут поделаешь? График не на фиг Он был узнаваем. Человек, ненавидевший дневник в гимназии и самокопание, придумал для себя график. График, практически исключавший вмешательства извне. Как ни странно, этот график как раз извне был особенно интересен: выход из дома в определенный час на прогулку по определенному маршруту. Те, кто в дом были вхожи, знали и другие правила. В пять утра встать после семичасового сна, надеть колпак, а сверху — маленькую треугольную шляпу. Работать до семи в кабинете. Прочитать лекцию. Без пятнадцати час начать одеваться к обеду, пообедать и пойти на прогулку. Его прогулки стали настолько известными, что на пути Канта стали караулить местные попрошайки. На прогулках он дышал носом. Считал, что это правило гигиены. Что же касается обеда, то это был единственный прием пищи, с тремя блюдами. В остальное время был слабый чай, а за обедом — полбутылки французского вина философ предпочитал медок.
It is strange that Mr. Scholz has not yet prohibited the Russian military from dismantling it. Our news channels Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.
Канте прошёл вторую часть медобследования перед переходом в «Аль-Иттихад»
Иммануил Кант — на странице писателя вы найдёте биографию, список книг и экранизаций, интересные факты из жизни, рецензии читателей и цитаты из книг. Новости. Видеоигры. The Life, Work and Legacy of Carl Jung. Category: Emmanuel Kant. Emmanuel Kant слушать лучшее онлайн бесплатно в хорошем качестве на Яндекс Музыке. Иммануил Кант с младенчества, просто по праву рождения, был зачислен в гильдию шорников.
Ведущие ученые мира выступили с докладами на Международном Кантовском конгрессе
He stops at the boundary. What his transcending in thoughts of possibility clarifies, together with the mode of our existence, is its phenomenality as an expression of our assurance of intrinsic Being.
Ольга Юрицына, заведующая секцией «Музей Иммануила Канта» в Кафедральном соборе Калининграда: «Отбирая цитаты, мы могли отобрать намного больше, чем 250. Остановились на этих, потому что нам кажется, что они больше отражают наш сегодняшний мир и те вопросы, те чаяния, которые беспокоят современных людей». Григорий Хуциев, и.
Кстати, приветствует и прощается цифровой Иммануил Кант так же, как делал это реальный прототип. Например, фразой «Будьте счастливы в своем стремлении к истине» философ закончил одно из писем своему другу. Картина дня.
The spectacular achievements of Newton in particular engendered widespread confidence and optimism about the power of human reason to control nature and to improve human life.
One effect of this new confidence in reason was that traditional authorities were increasingly questioned. Why should we need political or religious authorities to tell us how to live or what to believe, if each of us has the capacity to figure these things out for ourselves? Kant expresses this Enlightenment commitment to the sovereignty of reason in the Critique: Our age is the age of criticism, to which everything must submit. Religion through its holiness and legislation through its majesty commonly seek to exempt themselves from it.
But in this way they excite a just suspicion against themselves, and cannot lay claim to that unfeigned respect that reason grants only to that which has been able to withstand its free and public examination. Axi Enlightenment is about thinking for oneself rather than letting others think for you, according to What is Enlightenment? In this essay, Kant also expresses the Enlightenment faith in the inevitability of progress. A few independent thinkers will gradually inspire a broader cultural movement, which ultimately will lead to greater freedom of action and governmental reform.
The problem is that to some it seemed unclear whether progress would in fact ensue if reason enjoyed full sovereignty over traditional authorities; or whether unaided reasoning would instead lead straight to materialism, fatalism, atheism, skepticism Bxxxiv , or even libertinism and authoritarianism 8:146. The Enlightenment commitment to the sovereignty of reason was tied to the expectation that it would not lead to any of these consequences but instead would support certain key beliefs that tradition had always sanctioned. Crucially, these included belief in God, the soul, freedom, and the compatibility of science with morality and religion. Although a few intellectuals rejected some or all of these beliefs, the general spirit of the Enlightenment was not so radical.
The Enlightenment was about replacing traditional authorities with the authority of individual human reason, but it was not about overturning traditional moral and religious beliefs. Yet the original inspiration for the Enlightenment was the new physics, which was mechanistic. If nature is entirely governed by mechanistic, causal laws, then it may seem that there is no room for freedom, a soul, or anything but matter in motion. This threatened the traditional view that morality requires freedom.
We must be free in order to choose what is right over what is wrong, because otherwise we cannot be held responsible. It also threatened the traditional religious belief in a soul that can survive death or be resurrected in an afterlife. So modern science, the pride of the Enlightenment, the source of its optimism about the powers of human reason, threatened to undermine traditional moral and religious beliefs that free rational thought was expected to support. This was the main intellectual crisis of the Enlightenment.
