В бюллетенях голосования "Великие имена России", раздаваемых в самолётах, немецкого философа Иммануила Канта называют "Эммануилом". Retrouvez toute l’actualité de Emmanuel Kant. Suivez nos dernières informations, reportages, décryptages et analyses sur Le Point. Когда принималось решение широко отметить 300-летие немецкого философа Иммануила Канта, необходимость интеграции отечественной гуманитарной науки с мировой еще не. Иммануил Кант-немецкий философ, родоначальник немецкой классической философии, стоящий на грани эпох Просвещения и Романтизма. Immanuel Kant e il nazismo | ».
Я живу в Калининграде. Как мы отпраздновали День рождения Иммануила Канта? С вдохновением...
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. Like everything you see in the Kaliningrad region - said Alikhanov. He added that any prudent owner must deal with the inheritance received, and said that Russian thought often opposed Kant.
Дынкиным в ходе проведения российско-белорусского форума «Рубежи Союзного государства» , организованного в октябре 2022 г. В 2022-2023 г. Проект направлен на развитие научно-экспертного и общественного диалога между странами большого Балтийско-Скандинавского региона: странами ЕС — с одной стороны и Россией и Белоруссией — с другой, с привлечением экспертов из других стран и регионов мира. Главная цель — возобновление научно-экспертного диалога по «второму треку» по широкому перечню тематик между российскими и европейскими учеными: от социальных, экономических, экологических, культурных до проблем военной и невоенной безопасности.
Это означает, что нравственное сознание, в силу своей автономии, свободы, независимо также от религии. Такое воздаяние, как правило, неосуществимо в земной человеческой жизни. Но поскольку справедливость не знает границ во времени и пространстве, необходимо верить в загробную жизнь людей. Это доказательство, обосновывая разумность и необходимость религиозной веры, не утверждает, однако, что Бог и бессмертие души действительно существуют, ибо трансцендентное абсолютно непознаваемо. Всеобъемлющим нравственным законом является, по Канту, категорический императив безусловное повеление , который гласит: поступай так, чтобы максима т.
Теория практического разума включает в себя и учение о праве, правовом государстве. Право является реализацией свободы члена общества, ограниченной лишь свободой других его членов. Республика, принцип которой составляет разделение властей, — постулат чистого практического разума. Поэтому человек лишь постольку морален, поскольку он признаёт равенство всех других индивидов перед законом, отрицая тем самым любые сословные привилегии. Философско-исторические воззрения Канта непосредственно связаны с его философией права , т. В философии истории Канта придаётся первостепенное значение не только развитию нравственности и права, но и объективному «механизму» человеческой природы. Каждый индивид, сообразуясь только со своим разумением, неизбежно сталкивается с сопротивлением со стороны других индивидов. Это взаимное сопротивление характеризуется Кантом как антагонизм, становящийся движущей силой социального прогресса. Кант отвергает убеждение Ж.
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.
Moreover, we each necessarily give the same moral law to ourselves, just as we each construct our experience in accordance with the same categories. Its highest principle is self-consciousness, on which our knowledge of the basic laws of nature is based. Given sensory data, our understanding constructs experience according to these a priori laws. Practical philosophy is about how the world ought to be ibid. Its highest principle is the moral law, from which we derive duties that command how we ought to act in specific situations. Kant also claims that reflection on our moral duties and our need for happiness leads to the thought of an ideal world, which he calls the highest good see section 6. Given how the world is theoretical philosophy and how it ought to be practical philosophy , we aim to make the world better by constructing or realizing the highest good. In theoretical philosophy, we use our categories and forms of intuition to construct a world of experience or nature. In practical philosophy, we use the moral law to construct the idea of a moral world or a realm of ends that guides our conduct 4:433 , and ultimately to transform the natural world into the highest good. Theoretical philosophy deals with appearances, to which our knowledge is strictly limited; and practical philosophy deals with things in themselves, although it does not give us knowledge about things in themselves but only provides rational justification for certain beliefs about them for practical purposes. The three traditional topics of Leibniz-Wolffian special metaphysics were rational psychology, rational cosmology, and rational theology, which dealt, respectively, with the human soul, the world-whole, and God. In the part of the Critique of Pure Reason called the Transcendental Dialectic, Kant argues against the Leibniz-Wolffian view that human beings are capable of a priori knowledge in each of these domains, and he claims that the errors of Leibniz-Wolffian