Иммануил Кант родился в Кенигсберге в 1724 году, прожил в городе всю жизнь, не покидая его пределов, и был похоронен у северной стены Собора в профессорском склепе. Иммануил Кант – самый русский из европейских и самый европейский из русских философов. Он родился и всю жизнь работал в Кенигсберге – сегодня это Калининград, несколько лет даже. Emmanuel Kant, Gravure sur bois, publiée en 1881. Иммануил Кант родился 22 апреля 1724 года в Кенигсберге, Пруссия, в небогатой семье ремесленника. Подробная информация о фильме Последние дни Иммануила Канта на сайте Кинопоиск.
Climate change and the environment take a back seat in Emmanuel Macron's speech on Europe
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. Veröffentlichungen von Kant, Emmanuel. Сам Иммануил Кант был увлеченным своим делом ученым, талантливым преподавателем и эксцентричным, но при этом общительным человеком. Полузащитник «Челси» Н'Голо Канте завершил медицинское обследование перед подписанием контракта с клубом «Аль-Иттихад» из Саудовской Аравии. Канте прошёл вторую часть. Emmanuel Kant. 39 лет, Павлодар.
Immanuel Kant and Nazism
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. Let us give a random example: noting through exams the poor mastery of written French for many CEGEP students, we would suggest allowing future candidates to use correction software when taking the said exam. Watch video — Related posts:.
If the second hypothesis is correct and dark energy is really a quintessence, then the future may hold a lot of amazing and unpleasant surprises. Story Saved You can find this story in My Bookmarks. Or by navigating to the user icon in the top right.
Иногда бывают у нас сбои из-за этого. Мы его постоянно дорабатываем». Что точно не нуждается в доработке уже сейчас — это фразы, которые использует цифровой Иммануил Кант во время беседы. 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.
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. 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.
Популярное за месяц
- All books by this author
- Канте купил клуб в Бельгии после подписания контракта «Аль-Иттихадом»
- Биография — Иммануил Кант
- Availability - Spotify
- Голосование "Великие имена": в самолётах Канта уже называют "Эммануилом"
An ethics commentary blog on current events and issues
- I Kant Even: German Chancellor Triggered After Putin Quotes Legendary Philosopher
- «Эммануил Кант скачать все альбомы»: в социальных сетях шутят о философе
- Канте прошёл вторую часть медобследования перед переходом в «Аль-Иттихад» — РТ на русском
- Emmanuel Kant Archives - Carl Jung Depth Psychology
- Последние дни Иммануила Канта (1996)
«Politika»
- I Kant Even: German Chancellor Triggered After Putin Quotes Legendary Philosopher
- Голосование "Великие имена": в самолётах Канта уже называют "Эммануилом"
- Scholz “forbade” Putin from quoting Immanuel Kant
- emmanuelkant (Emmanuel Kant Duarte) · GitHub
Иммануил Кант: философ, присягнувший на верность Российской империи
С анимированным портретом 44-летнего Канта кисти Иоганна Готлиба Беккера теперь старается пообщаться почти каждый экскурсант Кафедрального собора. В беседе с вируальным Кантом надо соблюдать определенный этикет, точнее правила работы с системой. Во-первых , он не терпит фамильярности. В отличие от заполонивших современные гаджеты голосовых ассистенток, никакие «Ок», «Привет» или «Слушай» не привлекут внимание профессора. Активировать образ мыслителя следует, назвав ученое звание и прибавив «Здравствуйте» или «Добрый день». Во-вторых , не стоит задавать ему вопросы, пока внизу горит красная полоса-бегунок — кант в это время размышляет, копаясь в своем выдающемся искусственном интеллекте.
Традиционное возложение цветов — символа памяти и любви - к могиле мыслителя состоялось в 17. Несколько лет назад она была написана специально для этого места и с тех пор больше нигде не исполнялась. Главным компонентом спектакля о Канте, где Дмитрий Минченок проживает жизнь человека, которого все признают великим, остается импровизация. Гений в науке - в жизни один из нас. Он страдал, как мы, любил, как мы, и я ищу эти точки соприкосновения, где он является обычным человеком с необычными слабостями. Полноправным героем драмы остается музыка - музыка Баха, Генделя и других композиторов сопровождает то, что происходит внутри Канта.