In other words, free rational inquiry adequately supports all of these essential human interests and shows them to be mutually consistent. So reason deserves the sovereignty attributed to it by the Enlightenment. The Inaugural Dissertation also tries to reconcile Newtonian science with traditional morality and religion in a way, but its strategy is different from that of the Critique. According to the Inaugural Dissertation, Newtonian science is true of the sensible world, to which sensibility gives us access; and the understanding grasps principles of divine and moral perfection in a distinct intelligible world, which are paradigms for measuring everything in the sensible world.
So on this view our knowledge of the intelligible world is a priori because it does not depend on sensibility, and this a priori knowledge furnishes principles for judging the sensible world because in some way the sensible world itself conforms to or imitates the intelligible world. Soon after writing the Inaugural Dissertation, however, Kant expressed doubts about this view. As he explained in a February 21, 1772 letter to his friend and former student, Marcus Herz: In my dissertation I was content to explain the nature of intellectual representations in a merely negative way, namely, to state that they were not modifications of the soul brought about by the object. However, I silently passed over the further question of how a representation that refers to an object without being in any way affected by it can be possible….
And if such intellectual representations depend on our inner activity, whence comes the agreement that they are supposed to have with objects — objects that are nevertheless not possibly produced thereby? The position of the Inaugural Dissertation is that the intelligible world is independent of the human understanding and of the sensible world, both of which in different ways conform to the intelligible world. But, leaving aside questions about what it means for the sensible world to conform to an intelligible world, how is it possible for the human understanding to conform to or grasp an intelligible world? If the intelligible world is independent of our understanding, then it seems that we could grasp it only if we are passively affected by it in some way.
So the only way we could grasp an intelligible world that is independent of us is through sensibility, which means that our knowledge of it could not be a priori. The pure understanding alone could at best enable us to form representations of an intelligible world. Such a priori intellectual representations could well be figments of the brain that do not correspond to anything independent of the human mind. In any case, it is completely mysterious how there might come to be a correspondence between purely intellectual representations and an independent intelligible world.
But the Critique gives a far more modest and yet revolutionary account of a priori knowledge. This turned out to be a dead end, and Kant never again maintained that we can have a priori knowledge about an intelligible world precisely because such a world would be entirely independent of us. The sensible world, or the world of appearances, is constructed by the human mind from a combination of sensory matter that we receive passively and a priori forms that are supplied by our cognitive faculties. We can have a priori knowledge only about aspects of the sensible world that reflect the a priori forms supplied by our cognitive faculties.
So according to the Critique, a priori knowledge is possible only if and to the extent that the sensible world itself depends on the way the human mind structures its experience. Kant characterizes this new constructivist view of experience in the Critique through an analogy with the revolution wrought by Copernicus in astronomy: Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but all attempts to find out something about them a priori through concepts that would extend our cognition have, on this presupposition, come to nothing. Hence let us once try whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition, which would agree better with the requested possibility of an a priori cognition of them, which is to establish something about objects before they are given to us. This would be just like the first thoughts of Copernicus, who, when he did not make good progress in the explanation of the celestial motions if he assumed that the entire celestial host revolves around the observer, tried to see if he might not have greater success if he made the observer revolve and left the stars at rest.
Now in metaphysics we can try in a similar way regarding the intuition of objects. If intuition has to conform to the constitution of the objects, then I do not see how we can know anything of them a priori; but if the object as an object of the senses conforms to the constitution of our faculty of intuition, then I can very well represent this possibility to myself. Yet because I cannot stop with these intuitions, if they are to become cognitions, but must refer them as representations to something as their object and determine this object through them, I can assume either that the concepts through which I bring about this determination also conform to the objects, and then I am once again in the same difficulty about how I could know anything about them a priori, or else I assume that the objects, or what is the same thing, the experience in which alone they can be cognized as given objects conforms to those concepts, in which case I immediately see an easier way out of the difficulty, since experience itself is a kind of cognition requiring the understanding, whose rule I have to presuppose in myself before any object is given to me, hence a priori, which rule is expressed in concepts a priori, to which all objects of experience must therefore necessarily conform, and with which they must agree. Bxvi—xviii As this passage suggests, what Kant has changed in the Critique is primarily his view about the role and powers of the understanding, since he already held in the Inaugural Dissertation that sensibility contributes the forms of space and time — which he calls pure or a priori intuitions 2:397 — to our cognition of the sensible world.
