Сам Иммануил Кант был увлеченным своим делом ученым, талантливым преподавателем и эксцентричным, но при этом общительным человеком. French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday urged Europe to wake up to the fact that it was not sufficiently armed in the face of global threats such as Russian aggression that pose an existential. Иммануил Кант – немецкий философ, основал немецкую классическую философию, жил в эпоху Просвещения и романтизма. Reform of institutions: Emmanuel Macron receives François Hollande at the Élysée.
Daily Mail: Канте хочет перейти в «Интер»
| I Kant Even: German Chancellor Triggered After Putin Quotes Legendary Philosopher | ZeroHedge | Полузащитник «Челси» Н'Голо Канте дал предварительное согласие на переход в «Арсенал» по окончании сезона, сообщает Fichajes. |
| Ведущие ученые мира выступили с докладами на Международном Кантовском конгрессе - Российская газета | emmanuelle_kant. Архив. Фотографии. Blog grant promo. Recommend this entry Has been recommended Send news. |
| Emmanuel Kant, no place to chance! | We will see it from an example of the thought of Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) on education. Let us start by recalling some of these digital issues that current events force us to consider. |
| Spotify is currently not available in your country. | U.S. News. Full Menu. |
Последние дни Иммануила Канта (1994) Les derniers jours d Emmanuel Kant
Сам Иммануил Кант был увлеченным своим делом ученым, талантливым преподавателем и эксцентричным, но при этом общительным человеком. DEV Community. Emmanuel Kant Duarte profile picture. Просмотрите свежий пост @fakepontchartrain в Tumblr на тему "emmanuel kant".
Recommend Projects
- Climate change and the environment take a back seat in Emmanuel Macron's speech on Europe
- Кант Иммануил. Большая российская энциклопедия
- Navigation Menu
- Ведущие ученые мира выступили с докладами на Международном Кантовском конгрессе
- No new idea
- Я живу в Калининграде. Как мы отпраздновали День рождения Иммануила Канта? С вдохновением...
Immanuel Kant and Nazism
Thus metaphysics for Kant concerns a priori knowledge, or knowledge whose justification does not depend on experience; and he associates a priori knowledge with reason. The project of the Critique is to examine whether, how, and to what extent human reason is capable of a priori knowledge. The Enlightenment was a reaction to the rise and successes of modern science in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 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.
Что он должен делать? Способен ли он надеяться?
В третьем ответе кантовского чат-бота надежду чат-бот высказал относительно того, что будет развиваться, но уровня человеческого мышления не достигнет, но, на мой взгляд, это сомнительно. Мне кажется, что это вполне реально, и я, с одной стороны, боюсь, с другой — надеюсь застать это на своём веку. Ну и, конечно, последний вопрос: чем вообще является искусственный интеллект?
По информации источника, Канте лично ездил на базу команды, чтобы оценить инфраструктуру клуба. Бельгийская федерация уже проинформирована о процессе продажи, на данный момент сделка находится в процессе оформления документов. Клуб представляет бельгийскую провинцию Люксембург и проводит матчи на четырехтысячном стадионе «Иван Жорж». Клуб никогда не играл в высшем бельгийском дивизионе.
When the tourists—Awww, ordinary slobs!
Look, Meryl! The little people! This is called exploitation, and using unconsenting human beings as a means to an end.
Канте прошёл вторую часть медобследования перед переходом в «Аль-Иттихад»
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. 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.
Home » today » Business » Chronicle of Normand Baillargeon: thinking about education with Emmanuel Kant Chronicle of Normand Baillargeon: thinking about education with Emmanuel Kant September 18, 2021 by world today news The news constantly brings back to us the vast and crucial question of the place that we should give to digital in education. Should we generalize its uses, as demanded these days by the Edteq organization? Which ones, then?
Or should we beware of it as a threat and more often than not dismiss it? These questions raise important economic and educational issues on which philosophy sometimes throws precious light. We will see it from an example of the thought of Emmanuel Kant 1724-1804 on education. Let us begin by recalling some of these digital issues that current events force us to consider. There is of course first of all this crucial question of distance schooling, which the crisis we are going through has forced us to practice. What lessons can be learned from it? Steve Bissonnette and Christian Boyer reviewed research from eight countries on these questions.
В бюллетенях голосования "Великие имена России", раздаваемых в самолётах, немецкого философа Иммануила Канта называют "Эммануилом". Об этом 21 ноября 2018 года сообщила в Facebook пассажир одного из самолётов. Выходит, организаторы присвоения имени аэропорту Храброво столкнулись с трудностями написания имени немецкого философа. Несмотря на трудности в орфографии в самолётах, Кант по-прежнему лидирует, опережая даже самого резвого ближайшего конкурента - императрицу Елизавету Петровну.
Вернулся обратно он только спустя шесть лет, в 1754 году, и с тех пор его жизнь была связана с университетом и преподаванием. В апреле 1755-го Иммануил Кант получил степень магистра, а в июне, защитив латинскую диссертацию «Новое освещение первых принципов метафизического познания», — докторскую степень и звание приват-доцента философии. Но была одна тонкость: он не получал от университета деньги, только гонорары от студентов за посещение лекций. Поэтому Кант начал активно и много преподавать. Так, у него появился курс лекций по физической географии, общему естествознанию, этике, механике, физике и тригонометрии. Его занятия были популярными благодаря подаче материала и остроумию. Кант умел довести своих студентов до смеха шутками, сохраняя при этом невозмутимый вид. Постоянное место профессора логики и метафизики Иммануил Кант получил только в 46 лет, а еще он дважды занимал пост ректора Кенигсбергского университета. Свои последние лекции он прочитал летом 1796 года, за несколько лет до своей кончины. Прощание с Кантом было многолюдным Иммануил Кант ушел из жизни 12 февраля 1804 года. Из-за морозной погоды и заледеневшей земли похоронить его смогли лишь через 16 дней. Все это время жители города приходили к телу философа, чтобы проститься с ним. Среди них были и те, кто не был знаком с его работами. На сами похороны 28 февраля собрались многие высокопоставленные персоны Кенигсберга и окрестных городов.