Затем следовал единственный прием пищи за сутки — плотный обед в час дня. Обедал Кант всегда в компании друзей, среди которых были представители кенигсбергской знати и купечества. Чтобы беседа за столом была оживленной и интересной, философ даже придумал собственное правило: число гостей должно быть больше количества граций, но не превышать количество муз. А еще на обедах его доме говорили о чем угодно, но не о философии. Во второй половине дня Кант в одиночестве совершал продолжительную прогулку, строго следуя по одному и тому же маршруту. Некая эксцентричность привычек не мешала философу вести светский образ жизни — у него было много знакомств и приятелей, а сам он был галантен с дамами. Читал лекции по теоретической физике и тригонометрии Когда в марте 1746 года умер отец Иммануила Канта Георг, тому пришлось на время взять на себя домашние хлопоты, в том числе заботу о двух младших сестрах 17 и 14 лет и 9-летнем брате. В 1748-м Кант покинул Кенигсберг, стал давать частные уроки и на время забыл об университетской жизни. 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.
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. 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.
Главное правило жизни, которому учит философия Канта
[–] Emmanuel__Kant 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children). I have allways the high cost champion. Иммануил Кант родился в Кенигсберге в 1724 году, прожил в городе всю жизнь, не покидая его пределов, и был похоронен у северной стены Собора в профессорском склепе. French President Emmanuel Macron delivers a speech on Europe in the amphitheater of the Sorbonne University, Thursday, April 25 in Paris. Does Scholz have the right to prohibit anyone from quoting Kant? Emmanuel Kant is a figure of world heritage, not a Scholtz pocket dog!
«Эммануил Кант скачать все альбомы»: в социальных сетях шутят о философе
Адмиралы Балтийского флота уверены, что Канта звали Эммануэль. Эммануэль Кант.#кант #балтфлот Breaking Irish and International News. The governor of Kaliningrad, Anton Alikhanov, said Friday that Immanuel Kant is responsible for the outbreak of war in Ukraine. Новости. Видеоигры. Emmanuel Kant. 39 лет, Павлодар. Писатель Марк Мэнсон рассказал об этическом принципе, на котором базируется философия Канта — мыслителя, чьи идеи актуальны до сих пор.
Последние дни Иммануила Канта (1996)
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.
И если бы не смерть Елизаветы Петровны и не воцарение Петра III, может, и древний славянский Кролевец, превратившийся со временем в Кёнигсберг, стал бы частью русского государства ещё тогда.
Русские офицеры, образованные люди, с удовольствием ходили на лекции Канта, и даже брали у него частные уроки. А в 1762 году философа избрали членом Петербургской Академии наук. Философ и мыслитель В тот период Кант был столь загружен, что ему некогда было заниматься собственно наукой.
До 1762 года, когда Кёнигсберг вновь попал под власть Берлина, вышло лишь одно его небольшое эссе. Зато как раз в том году он публикует свой известный труд «Ложное мудрствование в четырёх фигурах силлогизма», а в 1763 году продолжил развитие высказанных идей в своей следующей работе «Опыт введения в философию понятия отрицательных величин». Это одно из самых известных его произведений, своеобразное исследование противоположностей и суждений.
Тогда же обозначились его стремления создать и сформулировать свою собственную теорию познания. Но путь к своей теории занял у Канта десятки лет. Сам он формулировал её как смычку трёх элементов — метафизики, морали и религии.
Соответственно, Кант рассматривал их как совокупность вопросов, соответственно каждому элементу это: «Что я могу знать? Высшей же точкой своей модели он видел антропологию, которая должна была отвечать на вопрос «Что такое человек? Пик творчества Канта — это его зрелость, 1780-е годы.
Именно тогда вышли самые знаменитые его работы, которые и по сей день являются одними из фундаментальных работ мировой философской мысли. В 1781 году выходит «Критика чистого разума» Кант попытался осмыслить возможности познания, в первую очередь эмпирическим путём. Как известно, данный путь познания, предполагающий практические опыты и исследования, является основополагающим в науке и по сей день, а заложенные Кантом мысли, творчески развитые и обогащённые последующими поколениями философов, имеют хождение не только в гуманитарных, но и в точных науках, и по сей день.
Такие понятия, как «вещь себе», субъективность пространства и времени, подчинение бытия человеческой мысли и по сей день являются важнейшими постулатами в философии. В продолжение своего трактата в 1788 году Кант выпускает «Критику практического разума». Каждому, кто изучал в университете философию, известно о разделении учёным разума на теоретический и практический, о необходимости сдерживать теорию при доброкачественной культивации практики.