metaphysics are due to an illusion that has its seat in the nature of human reason itself. According to Kant, human reason necessarily produces ideas of the soul, the world-whole, and God; and these ideas unavoidably produce the illusion that we have a priori knowledge about transcendent objects corresponding to them. This is an illusion, however, because in fact we are not capable of a priori knowledge about any such transcendent objects. Nevertheless, Kant attempts to show that these illusory ideas have a positive, practical use. He thus reframes Leibniz-Wolffian special metaphysics as a practical science that he calls the metaphysics of morals. If this was not within his control at the time, then, while it may be useful to punish him in order to shape his behavior or to influence others, it nevertheless would not be correct to say that his action was morally wrong. Moral rightness and wrongness apply only to free agents who control their actions and have it in their power, at the time of their actions, either to act rightly or not. According to Kant, this is just common sense. On the compatibilist view, as Kant understands it, I am free whenever the cause of my action is within me. If we distinguish between involuntary convulsions and voluntary bodily movements, then on this view free actions are just voluntary bodily movements. The proximate causes of these movements are internal to the turnspit, the projectile, and the clock at the time of the movement. This cannot be sufficient for moral responsibility. Why not? The reason, Kant says, is ultimately that the causes of these movements occur in time. Return to the theft example. The thief decided to commit the theft, and his action flowed from this decision. If that cause too was an event occurring in time, then it must also have a cause beginning in a still earlier time, etc. All natural events occur in time and are thoroughly determined by causal chains that stretch backwards into the distant past. So there is no room for freedom in nature, which is deterministic in a strong sense. The root of the problem, for Kant, is time. But the past is out of his control now, in the present. Even if he could control those past events in the past, he cannot control them now. But in fact past events were not in his control in the past either if they too were determined by events in the more distant past, because eventually the causal antecedents of his action stretch back before his birth, and obviously events that occurred before his birth were never in his control. In that case, it would be a mistake to hold him morally responsible for it. Compatibilism, as Kant understands it, therefore locates the issue in the wrong place. Even if the cause of my action is internal to me, if it is in the past — for example, if my action today is determined by a decision I made yesterday, or from the character I developed in childhood — then it is not within my control now. The real issue is not whether the cause of my action is internal or external to me, but whether it is in my control now. For Kant, however, the cause of my action can be within my control now only if it is not in time. This is why Kant thinks that transcendental idealism is the only way to make sense of the kind of freedom that morality requires. Transcendental idealism allows that the cause of my action may be a thing in itself outside of time: namely, my noumenal self, which is free because it is not part of nature. My noumenal self is an uncaused cause outside of time, which therefore is not subject to the deterministic laws of nature in accordance with which our understanding constructs experience. Many puzzles arise on this picture that Kant does not resolve. For example, if my understanding constructs all appearances in my experience of nature, not only appearances of my own actions, then why am I responsible only for my own actions but not for everything that happens in the natural world? 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.
Daily Mail: Канте хочет перейти в «Интер»
Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze is credited with bringing Kant's contributions to racism to light in the 1990s among Western philosophers, who he believed often glossed over this part of his life and works.[210]. Подробная информация о фильме Последние дни Иммануила Канта на сайте Кинопоиск. Does Scholz have the right to prohibit anyone from quoting Kant? Emmanuel Kant is a figure of world heritage, not a Scholtz pocket dog! The Life, Work and Legacy of Carl Jung. Category: Emmanuel Kant.
Scholz “forbade” Putin from quoting Immanuel Kant
Всё это звучит несколько старомодно, но проблема согласия затрагивает любые человеческие отношения, и её последствия огромны. Другая проблематичная сфера — продажи и реклама. Почти все маркетинговые стратегии строятся на отношении к людям как к средству для получения денег. Кант назвал бы это неэтичным. Он с сомнением относился к капитализму, считая, что невозможно накопить состояние, не прибегая к каким-то манипуляциям и принуждению. Он не был антикапиталистом коммунизма тогда ещё не существовало , но ошеломляющее экономическое неравенство его беспокоило.