Emmanuel Kant Duarte
Выпущенные в дальнейшем не вошедшие в собрание малоизвестные работы, а также записи лекций, письма и прочие материалы в целом довершили дело издания на русском языке всего наследия философа. Приблизительно в те же годы в значительной степени был возбуждён интерес исследователей к научному наследию Канта. В рамках дисциплины «Немецкая классическая философия» значение его как учёного и мыслителя признавалось, бесспорно, но он рассматривался как хоть и первый, но всё же в общем ряду немецких философов: Кант-Гегель-Маркс. Упор делался на материализм и диалектику Канта, но в советское время всё же они затенялись величиной Гегеля — в современной же философии гораздо большее внимание уделяется как раз Канту. Наиболее крупные исследования Канта появились в середине 1980-х годов. После распада СССР научное сообщество отошло от рассмотрения научной проблематики через материалистическую или религиозную призму. Появились новые фундаментальные исследования, которые смотрят на кантианство под другим углом. Главный результат — немецкое Просвещение окончательно реабилитировано в глазах научного сообщества, а кантианство окончательно осознано им как самостоятельно значимое течение.
Кант в России сегодня Застрельщиком в деле продвижения кантианства в современной российской науке выступает Калининградский государственный университет, где логическое кантоведение — одно из ведущих направлений исследований на местном философском факультете. Ещё с 1975 года здесь, правда, периодически меняя название и с разной регулярностью, выпускается «Кантовский сборник». На базе университета проводятся научно-практические конференции с международным участием «Кантовские чтения», на которых ведущие специалисты представляют результаты своих исследований кантовской философии. Проводятся подобные конференции и в других вузах, но там, как правило, они приурочены к юбилейным датам — в Институте философии Российской академии наук, Московском государственном университете имени М. Ломоносова, Российском государственном гуманитарном университете, Санкт-Петербургском государственном университете, ряде региональных вузов. Международный характер этих конференций ознаменовал заодно и постепенное налаживание связей между российскими и зарубежными кантоведами. В день, когда читатель увидит эту статью, в Балтийском федеральном университете, который, кстати, носит имя великого философа, состоится Международный Кантовский конгресс — масштабнейшее мероприятие, совмещающее в себе научную конференцию, философский симпозиум, различные научно-популярные и культурные мероприятия.
Конгресс станет важной частью празднования 300-летия со дня рождения Канта, Указ о праздновании которого подписан ещё 20 мая 2021 года Президент Российской Федерации Владимир Владимирович Путин. В рамках этих мероприятий разработаны новые экскурсионные маршруты, арт-события, реализованы кинопроекты и конкурсные мероприятия, учреждениями культуры подготовлены новые выставки и обновлены старые экспозиции. Так, в Калининградской музее янтаря к юбилею Канта воссоздана обстановка его кабинета — помимо философии, он увлекался минералогией и даже изучал свойства балтийского янтаря, в изобилии издавна имевшегося в Восточной Пруссии. А для самого города Калининграда философ уже давно стал своеобразным «маскотом», лицом города. В сувенирных лавках можно найти книги, магнитики, статуэтки, открытки и прочую продукцию с его изображением и цитатами. Ещё в 1950-е годы была завершена перепланировка усыпальницы Канта, посетить которую считает своим долгом каждый приезжающий в Калининград. В здании бывшего Кафедрального собора, на его третьем и четвёртом этажах, с 1995 года работает музей великого мыслителя, ведущий большую научную и просветительскую работу.
В экспозиции представлены документы, книги и другие экспонаты, связанные с его жизнью. Ещё один Кантовский музей работает с 2018 года в посёлке Веселовка Черняховского района Калининградской области в бывшей усадьбе пастора прихода Юдшен. А в Балтийском университете имени Канта создан мемориальный кабинет-музей. Помимо этого, необходимо упомянуть и топонимических объектах. В Калининграде имеется и улица Канта получившая это название ещё при немцах, и именовавшаяся как Кантштрассе , и живописный остров Канта бывший Кнайпхоф , на котором как раз и находится Кафедральный собор с усыпальницей великого мыслителя, и даже закусочные его имени. В 1992 году был воссоздан поставленный ещё в 1857 году в городе памятник Иммануилу Канту. Эта скульптура бесследно исчезла ещё во время Второй Мировой войны, а взамен него на постаменте несколько десятилетий находился вождь немецкого пролетариата Эрнст Тельман.
Новодел отлили по сохранившейся модели, и теперь он стоит примерно на том же месте, что и ранее. Географические объекты с именем Канта есть и в самой Германии, однако почитание этого великого немца не имеет аналогичной практики, и уж совершенно точно не выдерживает никакого сравнения с Калининградом, который с небывалом размахом в эти дни празднует кантовский юбилей.
According to him, the Russian authorities are seeking to appropriate Kant and his works. Putin has not the slightest reason to refer to Kant.