But the Critique claims that pure understanding too, rather than giving us insight into an intelligible world, is limited to providing forms — which he calls pure or a priori concepts — that structure our cognition of the sensible world. So now both sensibility and understanding work together to construct cognition of the sensible world, which therefore conforms to the a priori forms that are supplied by our cognitive faculties: the a priori intuitions of sensibility and the a priori concepts of the understanding. This account is analogous to the heliocentric revolution of Copernicus in astronomy because both require contributions from the observer to be factored into explanations of phenomena, although neither reduces phenomena to the contributions of observers alone. For Kant, analogously, the phenomena of human experience depend on both the sensory data that we receive passively through sensibility and the way our mind actively processes this data according to its own a priori rules.
These rules supply the general framework in which the sensible world and all the objects or phenomena in it appear to us. So the sensible world and its phenomena are not entirely independent of the human mind, which contributes its basic structure. First, it gives Kant a new and ingenious way of placing modern science on an a priori foundation. In other words, the sensible world necessarily conforms to certain fundamental laws — such as that every event has a cause — because the human mind constructs it according to those laws.
Moreover, we can identify those laws by reflecting on the conditions of possible experience, which reveals that it would be impossible for us to experience a world in which, for example, any given event fails to have a cause. From this Kant concludes that metaphysics is indeed possible in the sense that we can have a priori knowledge that the entire sensible world — not just our actual experience, but any possible human experience — necessarily conforms to certain laws. Kant calls this immanent metaphysics or the metaphysics of experience, because it deals with the essential principles that are immanent to human experience. In the Critique Kant thus rejects the insight into an intelligible world that he defended in the Inaugural Dissertation, and he now claims that rejecting knowledge about things in themselves is necessary for reconciling science with traditional morality and religion.
This is because he claims that belief in God, freedom, and immortality have a strictly moral basis, and yet adopting these beliefs on moral grounds would be unjustified if we could know that they were false. Restricting knowledge to appearances and relegating God and the soul to an unknowable realm of things in themselves guarantees that it is impossible to disprove claims about God and the freedom or immortality of the soul, which moral arguments may therefore justify us in believing. Moreover, the determinism of modern science no longer threatens the freedom required by traditional morality, because science and therefore determinism apply only to appearances, and there is room for freedom in the realm of things in themselves, where the self or soul is located. We cannot know theoretically that we are free, because we cannot know anything about things in themselves.
In this way, Kant replaces transcendent metaphysics with a new practical science that he calls the metaphysics of morals. Transcendental idealism Perhaps the central and most controversial thesis of the Critique of Pure Reason is that human beings experience only appearances, not things in themselves; and that space and time are only subjective forms of human intuition that would not subsist in themselves if one were to abstract from all subjective conditions of human intuition. Kant calls this thesis transcendental idealism. What may be the case with objects in themselves and abstracted from all this receptivity of our sensibility remains entirely unknown to us.
We are acquainted with nothing except our way of perceiving them, which is peculiar to us, and which therefore does not necessarily pertain to every being, though to be sure it pertains to every human being. We are concerned solely with this. Space and time are its pure forms, sensation in general its matter. We can cognize only the former a priori, i.
The former adheres to our sensibility absolutely necessarily, whatever sort of sensations we may have; the latter can be very different. Space and time are not things in themselves, or determinations of things in themselves that would remain if one abstracted from all subjective conditions of human intuition. Space and time are nothing other than the subjective forms of human sensible intuition. Two general types of interpretation have been especially influential, however.
This section provides an overview of these two interpretations, although it should be emphasized that much important scholarship on transcendental idealism does not fall neatly into either of these two camps. It has been a live interpretive option since then and remains so today, although it no longer enjoys the dominance that it once did. Another name for this view is the two-worlds interpretation, since it can also be expressed by saying that transcendental idealism essentially distinguishes between a world of appearances and another world of things in themselves. Things in themselves, on this interpretation, are absolutely real in the sense that they would exist and have whatever properties they have even if no human beings were around to perceive them.
Appearances, on the other hand, are not absolutely real in that sense, because their existence and properties depend on human perceivers. Moreover, whenever appearances do exist, in some sense they exist in the mind of human perceivers. So appearances are mental entities or mental representations. This, coupled with the claim that we experience only appearances, makes transcendental idealism a form of phenomenalism on this interpretation, because it reduces the objects of experience to mental representations.
All of our experiences — all of our perceptions of objects and events in space, even those objects and events themselves, and all non-spatial but still temporal thoughts and feelings — fall into the class of appearances that exist in the mind of human perceivers. These appearances cut us off entirely from the reality of things in themselves, which are non-spatial and non-temporal. In principle we cannot know how things in themselves affect our senses, because our experience and knowledge is limited to the world of appearances constructed by and in the mind. Things in themselves are therefore a sort of theoretical posit, whose existence and role are required by the theory but are not directly verifiable.