Ещё более Кант в этой своей работе определил разум как основоположник познания в целом. Наконец, третья основополагающая философская работе Канта вышла в 1790 году, и получила название «Критика способности суждения». Здесь он окончательно подводит итоги своим мыслям, высказанным в двух вышерассмотренных трудах.
Кант делит философию на практическую и теоретическую, в основе которых лежит не метод, а предмет познания; а также выделяет царство свободы и царство природы, каждое из которых обладает своими собственными законами, только первое — физическими, основанными на принципах естествознания, то второй — человеческой моралью и нравственностью. В этой же своей работе он выделяет фундаментальные способности человеческой души — к познанию, к желанию и к удовольствию; а также подводит базу под принцип целесообразности природного многообразия, подчинения его некоей закономерности. Кроме того, Кант выделяет такие важные для его философской школы виды способности суждения — эстетическую и телеологическую.
Это далеко не полный обзор научного наследия Канта, мы прошлись лишь по самым известным его произведениям, составивших скелет кантианства — философского течения, последователи которого или же его образовавшихся в процессе ответвлений есть и по сей день. А его мысли нашли своё применение в философии науки, причём любой, даже той, которая выделилась как самостоятельное направление уже много позже смерти самого Канта. Конечно, реальные заслуги Канта намного шире.
В частности, именно он первым среди классических немецких философов осмыслил необходимость существования университетов, а также как никто метко дал характеристику своей эпохе. Просвещение он характеризовал как выход человека из состояния своего несовершеннолетия, то есть из невозможности пользоваться разумом без помощи кого-то другого. Это был в высшей степени оригинальный мыслитель, которого ставят в один ряд по значению для с Платоном, Коперником или Ньютоном.
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.
Heinrich Heine observed the magnitude of "his destructive, world-crushing thoughts" and considered him a sort of philosophical "executioner", comparing him to Robespierre with the observation that both men "represented in the highest the type of provincial bourgeois. Nature had destined them to weigh coffee and sugar, but Fate determined that they should weigh other things and placed on the scales of the one a king, on the scales of the other a god. Originally, Kant was buried inside the cathedral, but in 1880 his remains were moved to a neo-Gothic chapel adjoining the northeast corner of the cathedral.
Over the years, the chapel became dilapidated and was demolished to make way for the mausoleum, which was built on the same location. The tomb and its mausoleum are among the few artifacts of German times preserved by the Soviets after they captured the city. This new evidence of the power of human reason, called into question for many the traditional authority of politics and religion.
In particular, the modern mechanistic view of the world called into question the very possibility of morality; for, if there is no agency, there cannot be any responsibility. What should I do? What may I hope?
It argues that even though we cannot, strictly know that we are free, we can—and for practical purposes, must—think of ourselves as free. In brief, Kant argues that the mind itself necessarily makes a constitutive contribution to knowledge , that this contribution is transcendental rather than psychological, and that to act autonomously is to act according to rational moral principles. First, Kant makes a distinction in terms of the source of the content of knowledge: Cognitions a priori: "cognition independent of all experience and even of all the impressions of the senses".
Cognitions a posteriori: cognitions that have their sources in experience—that is, which are empirical. These can also be called "judgments of clarification". Synthetic proposition: a proposition whose predicate concept is not contained in its subject concept; e.
These can also be called "judgments of amplification". All analytic propositions are a priori it is analytically true that no analytic proposition could be a posteriori. By contrast, a synthetic proposition is one the content of which includes something new.
The truth or falsehood of a synthetic statement depends upon something more than what is contained in its concepts. The most obvious form of synthetic proposition is a simple empirical observation. This is because, unlike a posteriori cognition, a priori cognition has "true or strict...
It is the twofold aim of the Critique both to prove and to explain the possibility of this knowledge. In general terms, the former is a non-discursive representation of a particular object, and the latter is a discursive or mediate representation of a general type of object. Knowledge generated on this basis, under certain conditions, can be synthetic a priori.
In this "transcendental dialectic", Kant argues that many of the claims of traditional rationalist metaphysics violate the criteria he claims to establish in the first, "constructive" part of his book. Something is "transcendental" if it is a necessary condition for the possibility of experience, and "idealism" denotes some form of mind-dependence that must be further specified.
Труды философа там изучают, потому что они фундаментальны. Студентам интересны практически все темы - от теории познания до этики. Позицию своего коллеги разделили и российские ученые. Он рассуждал о моральном законе, свободе, достоинстве человека, возникающих трудностях и противоречиях.