Let us note that earlier the governor of the Kaliningrad region, Anton Alikhanov, called the philosopher Immanuel Kant a Russian trophy. Kant for us is a Russian trophy.
How do you integrate my free actions into the experience that your understanding constructs?
Finally, since Kant invokes transcendental idealism to make sense of freedom, interpreting his thinking about freedom leads us back to disputes between the two-objects and two-aspects interpretations of transcendental idealism. But applying the two-objects interpretation to freedom raises problems of its own, since it involves making a distinction between noumenal and phenomenal selves that does not arise on the two-aspects view. If only my noumenal self is free, and freedom is required for moral responsibility, then my phenomenal self is not morally responsible.
But how are my noumenal and phenomenal selves related, and why is punishment inflicted on phenomenal selves? We do not have theoretical knowledge that we are free or about anything beyond the limits of possible experience, but we are morally justified in believing that we are free in this sense. On the other hand, Kant also uses stronger language than this when discussing freedom.
Our practical knowledge of freedom is based instead on the moral law. So, on his view, the fact of reason is the practical basis for our belief or practical knowledge that we are free. Every human being has a conscience, a common sense grasp of morality, and a firm conviction that he or she is morally accountable.
We may arrive at different conclusions about what morality requires in specific situations. And we may violate our own sense of duty. But we all have a conscience, and an unshakeable belief that morality applies to us.
It is just a ground-level fact about human beings that we hold ourselves morally accountable. But Kant is making a normative claim here as well: it is also a fact, which cannot and does not need to be justified, that we are morally accountable, that morality does have authority over us. Kant holds that philosophy should be in the business of defending this common sense moral belief, and that in any case we could never prove or disprove it 4:459.
Kant may hold that the fact of reason, or our consciousness of moral obligation, implies that we are free on the grounds that ought implies can. In other words, Kant may believe that it follows from the fact that we ought morally to do something that we can or are able to do it. This is a hypothetical example of an action not yet carried out.
On this view, to act morally is to exercise freedom, and the only way to fully exercise freedom is to act morally. First, it follows from the basic idea of having a will that to act at all is to act on some principle, or what Kant calls a maxim. A maxim is a subjective rule or policy of action: it says what you are doing and why.
We may be unaware of our maxims, we may not act consistently on the same maxims, and our maxims may not be consistent with one another. But Kant holds that since we are rational beings our actions always aim at some sort of end or goal, which our maxim expresses. The goal of an action may be something as basic as gratifying a desire, or it may be something more complex such as becoming a doctor or a lawyer.
If I act to gratify some desire, then I choose to act on a maxim that specifies the gratification of that desire as the goal of my action. For example, if I desire some coffee, then I may act on the maxim to go to a cafe and buy some coffee in order to gratify that desire. Second, Kant distinguishes between two basic kinds of principles or rules that we can act on: what he calls material and formal principles.
To act in order to satisfy some desire, as when I act on the maxim to go for coffee at a cafe, is to act on a material principle 5:21ff. Here the desire for coffee fixes the goal, which Kant calls the object or matter of the action, and the principle says how to achieve that goal go to a cafe. A hypothetical imperative is a principle of rationality that says I should act in a certain way if I choose to satisfy some desire.
If maxims in general are rules that describe how one does act, then imperatives in general prescribe how one should act. An imperative is hypothetical if it says how I should act only if I choose to pursue some goal in order to gratify a desire 5:20. This, for example, is a hypothetical imperative: if you want coffee, then go to the cafe.
This hypothetical imperative applies to you only if you desire coffee and choose to gratify that desire. In contrast to material principles, formal principles describe how one acts without making reference to any desires. This is easiest to understand through the corresponding kind of imperative, which Kant calls a categorical imperative.
A categorical imperative commands unconditionally that I should act in some way. So while hypothetical imperatives apply to me only on the condition that I have and set the goal of satisfying the desires that they tell me how to satisfy, categorical imperatives apply to me no matter what my goals and desires may be. Kant regards moral laws as categorical imperatives, which apply to everyone unconditionally.
For example, the moral requirement to help others in need does not apply to me only if I desire to help others in need, and the duty not to steal is not suspended if I have some desire that I could satisfy by stealing. Moral laws do not have such conditions but rather apply unconditionally. That is why they apply to everyone in the same way.
Third, insofar as I act only on material principles or hypothetical imperatives, I do not act freely, but rather I act only to satisfy some desire s that I have, and what I desire is not ultimately within my control. To some limited extent we are capable of rationally shaping our desires, but insofar as we choose to act in order to satisfy desires we are choosing to let nature govern us rather than governing ourselves 5:118. We are always free in the sense that we always have the capacity to govern ourselves rationally instead of letting our desires set our ends for us.
But we may freely fail to exercise that capacity. Moreover, since Kant holds that desires never cause us to act, but rather we always choose to act on a maxim even when that maxim specifies the satisfaction of a desire as the goal of our action, it also follows that we are always free in the sense that we freely choose our maxims. Nevertheless, our actions are not free in the sense of being autonomous if we choose to act only on material principles, because in that case we do not give the law to ourselves, but instead we choose to allow nature in us our desires to determine the law for our actions.
Finally, the only way to act freely in the full sense of exercising autonomy is therefore to act on formal principles or categorical imperatives, which is also to act morally. Kant does not mean that acting autonomously requires that we take no account of our desires, which would be impossible 5:25, 61. This immediate consciousness of the moral law takes the following form: I have, for example, made it my maxim to increase my wealth by every safe means.