The main problems with the two-objects interpretation are philosophical. Most readers of Kant who have interpreted his transcendental idealism in this way have been — often very — critical of it, for reasons such as the following: First, at best Kant is walking a fine line in claiming on the one hand that we can have no knowledge about things in themselves, but on the other hand that we know that things in themselves exist, that they affect our senses, and that they are non-spatial and non-temporal. At worst his theory depends on contradictory claims about what we can and cannot know about things in themselves. Some versions of this objection proceed from premises that Kant rejects.
But Kant denies that appearances are unreal: they are just as real as things in themselves but are in a different metaphysical class. But just as Kant denies that things in themselves are the only or privileged reality, he also denies that correspondence with things in themselves is the only kind of truth. Empirical judgments are true just in case they correspond with their empirical objects in accordance with the a priori principles that structure all possible human experience.
Идея учреждения данной площадки была впервые высказана академиком А. Дынкиным в ходе проведения российско-белорусского форума «Рубежи Союзного государства» , организованного в октябре 2022 г. В 2022-2023 г. Проект направлен на развитие научно-экспертного и общественного диалога между странами большого Балтийско-Скандинавского региона: странами ЕС — с одной стороны и Россией и Белоруссией — с другой, с привлечением экспертов из других стран и регионов мира.
I Kant Even: German Chancellor Triggered After Putin Quotes Legendary Philosopher
Bowman on Kant anti-Semitism. Veröffentlichungen von Kant, Emmanuel. Kant observed that men formed states to constrain their passions, but that each state sought to preserve its absolute freedom, even at the cost of “a lawless state of savagery.”. Tag: Immanuel Kant. Chris Hedges: The Evil Within Us. March 22, 2021. Биография немецкого философа Иммануила Канта: личная жизнь, присяга Российской империи, университет его имени, могила в Калининграде. See an archive of all immanuel kant stories published on the New York Media network, which includes NYMag, The Cut, Vulture, and Grub Street.
Immanuel Kant and Nazism
A second theory defines dark energy as varying in density over time and space. BFU professor Artyom Yurok said depending on which theory was true, it could lead to the end of the universe. Neither stars nor even galaxies would survive a disaster like this.
Kant and the educational benefits of immobility Kant is such an important name in so many areas of philosophy that one might forget that he was also interested in education. One of his ideas concerns the importance of keeping still for children. Let us translate: through this window created by immobility and listening, and by the attention it allows, ideas can come to their senses.
This idea obviously raises important questions and debates about the nature and role of authority in education. This is because the means discipline here seem to contradict the intended end freedom and autonomy. But let us leave these questions aside and transpose what Kant said in the XVIIIe century in our time and to the infinite and so irresistible stimuli that cellphones and social networks constantly provoke. One can easily see in this an immense danger for the very practice of transmitting and understanding ideas and knowledge, and for the formation of work habits. A danger so great that the ban on cellphones in the classroom, especially for the youngest, can be considered a good idea.
My fear is that we refuse to see these dangers even when they are documented. Or that, noting them, because we can no longer deny them, we suggest, in order to counter them, to further increase what causes them.
Людвиг Боровски, ученик и биограф Канта, отмечал, что Кант вёл свои занятия «свободно и остроумно», часто шутил, но «не позволял себе шуток с сексуальным подтекстом, которыми пользовались другие преподаватели». Своим ученикам преподаватель советовал «систематизировать свои знания у себя в голове под разными рубриками». С самого начала своей преподавательской деятельности Кант был весьма популярным лектором — его аудитории всегда были заполнены. В этот период Иммануил Кант интересовался этикой Фрэнсиса Хатчесона и философскими исследованиями Давида Юма , что во многом было продиктовано временем. Оба мыслителя были известны в те времена в столице. Со времён выпуска из гимназии богословие в его спектр интересов практически не попадало. Чтобы заработать на жизнь, Канту приходилось брать изнурительное количество занятий. Он преподавал математику и логику, физику и метафизику.
В 1756 году он также добавил и географию, а следующем году — этику [ком. Университетские учебники имели пустые страницы, на которых Кант писал собственные заметки. Эти книги сохранились, что позволило исследователям лучше понимать генеалогию философии Канта. Он также носил с собой блокнот для записей. Первые два-три года преподавания были тяжелы для Канта. Он имел запас денег на крайний случай, но предпочитал при нужде продавать свои книги. Носил одежду до тех пор, пока она окончательно не обветшает. Позже его дела значительно улучшились, как признавался сам Кант, он зарабатывал «более, чем достаточно». Имел двухкомнатную квартиру, мог позволить себе хорошую еду, а также нанять прислугу, но его работа всегда была шаткой и его благосостояние зависело от его успешности как лектора. В 1756 году его место преподавателя логики и метафизики было занято Кнутценом.