По его мнению, моральный долг каждого, кто накопил значительное состояние, — раздать большую часть нуждающимся. Предубеждения У многих мыслителей эпохи Просвещения были расистские взгляды, в то время это было распространено. Хотя Кант тоже высказывал их в начале карьеры, позднее он сменил мнение. Он понял, что ни у одной расы нет права порабощать другую, ведь это классический пример отношения к людям как к средству для достижения цели. Кант стал яростным противником колониальной политики.
Он говорил, что жестокость и угнетение, необходимые для порабощения народа, разрушают человечность людей независимо от их расы. Для того времени это была настолько радикальная идея, что многие называли её абсурдной. Но Кант считал, что единственный способ предотвратить войны и угнетение — это международное правительство, объединяющее государства. Несколько веков спустя на основе этого была создана Организация Объединённых Наций. Саморазвитие Большинство философов Просвещения считали, что лучший способ жить — как можно больше увеличивать счастье и сокращать страдания.
Такой подход называется утилитаризмом. Это и сегодня самый распространённый взгляд. Кант смотрел на жизнь совершенно по-другому. Он считал так: если хочешь сделать мир лучше, начни с себя. Вот как он это объяснял.
В большинстве случаев невозможно узнать, заслуживает человек счастья или страдания, потому что невозможно узнать его настоящие намерения и цели. Даже если стоит сделать кого-то счастливым, неизвестно, что именно для этого нужно. Вы не знаете чувств, ценностей и ожиданий другого человека. Не знаете, как ваш поступок на нём скажется. К тому же неясно, из чего именно состоит счастье или страдание.
Сегодня развод может причинять вам невыносимую боль, а через год вы будете считать это лучшим, что с вами происходило. Поэтому единственный логичный способ сделать мир лучше — это стать лучше самому. Ведь единственное, что вы знаете хоть сколько-то точно, — это вы сами. Кант определял саморазвитие как способность придерживаться категорических императивов. Он считал это долгом каждого.
С его точки зрения, награда или наказание за невыполнение долга даётся не в раю или аду, а в той жизни, которую каждый создаёт для себя. Следование моральным принципам делает жизнь лучше не только для вас, но и для всех вокруг. Точно так же нарушение этих принципов создаёт лишние страдания для вас и окружающих. Правило Канта запускает эффект домино. Став честнее с собой, вы станете честнее и с другими.
Это, в свою очередь, вдохновит людей быть честнее с собой и внесёт позитивные изменения в их жизнь. Если бы правила Канта придерживалось достаточное количество людей, мир изменился бы к лучшему. Причём сильнее, чем от целенаправленных действий какой-то организации. Самоуважение Уважение к себе и уважение к окружающим взаимосвязаны. Обращение с собственной психикой — это шаблон, который мы применяем для взаимодействия с другими людьми.
Вы не добьётесь больших успехов с другими, пока не разберётесь с собой. Самоуважение не в том, чтобы лучше себя чувствовать. Это понимание своей ценности. Понимание, что каждый человек, кем бы он ни был, заслуживает базовых прав и уважения. С точки зрения Канта, говорить себе, что ты ничего не стоящий кусок дерьма, так же неэтично, как говорить это другому человеку.
Причинять вред себе так же отвратительно, как причинять вред окружающим. Поэтому любовь к себе и забота о себе — это не то, чему можно научиться, и не то, что можно практиковать, как говорят сегодня. Это то, что вы призваны культивировать в себе с точки зрения этики. Как это повлияло на меня и как может повлиять на вас Философия Канта, если глубоко в неё погрузиться, полна противоречий.
По информации источника, «Арсенал» предложил Канте двухлетний контракт с опцией продления ещё на один сезон. По слухам, футболист сообщил своим представителям о готовности присоединиться к команде Микеля Артеты этим летом. Сообщается, что финансовые условия будут аналогичными тем, которые есть у Канте в «Челси» на данный момент.