Now I have a deposit in my hands, the owner of which has died and left no record of it. This is, naturally, a case for my maxim. Now I want only to know whether that maxim could also hold as a universal practical law.
I therefore apply the maxim to the present case and ask whether it could indeed take the form of a law, and consequently whether I could through my maxim at the same time give such a law as this: that everyone may deny a deposit which no one can prove has been made. I at once become aware that such a principle, as a law, would annihilate itself since it would bring it about that there would be no deposits at all. The issue is not whether it would be good if everyone acted on my maxim, or whether I would like it, but only whether it would be possible for my maxim to be willed as a universal law.
This gets at the form, not the matter or content, of the maxim. A maxim has morally permissible form, for Kant, only if it could be willed as a universal law. If my maxim fails this test, as this one does, then it is morally impermissible for me to act on it.
If my maxim passes the universal law test, then it is morally permissible for me to act on it, but I fully exercise my autonomy only if my fundamental reason for acting on this maxim is that it is morally permissible or required that I do so. Imagine that I am moved by a feeling of sympathy to formulate the maxim to help someone in need. In this case, my original reason for formulating this maxim is that a certain feeling moved me.
Such feelings are not entirely within my control and may not be present when someone actually needs my help. So it would not be wrong to act on this maxim when the feeling of sympathy so moves me. But helping others in need would not fully exercise my autonomy unless my fundamental reason for doing so is not that I have some feeling or desire, but rather that it would be right or at least permissible to do so.
Only when such a purely formal principle supplies the fundamental motive for my action do I act autonomously. Even when my maxims are originally suggested by my feelings and desires, if I act only on morally permissible or required maxims because they are morally permissible or required , then my actions will be autonomous. And the reverse is true as well: for Kant this is the only way to act autonomously.
The highest good and practical postulates Kant holds that reason unavoidably produces not only consciousness of the moral law but also the idea of a world in which there is both complete virtue and complete happiness, which he calls the highest good. Furthermore, we can believe that the highest good is possible only if we also believe in the immortality of the soul and the existence of God, according to Kant. On this basis, he claims that it is morally necessary to believe in the immortality of the soul and the existence of God, which he calls postulates of pure practical reason.
Moreover, our fundamental reason for choosing to act on such maxims should be that they have this lawgiving form, rather than that acting on them would achieve some end or goal that would satisfy a desire 5:27. For example, I should help others in need not, at bottom, because doing so would make me feel good, even if it would, but rather because it is right; and it is right or permissible to help others in need because this maxim can be willed as a universal law. Although Kant holds that the morality of an action depends on the form of its maxim rather than its end or goal, he nevertheless claims both that every human action has an end and that we are unavoidably concerned with the consequences of our actions 4:437; 5:34; 6:5—7, 385.
This is not a moral requirement but simply part of what it means to be a rational being. Moreover, Kant also holds the stronger view that it is an unavoidable feature of human reason that we form ideas not only about the immediate and near-term consequences of our actions, but also about ultimate consequences. But neither of these ideas by itself expresses our unconditionally complete end, as human reason demands in its practical use.
And happiness by itself would not be unconditionally good, because moral virtue is a condition of worthiness to be happy 5:111. So our unconditionally complete end must combine both virtue and happiness. It is this ideal world combining complete virtue with complete happiness that Kant normally has in mind when he discusses the highest good.
Kant says that we have a duty to promote the highest good, taken in this sense 5:125. He does not mean, however, to be identifying some new duty that is not derived from the moral law, in addition to all the particular duties we have that are derived from the moral law. Rather, as we have seen, Kant holds that it is an unavoidable feature of human reasoning, instead of a moral requirement, that we represent all particular duties as leading toward the promotion of the highest good.
Nor does Kant mean that anyone has a duty to realize or actually bring about the highest good through their own power, although his language sometimes suggests this 5:113, 122. Here Kant does not mean that we unavoidably represent the highest good as possible, since his view is that we must represent it as possible only if we are to fulfill our duty of promoting it, and yet we may fail at doing our duty. Rather, we have a choice about whether to conceive of the highest good as possible, to regard it as impossible, or to remain noncommittal 5:144—145.
But we can fulfill our duty of promoting the highest good only by choosing to conceive of the highest good as possible, because we cannot promote any end without believing that it is possible to achieve that end 5:122. This is because to comply with that duty we must believe that the highest good is possible, and yet to believe that the highest good is possible we must believe that the soul is immortal and that God exists, according to Kant. The highest good, as we have seen, would be a world of complete morality and happiness.
This does not mean that we can substitute endless progress toward complete conformity with the moral law for holiness in the concept of the highest good, but rather that we must represent that complete conformity as an infinite progress toward the limit of holiness. Rather, his view is that we must represent holiness as continual progress toward complete conformity of our dispositions with the moral law that begins in this life and extends into infinity. Kant holds that virtue and happiness are not just combined but necessarily combined in the idea of the highest good, because only possessing virtue makes one worthy of happiness — a claim that Kant seems to regard as part of the content of the moral law 4:393; 5:110, 124.
But we can represent virtue and happiness as necessarily combined only by representing virtue as the efficient cause of happiness. This means that we must represent the highest good not simply as a state of affairs in which everyone is both happy and virtuous, but rather as one in which everyone is happy because they are virtuous 5:113—114, 124.