Не желая терять место, Кант даже написал письмо королю, в котором сообщил, что «философия является наиболее важной областью его интересов», однако не получил никакого ответа. Чтобы улучшить своё положение, он попытался устроиться в местную школу, однако вакантное место занял Вильгельм Канерт, являвшийся ярым пиетистом [ком. Скорее всего, Кант был отвергнут по религиозным причинам; впрочем, у его конкурента на должность имелся больший опыт преподавания. В конце 1750-х годов в Пруссии бушевала Семилетняя война. После сражения при Гросс-Егерсдорфе прусским войскам пришлось сдать город Кёнигсберг. В самом городе боевых действий не велось. Русские войска вошли в город 22 января 1758 года под командованием Виллима Фермора. Кёнигсберг был возвращён Пруссии в 1762 году по Петербургскому мирному договору , а до этого с самого начала присоединения к Российской империи российские офицеры посещали лекции в университете; Кант не сторонился их общества и даже проводил для них частные занятия. Всё это шло на пользу финансовому благополучию Канта. Также русские часто приглашали преподавателя на обед.
Кант с удовольствием посещал встречи дворянских офицеров, богатых купцов и прочей знати, на которые его звали. В это же время он стал частым гостем у Кейзерлингов. Графиня была увлечена философией, что послужило причиной её тёплых отношений с Кантом. За обеденным столом Кант почти всегда занимал почётное место рядом с графиней. Канту приходилось заботиться о своём внешнем виде прилежнее прошлого, он тщательно подбирал одежду, носил пальто с золотой каймой и даже использовал в качестве украшения церемониальный меч. Кант никогда не был женат и, возможно, до конца жизни оставался девственен. Это не свидетельствует, тем не менее, что он держался на расстоянии от женщин или был женоненавистником. Кроме графини, он испытывал симпатию к другим женщинам, что отмечается его биографами, однако неоднократно не решался сделать предложение брака, боясь, что не сможет содержать супругу. В какой-то момент Кант перестал испытывать потребность в браке, даже когда его финансы позволяли содержать семью. Тем временем в 1758 году должности преподавателя логики и метафизики стали вакантными.
Кант подал на них заявление, но безуспешно [71]. За время, когда Восточная Пруссия принадлежала Российской империи, у Канта был временный творческий кризис, который закончился после возвращения Кёнигсберга Петром III. Возможно, это было связано с политической обстановкой: сохранилась запись разговора за обедом 16 декабря 1788 года то есть через четверть века , на котором Кант, согласно записавшему разговор, заявлял, что «русские — наши главные враги» [72]. С 1756 по 1762 год были изданы лишь три буклета для рекламы его лекций и небольшое эссе «Мысли, вызванные безвременной кончиной высокоблагородного господина Иоганна Фридриха фон Функа» [73]. На пути к «Критике» 1762 [ править править код ] Портрет Эммануила Сведенборга, около 1766 Перед тем как вступить на дорогу изучения метафизики в критическом периоде, внимание Канта было устремлено на проблемы метафизики и формальной логики , которой он посвящает вышедший в 1762 году труд «Ложное мудрствование в четырёх фигурах силлогизма», где ставит под сомнение силлогизмы в логике, и вышедший в следующем году «Опыт введения в философию понятия отрицательных величин», где продолжает своё рассуждение. В «Опыте введения» Кант размышляет о противоположностях. Он заключает, что между противоположностями в логике как инструменте суждения и противоположностями на практике существует противоречие. К тому же Кант предложил ввести в философскую дисциплину часть математической методологии, не связанной, однако, со строгими логическими рассуждениями, поскольку они, как Кант уже постулировал, часто не показывают реальную суть вещей [74]. Кант считал, что суждения — это следствия возможности осмысливать чувственные представления как мыслимые объекты. Можно сказать, что в этой работе впервые проявилось, ещё в смутном виде, намерение философа создать новую теорию познания [75].