О занимательных фактах из его биографии рассказываем в нашем материале. Не любил учебу в гимназии Родители отдали маленького Иммануила в обычную школу на окраине города. Однако друг семьи, немецкий богослов Франц Шульц, отметил способности мальчика и порекомендовал перевести его в престижную гимназию «Фридрихс-Коллегиум». А отучившись здесь, можно было рассчитывать на высокие должности в церкви и государственных учреждениях. Иммануил Кант изучал в гимназии древние языки, Библию, философию, древнегреческую литературу, теологию, логику. Школа отнимала почти все его время, а на протяжении учебного года у него был всего один выходной в неделю — воскресенье. Практически по всем предметам будущий философ имел высокие баллы. При этом воспоминания о годах в гимназии были не самыми приятными. Уже будучи взрослым, Кант сравнивал свое обучение с рабством, а также критиковал жестокость учителей, от которых доставалось его одноклассникам. Начал писать свою первую работу в 20 лет Один из главных трудов Канта — «Критика чистого разума» — вышел в 1781 году, когда автору было уже 57 лет. А вот свою первую работу мыслитель начал еще в 1744-м. Она называлась «Мысли об истинной оценке живых сил», и в ней Кант вступил в полемику с Декартом и Лейбницем. Научное сообщество встретило этот труд прохладно и раскритиковало автора за излишнюю многословность и поверхностные познания в области механики. И все-таки Иммануил Кант добился своей цели — на него обратили внимание.
Концепция Канта тесно связана с его же философией, поэтому анализ учения о праве, морали и государстве в целом представляется долгим, порой даже муторным и сложным в силу того, что его философские труды не читала, просто наслышана о некоторых максимах Канта.
Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...
Emmanuel Kant. Emmanuel Kant. Follow new publications. Биография немецкого философа Иммануила Канта: личная жизнь, присяга Российской империи, университет его имени, могила в Калининграде. Emmanuel Kant. Emmanuel Kant. Follow new publications. Иммануил Кант родился 22 апреля 1724 года в Кенигсберге, Пруссия, в небогатой семье ремесленника.
Chronicle of Normand Baillargeon: thinking about education with Emmanuel Kant
Эммануэль Кант, 07.08.2001. Доступны для просмотра фотографии, лайки, образование. Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze is credited with bringing Kant's contributions to racism to light in the 1990s among Western philosophers, who he believed often glossed over this part of his life and works.[210]. Кант Иммануил (Immanuel Kant) (22.4.1724, Кёнигсберг, ныне Калининград – 12.2.1804, там же), немецкий философ, создатель «трансцендентального идеализма».
Spotify is currently not available in your country.
Though Kant is as undeniably German as the Nord Stream pipeline, Putin (and anyone else anywhere) has a right to quote him morning, noon and. Иммануил Кант с младенчества, просто по праву рождения, был зачислен в гильдию шорников. Kant jettisoned traditional theistic proofs for God as utilized by natural theology, but sought to ground ethics, in part, in his concepts of categorical imperatives or universal maxims to guide morality.
Emmanuel Kant royalty-free images
Долгое время я упорно избегала сочинения Иммануила Канта, так как ранее была знакома с его учением вкратце, и понимала, что у него сложная концепция, которая заставляет потрудиться и потратить намного больше времен на изучение. Концепция Канта тесно связана с его же философией, поэтому анализ учения о праве, морали и государстве в целом представляется долгим, порой даже муторным и сложным в силу того, что его философские труды не читала, просто наслышана о некоторых максимах Канта.
Априорное знание, утверждает Кант, не выходит за границы возможного опыта, оно носит не сверхопытный, а доопытный характер. Вслед за анализом природы математического знания Кант ставит вопрос: как возможно чистое естествознание? Последнее, в отличие от чистой математики, содержит в себе не только априорные положения, но и эмпирические по своему происхождению понятия материя, движение, притяжение и т. Априорные понятия, каковыми прежде всего являются категории , сами по себе лишены содержания, они служат для синтеза чувственных данных, для формирования опыта, который не сводится к совокупности чувственных данных, но представляет собой их категориальный синтез, поскольку содержит в себе представление о причинно-следственных, необходимых отношениях.