Macron said Europe also risks falling behind economically in a context where global free-trade rules are being challenged by major competitors, and he said it should aim to become a global leader in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, space, biotechnologies and renewable energy. Europe needs less fragmented markets for energy, telecoms and financial services, and must also cut red tape, he added. The French leader hopes his speech will have the same impact as a similar address at the Sorbonne he made seven years ago that prefigured some significant EU policy shifts.
Emmanuel Kant
Хиты и новинки в хорошем качестве. Чтобы скачать песни исполнителя Immanuel Kant, установите приложение Звук и слушайте бесплатно оффлайн и онлайн по подписке Прайм. Иммануил Кант родился 22 апреля 1724 года в Кенигсберге, Пруссия, в небогатой семье ремесленника. Читайте последние новости на тему в ленте новостей на сайте РИА Новости.
Ведущие ученые мира выступили с докладами на Международном Кантовском конгрессе
Et l'activité mentale, Filosofia, Kant (Emmanuel). Etudes. Ректор БФУ им. Иммануила Канта Александр Федоров отметил: философия не эксклюзивное занятие, ею, осмысляя действительность и место в ней, занимается каждый. Просмотрите свежий пост @fakepontchartrain в Tumblr на тему "emmanuel kant".
Emmanuel Kant
Его идеи были популярны и после его смерти; даже признаётся некоторое влияние на теорию демократического мира или на либеральное направление в целом. Поэтому передо мной встала задача — изучить политическую мысль философа.
To discover Follow information on the war in Ukraine with the Figaro application But a geographer will see it as a sign of an old grudge. Because, at the time, this enclave was not Russian, but constituted the eastern slope of Prussia, a region fortified by the Teutonic knights from the 13th century. As "one of the founding fathers of the modern West" , Immanuel Kant "laid the foundations of classical German philosophy" , cutting it off from , he explains quite generally, without say more about these values.
Иными словами, он призывает к большей независимости от Соединенных Штатов Америки. Ведь то же самое президент Франции говорили и ранее, и именно когда у власти стоял Трамп. Однако когда в 2020 году к власти вернулся представитель типичного американского истеблишмента Джо Байден, у Макрона сразу исчезли претензии и к американскому влиянию в Европе, и к НАТО, которому он больше не приписывал "клиническую смерть". Поскольку нынешнее выступление отнюдь не первая речь Эммануэля Макрона на эту тему, можно заключить, что его позиция очень зависит от того, какая повестка сейчас доминирует, и он, несомненно, склоняется к ней. Кроме того, стоит отметить, что его речь прозвучала всего за несколько недель до выборов в Европейский парламент.
Многие полагают, что тем самым Макрон пытается оживить весьма слабую кампанию его партии "Возрождение", которая очень отстает от своего соперника — партии Марин Ле Пен. Макрон: перед нами огромные риски, Европа может умеретьЭммануэль Макрон заявил, что Европа может умереть. Читатели Haber7 подмечают: французский президент надоел постоянными разговорами о войне и чьей-то гибели. Они припомнили ему "смерть мозга" у НАТО. Иными словами, "Национальное объединение" может обойти партию Макрона на предстоящих выборах. С пессимизмом оценивая способность Европы отвечать на "изменение парадигмы", с которым, как утверждает Макрон, мир сейчас столкнулся, президент Франции сказал, что из-за враждебности России, недостаточной включенности США и конкуренции Китая Европейский Союз рискует "угодить в тиски и маргинализироваться". Далее, как бы предлагая ответ, он призвал европейских лидеров подготовиться к "важному стратегическому решению" в обороне и экономике, заявив, что теперь главное для европейских интересов — здоровый протекционизм. Он добавил, что европейские войска не нужно объединять, но нужно ставить им общие цели, например, в виде создания единого щита ПРО по всему континенту. Также Эммануэль Макрон призвал к созданию европейской военной академии.
Мы не можем быть единственными, кто соблюдает правила. Мы слишком наивны", — отметил он. Что касается его заявления, сделанного в феврале, когда он не исключил отправки войск на Украину, то вчера он сказал, что "стратегическая двусмысленность" является важной частью нового геополитического порядка. Мы не просто маленькая часть Запада", — подчеркнул президент Франции.
Руссо , будто в предшествующем цивилизации «естественном состоянии» отношения между индивидами носили мирный, идиллический характер: «Люди столь же кроткие, как овцы, которых они пасут, вряд ли сделали бы своё существование более достойным, чем существование домашних животных... Поэтому да будет благословенна природа за неуживчивость, за завистливо соперничающее тщеславие, за ненасытную жажду обладать и господствовать! Без них все превосходные природные задатки человечества остались бы навсегда неразвитыми. Главным направлением культурного прогресса является, по Канту, сближение народов, благодаря которому, вследствие действия того же «механизма природы», будет навсегда покончено с войнами и народы всей планеты объединятся в мирном союзе. Заключительной частью системы Канта является «Критика способности суждения». Кант различает два вида способности суждения: определяющую и рефлектирующую размышляющую.