Многие из его постулатов легко найдут применения в современном мире", - добавил заведующий кафедрой истории зарубежной философии РГГУ, доктор философских наук Алексей Круглов. Канта" Многие ученые на конгрессе сошлись во мнении, что полярные мнения относительно философии Канта идеально отражают дух работ мыслителя. Ведь он всегда призывал думать своим умом, а любое критическое высказывание создает почву для обсуждения. В этом, собственно, заключается особенность русского взгляда на Канта.
Immanuel Kant
Lecture du Monde en cours sur un autre appareil. Comment ne plus voir ce message? Nous vous conseillons de modifier votre mot de passe.
Кант - такая величина, что рядом с ним можно поставить любое другое слово, любую тему и написать на эту тему трактат.
Кант отражается в каждой капле мироздания, и, надеюсь, к концу разговора будет ясно, что музыка - не крошечная часть его вселенной. Кафедральный собор принимал Международный Кантовский конгресс, в котором в этом году участвовали 500 ученых из 23 стран. В 15 часов сотую, юбилейную, лекцию прочел профессор БФУ Леонард Александрович Калинников, посвятивший Канту более 180 статей и 8 монографий.
Традиционное возложение цветов — символа памяти и любви - к могиле мыслителя состоялось в 17. Несколько лет назад она была написана специально для этого места и с тех пор больше нигде не исполнялась. Главным компонентом спектакля о Канте, где Дмитрий Минченок проживает жизнь человека, которого все признают великим, остается импровизация.
Книга вышла тиражом в пять тысяч экземпляров и доступна в магазине Кафедрального собора. Получить издание с автографом смогли все, кто пришел на встречу с автором 21 и 23 апреля. Но эта лекция - также доказательство безбрежности мира Канта. Кант - такая величина, что рядом с ним можно поставить любое другое слово, любую тему и написать на эту тему трактат. Кант отражается в каждой капле мироздания, и, надеюсь, к концу разговора будет ясно, что музыка - не крошечная часть его вселенной. Кафедральный собор принимал Международный Кантовский конгресс, в котором в этом году участвовали 500 ученых из 23 стран. В 15 часов сотую, юбилейную, лекцию прочел профессор БФУ Леонард Александрович Калинников, посвятивший Канту более 180 статей и 8 монографий.
Солнечная система продолжает развитие всё время и однажды все планеты и спутники «упадут» на Солнце, что вызовет увеличение его теплоты и расщепление тел на мелкие частицы. Туманности же, которые часто видны в телескоп, как считал Кант, являются такими же галактиками, как Млечный Путь , но они являются скоплениями более высокого порядка. Кант высказал предположение, что за Сатурном скрываются другие планеты, что было подтверждено через много лет [65]. Этот труд Канта не был математически точным, однако был опубликован по просьбам знакомых, которые полагали, что таким образом можно привлечь внимание короля и получить финансирование на подтверждение этой гипотезы, поэтому работа была посвящена Фридриху II. Произведение не вызвало ажиотажа: большая часть тиража была либо уничтожена ввиду банкротства издателя, либо продана лишь в 60-е годы. Вряд ли Фридрих II видел эту работу [63]. Уже после публикации произведения, в 1761 и 1796 годах, гипотеза Канта была независимо от первоисточника воспроизведена учёными Пьер-Симоном Лапласом и Иоганном Генрихом Ламбертом , не знавшими о своём предшественнике [66]. Преподавание[ править править код ] В 1755 году Кант становится преподавателем Кёнигсбергского университета, но не получает заработной платы. Он довольствуется гонорарами, получаемыми от студентов, посещающих его курсы.
Таким образом, доход преподавателя определялся количеством студентов, записанных на лекции [67]. Свою первую публичную лекцию Кант дал в переполненном студентами доме профессора Кипке, где он в то время жил [68]. Занятия проводились в отдельных лекционных залах, которыми преподаватели либо владели, либо арендовали. Каждый преподаватель должен был строго следовать учебным пособиям, прилагаемым к университетской программе, однако сам Кант лишь соблюдал порядок тем, намеченных в учебниках, в то время как на лекциях давал студентам свой собственный материал. На лекциях философ часто демонстрировал так называемый «сухой юмор». Его редко видели улыбающимся, даже во время смеха аудитории от его собственных шуток. 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].
Ипохондрик, гений и городская звезда: 5 фактов об Иммануиле Канте
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.”. Иммануил Кант – немецкий философ, основал немецкую классическую философию, жил в эпоху Просвещения и романтизма. With an eye to Kant’s work, a philosopher and a sociologist argue that the Uber project robs drivers of their dignity. 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.