Настаивая на несводимости априорных, т. Анализ единства априорного и эмпирического приводит Канта к постановке вопроса о логике науки, которую он называет трансцендентальной логикой. Трансцендентальным в противоположность трансцендентному Кант называет не сверхопытные, а доопытные априорные положения, поскольку они применяются только в сфере опыта. Трансцендентальная логика, в отличие от обычной, формальной логики, не отвлекается от всякого содержания, а, напротив, исследует содержательные формы знания, условия их возможности. Одним из таких основных условий является «трансцендентальное единство апперцепции» — такое единство самосознания познающего субъекта, которое предшествует каждому акту познания, как и эмпирическому самосознанию, и поэтому может быть лишь доопытным, априорным единством самосознания субъекта.
Последний раздел трансцендентальной логики — трансцендентальная диалектика, толкуемая как логика иллюзий, в которые впадает разум, поскольку он постоянно стремится выйти за пределы опыта. Это стремление — источник всех метафизических систем, их претензий на сверхопытное знание. Несостоятельность этих стремлений, однако, не означает, что основные идеи метафизики мир как целое; свобода, предшествующая необходимости; субстанциальность души; Бог должны быть отброшены. Эти идеи имманентны разуму, они являются регулятивными принципами познания, осуществляют высший синтез знаний, приобретаемых рассудком. Метафизика — высшая культура разума, без которой немыслимо его существование.
Необходимо, однако, создание метафизики как науки, как системы априорных синтетических суждений, которые не претендуют на познание трансцендентного. Это значит, что идеи метафизики никоим образом не указывают на существование того, что в них мыслится, т. Отсюда его убеждение: «Мне пришлось ограничить [aufheben] знание, чтобы освободить место вере... Речь идёт не об ограничении познания природы или общества, а об ограничении претензий разума на познание метафизической реальности, которая принципиально недоступна познанию. Одним из важнейших разделов трансцендентальной диалектики является учение об антиномиях , т.
Каждая антиномия состоит из тезиса и антитезиса, причём оба эти положения в равной мере доказуемы. Так, тезис одной из антиномий утверждает, что существует «свободная причинность», т. Антитезис, напротив, утверждает, что нет никакой свободы, и всё совершается по законам природы. Антиномии кажутся неразрешимыми противоречиями, однако Кант полагает, что они вполне разрешимы, если учесть, что, кроме чувственно воспринимаемой реальности, существует трансцендентный мир «вещей в себе» и человек представляет собой не только явление природы, но и «вещь в себе». В таком случае антиномия свободы и необходимости вполне разрешима: человек как «вещь в себе» свободен, но он же подчинён необходимости как явление, природное существо.
Все главные проблемы критической философии Канта сводятся к вопросу: «Что такое человек? В центре «Критики практического разума» — понятие чистого нравственного сознания, не признающего никаких иных побудительных мотивов поступков человека, кроме свободного от всяких предпочтений сознания долга.
Depending on the mood, the affirmation, a priori and without concept, can make a philosopher smile or choke up.
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.
The reason why I must represent this one objective world by means of a unified and unbounded space-time is that, as Kant argued in the Transcendental Aesthetic, space and time are the pure forms of human intuition. If we had different forms of intuition, then our experience would still have to constitute a unified whole in order for us to be self-conscious, but this would not be a spatio-temporal whole. So Kant distinguishes between space and time as pure forms of intuition, which belong solely to sensibility; and the formal intuitions of space and time or space-time , which are unified by the understanding B160—161.
These formal intuitions are the spatio-temporal whole within which our understanding constructs experience in accordance with the categories. So Kant concludes on this basis that the understanding is the true law-giver of nature. Our understanding does not provide the matter or content of our experience, but it does provide the basic formal structure within which we experience any matter received through our senses. He holds that there is a single fundamental principle of morality, on which all specific moral duties are based. He calls this moral law as it is manifested to us the categorical imperative see 5.
The moral law is a product of reason, for Kant, while the basic laws of nature are products of our understanding. There are important differences between the senses in which we are autonomous in constructing our experience and in morality. The moral law does not depend on any qualities that are peculiar to human nature but only on the nature of reason as such, although its manifestation to us as a categorical imperative as a law of duty reflects the fact that the human will is not necessarily determined by pure reason but is also influenced by other incentives rooted in our needs and inclinations; and our specific duties deriving from the categorical imperative do reflect human nature and the contingencies of human life. Despite these differences, however, Kant holds that we give the moral law to ourselves, as we also give the general laws of nature to ourselves, though in a different sense. Moreover, we each necessarily give the same moral law to ourselves, just as we each construct our experience in accordance with the same categories.