В первом случае речь идёт о том, чтобы подвести особенное под уже известное общее. Во втором случае особенное должно быть подведено под общее, которое не дано, а должно быть найдено. В данном труде он исследует эту вторую, рефлектирующую способность суждения. Её основными формами являются телеологические и эстетические суждения. И те и другие выявляют целесообразность, присущую не только явлениям природы, например живым организмам, но и объектам суждений вкуса. В действительности, как считает Кант, целесообразность не присуща ни предметам природы, ни предметам суждений вкуса; она привносится в природу априорной рефлектирующей способностью суждения, которая не обогащает наших знаний о природе, но способствует их приведению в систему. Необходимость телеологических суждений обусловлена тем, что рассудок оказывается неспособным объяснить естественными причинами наблюдаемые факты целесообразности в природе. Эстетические суждения, в отличие от телеологических, связаны с удовольствием или неудовольствием, вызываемыми представлением о предметах. Эстетическое удовольствие Кант характеризует как незаинтересованное в том смысле, что оно обусловлено исключительно восприятием прекрасного , к которому не примешиваются как-либо не связанные с этим восприятием интересы. Незаинтересованность эстетического суждения придаёт ему объективную значимость, несмотря на его субъективное содержание.
Эстетическое суждение не относится к познавательной деятельности и не зависит от нравственного сознания. Идеалом красоты, согласно Канту, может быть только человек. Философия Канта оказала громадное воздействие на всё последующее развитие европейской мысли. Он явился родоначальником немецкой классической философии, представленной системами И. Фихте , Ф. Шеллинга , Г. Гегеля , влияние его испытали Ф. Шиллер , А. Шопенгауэр , представители йенского романтизма. Под знаком возвращения к методологии Канта в Германии и других европейских странах складываются во 2-й половине 19 в.
Иммануил Кант: философ, присягнувший на верность Российской империи
Почивший до последнего работал над фильмом "Ученик", который должен был выйти в 2025 году. Комментируя утрату, в дирекции Каннского кинофестиваля заявили, что с уходом Канте французский кинематограф потерял "мастера-гуманиста, который в своих работах всегда стремился к истине и свету". Лоран Канте родился в 1961 году в семье школьных учителей, киноискусство он изучал сначала в Марселе, а потом — в парижской Высшей школе кинематографистов.
Выжить удалось трем сестрам и двум братьям. Детство Иммануила прошло в небольшом доме, который полностью сгорел во время пожара в 18-м веке.
Юношеские годы Кант провел среди обычных ремесленников и рабочих, живших на окраине Кёнигсберга. Историкам так и не удалось точно выяснить, кем же был по национальности великий философ. Одни утверждали, что предки по отцовской линии жили в Шотландии, однако эта информация так и осталась неподтвержденной. Родня по линии матери проживала в немецком городе Нюрнберге.
Родители мальчика заложили основы духовного воспитания сына, они сами были глубоко верующими людьми и принадлежали к лютеранской церкви, а если точнее, то к ее особому течению — пиетизму. Учение заключалось в том, что человек находится непрестанно на глазах у Господа, поэтому должен соблюдать личное благочестие. Именно мама прививала детям основы вероисповедания, знакомила их с красотой окружающего мира. Проповеди в церкви и занятия, на которых изучали Библию, Анна Регина посещала вместе с детьми.
Достаточно часто в доме Кантов можно было встретить доктора теологии Франца Шульца, который и заметил незаурядные способности Иммануила в изучении Библии, а еще умение выражать и отстаивать собственные суждения. Мальчику исполнилось 8, когда мама привела его в самую лучшую школу Кенигсберга. Это была гимназия им. Фридриха, и ее рекомендовал в качестве учебного заведения именно Шульц.
Он сел за школьную парту в 1732 году и провел там восемь лет. Уроки начинались в семь часов и продолжались до девяти. Главными предметами были Ветхий и Новый заветы, теология, география, латынь, греческий и немецкий языки. Изучение философии начиналось в старшей школе, и Иммануил всегда говорил, что этот предмет изучали неправильно.
Заниматься математикой можно было только за деньги, к тому же, если у ученика имелось желание. Родители уже видели сына в сане священника, но мальчик с большим интересом изучал латынь и мечтал в будущем стать преподавателем словесности. К тому же, ученикам религиозной школы приходилось подчиняться строгим правилам и нравам этого заведения, а Канту это очень не нравилось. Иммануил никогда не отличался крепким здоровьем, однако показывал отличные успехи в учебе, все благодаря природной сообразительности и недюжинным умственным способностям.
В возрасте тринадцати лет мальчик потерял маму. Она долго болела и так и не смогла оправиться. Семья влачила жалкое существование, Кант зачастую нуждался в самом элементарном. Он практически голодал, и не отказывался от помощи более богатых однокурсников.
Случалось так, что ему нечего было обуть, тогда он одалживал ботинки у друзей, и шел на лекции. Спасение молодой человек находил в философии, он считал, что вещи должны подчиняться человеку, а не наоборот. В 16 Кант стал студентом Кенигсбергского университета. Именно там он знакомится с преподавателем Мартином Кнутценом, пиетистом и вольфианцем, который открыл Канту учения Исаака Ньютона , оказавшие на молодого человека колоссальное влияние.
Moreover, if I am not alone in the world but there are many noumenal selves acting freely and incorporating their free actions into the experience they construct, then how do multiple transcendentally free agents interact? How do you integrate my free actions into the experience that your understanding constructs? Finally, since Kant invokes transcendental idealism to make sense of freedom, interpreting his thinking about freedom leads us back to disputes between the two-objects and two-aspects interpretations of transcendental idealism.
But applying the two-objects interpretation to freedom raises problems of its own, since it involves making a distinction between noumenal and phenomenal selves that does not arise on the two-aspects view. If only my noumenal self is free, and freedom is required for moral responsibility, then my phenomenal self is not morally responsible. But how are my noumenal and phenomenal selves related, and why is punishment inflicted on phenomenal selves?