Кант и Сведенборг[ править править код ] 10 августа 1763 году Кант в переписке с Шарлоттой фон Кноблох обсуждает фигуру Эммануила Сведенборга — шведского философа и христианского мистика. Незадолго до этого Шарлотта попросила философа высказать мнение о Сведенборге, рассказы о духовидении которого были популярны в то время, что и послужило своего рода толчком к исследованию феномена. В письме Кант указал, что впервые узнал об этой персоне от его студента — датского офицера, которому позже отослал письмо с просьбой собрать всевозможную информацию о Сведенборге. Более того: Кант сам написал письмо лично Сведенборгу, тот принял его с трепетом, но ответить обязался в своей новой книге, выход которой готовился в Лондоне. Не дожидаясь ответа, Кант попросил своего знакомого из Англии при поездке в Стокгольм собрать всевозможные сведения касательно духовидения Сведенборга; тот поведал Канту о двух историях, которые ему удалось услышать. Во-первых, со слов свидетелей, Сведенборг помог одной женщине найти квитанцию при помощи якобы диалога с духом её умершего супруга. Во-вторых, Сведенборг предсказал пожар в Стокгольме, действительно имевший место через несколько дней после провидения [76]. В 1766 году Кант анонимно опубликовал эссе « Грёзы духовидца, пояснённые грёзами метафизики ». Эта работа — не просто радикальная критика, но, можно сказать, язвительный комментарий как на теоретические воззрения, так и на мистицизм Сведенборга [77].
At worst his theory depends on contradictory claims about what we can and cannot know about things in themselves. Some versions of this objection proceed from premises that Kant rejects. But Kant denies that appearances are unreal: they are just as real as things in themselves but are in a different metaphysical class. But just as Kant denies that things in themselves are the only or privileged reality, he also denies that correspondence with things in themselves is the only kind of truth. Empirical judgments are true just in case they correspond with their empirical objects in accordance with the a priori principles that structure all possible human experience. But the fact that Kant can appeal in this way to an objective criterion of empirical truth that is internal to our experience has not been enough to convince some critics that Kant is innocent of an unacceptable form of skepticism, mainly because of his insistence on our irreparable ignorance about things in themselves. The role of things in themselves, on the two-object interpretation, is to affect our senses and thereby to provide the sensory data from which our cognitive faculties construct appearances within the framework of our a priori intuitions of space and time and a priori concepts such as causality. But if there is no space, time, change, or causation in the realm of things in themselves, then how can things in themselves affect us? Transcendental affection seems to involve a causal relation between things in themselves and our sensibility. If this is simply the way we unavoidably think about transcendental affection, because we can give positive content to this thought only by employing the concept of a cause, while it is nevertheless strictly false that things in themselves affect us causally, then it seems not only that we are ignorant of how things in themselves really affect us. It seems, rather, to be incoherent that things in themselves could affect us at all if they are not in space or time. On this view, transcendental idealism does not distinguish between two classes of objects but rather between two different aspects of one and the same class of objects. That is, appearances are aspects of the same objects that also exist in themselves. So, on this reading, appearances are not mental representations, and transcendental idealism is not a form of phenomenalism. One version treats transcendental idealism as a metaphysical theory according to which objects have two aspects in the sense that they have two sets of properties: one set of relational properties that appear to us and are spatial and temporal, and another set of intrinsic properties that do not appear to us and are not spatial or temporal Langton 1998. This property-dualist interpretation faces epistemological objections similar to those faced by the two-objects interpretation, because we are in no better position to acquire knowledge about properties that do not appear to us than we are to acquire knowledge about objects that do not appear to us. Moreover, this interpretation also seems to imply that things in themselves are spatial and temporal, since appearances have spatial and temporal properties, and on this view appearances are the same objects as things in themselves. But Kant explicitly denies that space and time are properties of things in themselves. A second version of the two-aspects theory departs more radically from the traditional two-objects interpretation by denying that transcendental idealism is at bottom a metaphysical theory. Instead, it interprets transcendental idealism as a fundamentally epistemological theory that distinguishes between two standpoints on the objects of experience: the human standpoint, from which objects are viewed relative to epistemic conditions that are peculiar to human cognitive faculties namely, the a priori forms of our sensible intuition ; and the standpoint of an intuitive intellect, from which the same objects could be known in themselves and independently of any epistemic conditions Allison 2004. Human beings cannot really take up the latter standpoint but can form only an empty concept of things as they exist in themselves by abstracting from all the content of our experience and leaving only the purely formal thought of an object in general. So transcendental idealism, on this interpretation, is essentially the thesis that we are limited to the human standpoint, and the concept of a thing in itself plays the role of enabling us to chart the boundaries of the human standpoint by stepping beyond them in abstract but empty thought. One criticism of this epistemological version of the two-aspects theory is that it avoids the objections to other interpretations by attributing to Kant a more limited project than the text of the Critique warrants. There are passages that support this reading. The transcendental deduction The transcendental deduction is the central argument of the Critique of Pure Reason and one of the most complex and difficult texts in the history of philosophy. Given its complexity, there are naturally many