We do not have theoretical knowledge that we are free or about anything beyond the limits of possible experience, but we are morally justified in believing that we are free in this sense. On the other hand, Kant also uses stronger language than this when discussing freedom. Our practical knowledge of freedom is based instead on the moral law.
So, on his view, the fact of reason is the practical basis for our belief or practical knowledge that we are free. Every human being has a conscience, a common sense grasp of morality, and a firm conviction that he or she is morally accountable. We may arrive at different conclusions about what morality requires in specific situations.
And we may violate our own sense of duty. But we all have a conscience, and an unshakeable belief that morality applies to us. It is just a ground-level fact about human beings that we hold ourselves morally accountable.
But Kant is making a normative claim here as well: it is also a fact, which cannot and does not need to be justified, that we are morally accountable, that morality does have authority over us. Kant holds that philosophy should be in the business of defending this common sense moral belief, and that in any case we could never prove or disprove it 4:459. Kant may hold that the fact of reason, or our consciousness of moral obligation, implies that we are free on the grounds that ought implies can.
In other words, Kant may believe that it follows from the fact that we ought morally to do something that we can or are able to do it. This is a hypothetical example of an action not yet carried out. On this view, to act morally is to exercise freedom, and the only way to fully exercise freedom is to act morally.
First, it follows from the basic idea of having a will that to act at all is to act on some principle, or what Kant calls a maxim. A maxim is a subjective rule or policy of action: it says what you are doing and why. We may be unaware of our maxims, we may not act consistently on the same maxims, and our maxims may not be consistent with one another.
But Kant holds that since we are rational beings our actions always aim at some sort of end or goal, which our maxim expresses. The goal of an action may be something as basic as gratifying a desire, or it may be something more complex such as becoming a doctor or a lawyer. If I act to gratify some desire, then I choose to act on a maxim that specifies the gratification of that desire as the goal of my action.
For example, if I desire some coffee, then I may act on the maxim to go to a cafe and buy some coffee in order to gratify that desire. Second, Kant distinguishes between two basic kinds of principles or rules that we can act on: what he calls material and formal principles. To act in order to satisfy some desire, as when I act on the maxim to go for coffee at a cafe, is to act on a material principle 5:21ff.
Here the desire for coffee fixes the goal, which Kant calls the object or matter of the action, and the principle says how to achieve that goal go to a cafe. A hypothetical imperative is a principle of rationality that says I should act in a certain way if I choose to satisfy some desire. If maxims in general are rules that describe how one does act, then imperatives in general prescribe how one should act.
An imperative is hypothetical if it says how I should act only if I choose to pursue some goal in order to gratify a desire 5:20. This, for example, is a hypothetical imperative: if you want coffee, then go to the cafe. This hypothetical imperative applies to you only if you desire coffee and choose to gratify that desire.
In contrast to material principles, formal principles describe how one acts without making reference to any desires. This is easiest to understand through the corresponding kind of imperative, which Kant calls a categorical imperative. A categorical imperative commands unconditionally that I should act in some way.
So while hypothetical imperatives apply to me only on the condition that I have and set the goal of satisfying the desires that they tell me how to satisfy, categorical imperatives apply to me no matter what my goals and desires may be. Kant regards moral laws as categorical imperatives, which apply to everyone unconditionally. For example, the moral requirement to help others in need does not apply to me only if I desire to help others in need, and the duty not to steal is not suspended if I have some desire that I could satisfy by stealing.
Moral laws do not have such conditions but rather apply unconditionally. That is why they apply to everyone in the same way. Third, insofar as I act only on material principles or hypothetical imperatives, I do not act freely, but rather I act only to satisfy some desire s that I have, and what I desire is not ultimately within my control.
To some limited extent we are capable of rationally shaping our desires, but insofar as we choose to act in order to satisfy desires we are choosing to let nature govern us rather than governing ourselves 5:118. We are always free in the sense that we always have the capacity to govern ourselves rationally instead of letting our desires set our ends for us. But we may freely fail to exercise that capacity.
Moreover, since Kant holds that desires never cause us to act, but rather we always choose to act on a maxim even when that maxim specifies the satisfaction of a desire as the goal of our action, it also follows that we are always free in the sense that we freely choose our maxims. Nevertheless, our actions are not free in the sense of being autonomous if we choose to act only on material principles, because in that case we do not give the law to ourselves, but instead we choose to allow nature in us our desires to determine the law for our actions. Finally, the only way to act freely in the full sense of exercising autonomy is therefore to act on formal principles or categorical imperatives, which is also to act morally.
Kant does not mean that acting autonomously requires that we take no account of our desires, which would be impossible 5:25, 61. This immediate consciousness of the moral law takes the following form: I have, for example, made it my maxim to increase my wealth by every safe means. Now I have a deposit in my hands, the owner of which has died and left no record of it.
This is, naturally, a case for my maxim. Now I want only to know whether that maxim could also hold as a universal practical law. I therefore apply the maxim to the present case and ask whether it could indeed take the form of a law, and consequently whether I could through my maxim at the same time give such a law as this: that everyone may deny a deposit which no one can prove has been made.
I at once become aware that such a principle, as a law, would annihilate itself since it would bring it about that there would be no deposits at all. The issue is not whether it would be good if everyone acted on my maxim, or whether I would like it, but only whether it would be possible for my maxim to be willed as a universal law. This gets at the form, not the matter or content, of the maxim.
A maxim has morally permissible form, for Kant, only if it could be willed as a universal law. If my maxim fails this test, as this one does, then it is morally impermissible for me to act on it. If my maxim passes the universal law test, then it is morally permissible for me to act on it, but I fully exercise my autonomy only if my fundamental reason for acting on this maxim is that it is morally permissible or required that I do so.
Imagine that I am moved by a feeling of sympathy to formulate the maxim to help someone in need. In this case, my original reason for formulating this maxim is that a certain feeling moved me. Such feelings are not entirely within my control and may not be present when someone actually needs my help.
So it would not be wrong to act on this maxim when the feeling of sympathy so moves me. But helping others in need would not fully exercise my autonomy unless my fundamental reason for doing so is not that I have some feeling or desire, but rather that it would be right or at least permissible to do so. Only when such a purely formal principle supplies the fundamental motive for my action do I act autonomously.
Even when my maxims are originally suggested by my feelings and desires, if I act only on morally permissible or required maxims because they are morally permissible or required , then my actions will be autonomous. And the reverse is true as well: for Kant this is the only way to act autonomously. The highest good and practical postulates Kant holds that reason unavoidably produces not only consciousness of the moral law but also the idea of a world in which there is both complete virtue and complete happiness, which he calls the highest good.
Furthermore, we can believe that the highest good is possible only if we also believe in the immortality of the soul and the existence of God, according to Kant. On this basis, he claims that it is morally necessary to believe in the immortality of the soul and the existence of God, which he calls postulates of pure practical reason. Moreover, our fundamental reason for choosing to act on such maxims should be that they have this lawgiving form, rather than that acting on them would achieve some end or goal that would satisfy a desire 5:27.
For example, I should help others in need not, at bottom, because doing so would make me feel good, even if it would, but rather because it is right; and it is right or permissible to help others in need because this maxim can be willed as a universal law. Although Kant holds that the morality of an action depends on the form of its maxim rather than its end or goal, he nevertheless claims both that every human action has an end and that we are unavoidably concerned with the consequences of our actions 4:437; 5:34; 6:5—7, 385. This is not a moral requirement but simply part of what it means to be a rational being.
Moreover, Kant also holds the stronger view that it is an unavoidable feature of human reason that we form ideas not only about the immediate and near-term consequences of our actions, but also about ultimate consequences. But neither of these ideas by itself expresses our unconditionally complete end, as human reason demands in its practical use. And happiness by itself would not be unconditionally good, because moral virtue is a condition of worthiness to be happy 5:111.
So our unconditionally complete end must combine both virtue and happiness. It is this ideal world combining complete virtue with complete happiness that Kant normally has in mind when he discusses the highest good. Kant says that we have a duty to promote the highest good, taken in this sense 5:125.
He does not mean, however, to be identifying some new duty that is not derived from the moral law, in addition to all the particular duties we have that are derived from the moral law. Rather, as we have seen, Kant holds that it is an unavoidable feature of human reasoning, instead of a moral requirement, that we represent all particular duties as leading toward the promotion of the highest good. Nor does Kant mean that anyone has a duty to realize or actually bring about the highest good through their own power, although his language sometimes suggests this 5:113, 122.
Here Kant does not mean that we unavoidably represent the highest good as possible, since his view is that we must represent it as possible only if we are to fulfill our duty of promoting it, and yet we may fail at doing our duty. Rather, we have a choice about whether to conceive of the highest good as possible, to regard it as impossible, or to remain noncommittal 5:144—145. But we can fulfill our duty of promoting the highest good only by choosing to conceive of the highest good as possible, because we cannot promote any end without believing that it is possible to achieve that end 5:122.
This is because to comply with that duty we must believe that the highest good is possible, and yet to believe that the highest good is possible we must believe that the soul is immortal and that God exists, according to Kant. The highest good, as we have seen, would be a world of complete morality and happiness. This does not mean that we can substitute endless progress toward complete conformity with the moral law for holiness in the concept of the highest good, but rather that we must represent that complete conformity as an infinite progress toward the limit of holiness.
Rather, his view is that we must represent holiness as continual progress toward complete conformity of our dispositions with the moral law that begins in this life and extends into infinity. Kant holds that virtue and happiness are not just combined but necessarily combined in the idea of the highest good, because only possessing virtue makes one worthy of happiness — a claim that Kant seems to regard as part of the content of the moral law 4:393; 5:110, 124. But we can represent virtue and happiness as necessarily combined only by representing virtue as the efficient cause of happiness.
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.
Канте прошёл вторую часть медобследования перед переходом в «Аль-Иттихад»
| Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests... | President Emmanuel Macron, during a speech on Europe, in the amphitheater of the Sorbonne University, Paris, April 25, 2024. |
| Cited Names - Kant Emmanuel | Полузащитник Н’Голо Канте после подписания контракта с саудовским клубом «Аль-Иттихад» приобрел профессиональный футбольный клуб в Бельгии. Об этом сообщает журналист Саша. |
Следи за собой, будь осторожен
- Blog Stats
- Иммануил Кант - биография, жизнь и труды философа
- Краткая биография
- Биография Иммануила Кант – читайте об авторе на Литрес
Advance: концепция Макрона о воинственной и сильной Европе ошибочна
Иммануил Кант — на странице писателя вы найдёте биографию, список книг и экранизаций, интересные факты из жизни, рецензии читателей и цитаты из книг. Tag: Immanuel Kant. Chris Hedges: The Evil Within Us. March 22, 2021. French President Emmanuel Macron delivers a speech on Europe in the amphitheater of the Sorbonne University, Thursday, April 25 in Paris.