different ways of interpreting the deduction. The goal of the transcendental deduction is to show that we have a priori concepts or categories that are objectively valid, or that apply necessarily to all objects in the world that we experience. To show this, Kant argues that the categories are necessary conditions of experience, or that we could not have experience without the categories. For they then are related necessarily and a priori to objects of experience, since only by means of them can any object of experience be thought at all. The transcendental deduction of all a priori concepts therefore has a principle toward which the entire investigation must be directed, namely this: that they must be recognized as a priori conditions of the possibility of experiences whether of the intuition that is encountered in them, or of the thinking. Concepts that supply the objective ground of the possibility of experience are necessary just for that reason. Here Kant claims, against the Lockean view, that self-consciousness arises from combining or synthesizing representations with one another regardless of their content. In short, Kant has a formal conception of self-consciousness rather than a material one. Since no particular content of my experience is invariable, self-consciousness must derive from my experience having an invariable form or structure, and consciousness of the identity of myself through all of my changing experiences must consist in awareness of the formal unity and law-governed regularity of my experience. The continuous form of my experience is the necessary correlate for my sense of a continuous self. There are at least two possible versions of the formal conception of self-consciousness: a realist and an idealist version. On the realist version, nature itself is law-governed and we become self-conscious by attending to its law-governed regularities, which also makes this an empiricist view of self-consciousness. The idea of an identical self that persists throughout all of our experience, on this view, arises from the law-governed regularity of nature, and our representations exhibit order and regularity because reality itself is ordered and regular. Kant rejects this realist view and embraces a conception of self-consciousness that is both formal and idealist. According to Kant, the formal structure of our experience, its unity and law-governed regularity, is an achievement of our cognitive faculties rather than a property of reality in itself. Our experience has a constant form because our mind constructs experience in a law-governed way. In other words, even if reality in itself were law-governed, its laws could not simply migrate over to our mind or imprint themselves on us while our mind is entirely passive. We must exercise an active capacity to represent the world as combined or ordered in a law-governed way, because otherwise we could not represent the world as law-governed even if it were law-governed in itself. Moreover, this capacity to represent the world as law-governed must be a priori because it is a condition of self-consciousness, and we would already have to be self-conscious in order to learn from our experience that there are law-governed regularities in the world. So it is necessary for self-consciousness that we exercise an a priori capacity to represent the world as law-governed. But this would also be sufficient for self-consciousness if we could exercise our a priori capacity to represent the world as law-governed even if reality in itself were not law-governed. In that case, the realist and empiricist conception of self-consciousness would be false, and the formal idealist view would be true. Self-consciousness for Kant therefore involves a priori knowledge about the necessary and universal truth expressed in this principle of apperception, and a priori knowledge cannot be based on experience. The next condition is that self-consciousness requires me to represent an objective world distinct from my subjective representations — that is, distinct from my thoughts about and sensations of that objective world. Kant uses this connection between self-consciousness and objectivity to insert the categories into his argument. In order to be self-conscious, I cannot be wholly absorbed in the contents of my perceptions but must distinguish myself from the rest of the world. But if self-consciousness is an achievement of the mind, then how does the mind achieve this sense that there is a distinction between the I that perceives and the contents of its perceptions? According to Kant, the mind achieves this sense by distinguishing representations that necessarily belong together from representations that are not necessarily connected but are merely associated in a contingent way. Imagine a house that is too large to fit into your visual field from your vantage point near its front door. Now imagine that you walk around the house, successively perceiving each of its sides. Eventually you perceive the entire house, but not all at once, and you judge that each of your representations of the sides of the house necessarily belong together as sides of one house and that anyone who denied this would be mistaken. But now imagine that you grew up in this house and associate a feeling of nostalgia with it. You would not judge that representations of this house are necessarily connected with feelings of nostalgia. That is, you would not think that other people seeing the house for the first time would be mistaken if they denied that it is connected with nostalgia, because you recognize that this house is connected with nostalgia for you but not necessarily for everyone. The point here is not that we must successfully identify which representations necessarily belong together and which are merely associated contingently, but rather that to be self-conscious we must at least make this general distinction between objective and merely subjective connections of representations. That is the aim of the copula is in them: to distinguish the objective unity of given representations from the subjective. Kant is speaking here about the mental act of judging that results in the formation of a judgment. We must represent an objective world in order to distinguish ourselves from it, and we represent an objective world by judging that some representations necessarily belong together. Moreover, recall from 4. It follows that objective connections in the world cannot simply imprint themselves on our mind. The understanding constructs experience by providing the a priori rules, or the framework of necessary laws, in accordance with which we judge representations to be objective. These rules are the pure concepts of the understanding or categories, which are therefore conditions of self-consciousness, since they are rules for judging about an objective world, and self-consciousness requires that we distinguish ourselves from an objective world. Kant identifies the categories in what he calls the metaphysical deduction, which precedes the transcendental deduction. But since categories are not mere logical functions but instead are rules for making judgments about objects or an objective world, Kant arrives at his table of categories by considering how each logical function would structure judgments about objects within our spatio-temporal forms of intuition. For example, he claims that categorical judgments express a logical relation between subject and predicate that corresponds to the ontological relation between substance and accident; and the logical form of a hypothetical judgment expresses a relation that corresponds to cause and effect. Taken together with this argument, then, the transcendental deduction argues that we become self-conscious by representing an objective world of substances that interact according to causal laws. To see why this further condition is required, consider that so far we have seen why Kant holds that we must represent an objective world in order to be self-conscious, but we could represent an objective world even if it were not possible to relate all of our representations to this objective world. For all that has been said so far, we might still have unruly representations that we cannot relate in any way to the objective framework of our experience. So I must be able to relate any given representation to an objective world in order for it to count as mine. On the other hand, self-consciousness would also be impossible if I represented multiple objective worlds, even if I could relate all of my representations to some objective world or other. In that case, I could not become conscious of an identical self that has, say, representation 1 in space-time A and representation 2 in space-time B. It may be possible to imagine disjointed spaces and times, but it is not possible to represent them as objectively real. So self-consciousness requires that I can relate all of my representations to a single objective world. The reason why I must represent this one objective world by means of a unified and unbounded space-time is that, as Kant argued in the Transcendental Aesthetic, space and time are the pure forms of human intuition. If we had different forms of intuition, then our experience would still have to constitute a unified whole in order for us to be self-conscious, but this would not be a spatio-temporal whole. So Kant distinguishes between space and time as pure forms of intuition, which belong solely to sensibility; and the formal intuitions of space and time or space-time , which are unified by the understanding B160—161. These formal intuitions are the spatio-temporal whole within which our understanding constructs experience in accordance with the categories. So Kant concludes on this basis that the understanding is the true law-giver of nature. Our understanding does not provide the matter or content of our experience, but it does provide the basic formal structure within which we experience any matter received through our senses. He holds that there is a single fundamental principle of morality, on which all specific moral duties are based. He calls this moral law as it is manifested to us the categorical imperative see 5. The moral law is a product of reason, for Kant, while the basic laws of nature are products of our understanding. There are important differences between the senses in which we are autonomous in constructing our experience and in morality. The moral law does not depend on any qualities that are peculiar to human nature but only on the nature of reason as such, although its manifestation to us as a categorical imperative as a law of duty reflects the fact that the human will is not necessarily determined by pure reason but is also influenced by other incentives rooted in our needs and inclinations; and our specific duties deriving from the categorical imperative do reflect human nature and the contingencies of human life. Despite these differences, however, Kant holds that we give the moral law to ourselves, as we also give the general laws of nature to ourselves, though in a different sense. Moreover, we each necessarily give the same moral law to ourselves, just as we each construct our experience in accordance with the same categories. Its highest principle is self-consciousness, on which our knowledge of the basic laws of nature is based. Given sensory data, our understanding constructs experience according to these a priori laws. Practical philosophy is about how the world ought to be ibid. Its highest principle is the moral law, from which we derive duties that command how we ought to act in specific situations. Kant also claims that reflection on our moral duties and our need for happiness leads to the thought of an ideal world, which he calls the highest good see section 6.
Chronicle of Normand Baillargeon: thinking about education with Emmanuel Kant
В бюллетенях голосования "Великие имена России", раздаваемых в самолётах, немецкого философа Иммануила Канта называют "Эммануилом". Though Kant is as undeniably German as the Nord Stream pipeline, Putin (and anyone else anywhere) has a right to quote him morning, noon and. Иммануи́л Кант — немецкий философ, один из центральных мыслителей эпохи Просвещения. Всесторонние и систематические работы Канта в области эпистемологии, метафизики. Emmanuel Kant is Lupa's first experience with Polski Theatre in Wroclaw, though the leading part is played by the protagonist of his first productions in Jelenia Gora, Wojciech Ziemianski.
Emmanuel Kant
Hi there, my name is Emmanuel Kant Duarte and welcome to my profile. Connect with me: Image of linkedin logo Image of Earth Planet Image of twitter bird Image of YouTube logo Image of codepen. emmanuelle_kant. ·@emmakant·. Loving life. Иммануил Кант родился 22 апреля 1724 года в Кенигсберге, Пруссия, в небогатой семье ремесленника. Immanuel Kant, German philosopher who was one of the foremost thinkers of the Enlightenment and who inaugurated a new era of philosophical thought. His comprehensive and systematic work in.