Its highest principle is self-consciousness, on which our knowledge of the basic laws of nature is based. Given sensory data, our understanding constructs experience according to these a priori laws. Practical philosophy is about how the world ought to be ibid. Its highest principle is the moral law, from which we derive duties that command how we ought to act in specific situations. Kant also claims that reflection on our moral duties and our need for happiness leads to the thought of an ideal world, which he calls the highest good see section 6.
Given how the world is theoretical philosophy and how it ought to be practical philosophy , we aim to make the world better by constructing or realizing the highest good. In theoretical philosophy, we use our categories and forms of intuition to construct a world of experience or nature. In practical philosophy, we use the moral law to construct the idea of a moral world or a realm of ends that guides our conduct 4:433 , and ultimately to transform the natural world into the highest good. Theoretical philosophy deals with appearances, to which our knowledge is strictly limited; and practical philosophy deals with things in themselves, although it does not give us knowledge about things in themselves but only provides rational justification for certain beliefs about them for practical purposes. The three traditional topics of Leibniz-Wolffian special metaphysics were rational psychology, rational cosmology, and rational theology, which dealt, respectively, with the human soul, the world-whole, and God.
In the part of the Critique of Pure Reason called the Transcendental Dialectic, Kant argues against the Leibniz-Wolffian view that human beings are capable of a priori knowledge in each of these domains, and he claims that the errors of Leibniz-Wolffian metaphysics are due to an illusion that has its seat in the nature of human reason itself. According to Kant, human reason necessarily produces ideas of the soul, the world-whole, and God; and these ideas unavoidably produce the illusion that we have a priori knowledge about transcendent objects corresponding to them. This is an illusion, however, because in fact we are not capable of a priori knowledge about any such transcendent objects. Nevertheless, Kant attempts to show that these illusory ideas have a positive, practical use. He thus reframes Leibniz-Wolffian special metaphysics as a practical science that he calls the metaphysics of morals.
If this was not within his control at the time, then, while it may be useful to punish him in order to shape his behavior or to influence others, it nevertheless would not be correct to say that his action was morally wrong. Moral rightness and wrongness apply only to free agents who control their actions and have it in their power, at the time of their actions, either to act rightly or not. According to Kant, this is just common sense. On the compatibilist view, as Kant understands it, I am free whenever the cause of my action is within me. If we distinguish between involuntary convulsions and voluntary bodily movements, then on this view free actions are just voluntary bodily movements.
The proximate causes of these movements are internal to the turnspit, the projectile, and the clock at the time of the movement. This cannot be sufficient for moral responsibility. Why not? The reason, Kant says, is ultimately that the causes of these movements occur in time. Return to the theft example.
The thief decided to commit the theft, and his action flowed from this decision. If that cause too was an event occurring in time, then it must also have a cause beginning in a still earlier time, etc. All natural events occur in time and are thoroughly determined by causal chains that stretch backwards into the distant past. So there is no room for freedom in nature, which is deterministic in a strong sense. The root of the problem, for Kant, is time.
But the past is out of his control now, in the present. Even if he could control those past events in the past, he cannot control them now. But in fact past events were not in his control in the past either if they too were determined by events in the more distant past, because eventually the causal antecedents of his action stretch back before his birth, and obviously events that occurred before his birth were never in his control. In that case, it would be a mistake to hold him morally responsible for it. Compatibilism, as Kant understands it, therefore locates the issue in the wrong place.
Even if the cause of my action is internal to me, if it is in the past — for example, if my action today is determined by a decision I made yesterday, or from the character I developed in childhood — then it is not within my control now. The real issue is not whether the cause of my action is internal or external to me, but whether it is in my control now. For Kant, however, the cause of my action can be within my control now only if it is not in time. This is why Kant thinks that transcendental idealism is the only way to make sense of the kind of freedom that morality requires. Transcendental idealism allows that the cause of my action may be a thing in itself outside of time: namely, my noumenal self, which is free because it is not part of nature.
My noumenal self is an uncaused cause outside of time, which therefore is not subject to the deterministic laws of nature in accordance with which our understanding constructs experience. Many puzzles arise on this picture that Kant does not resolve. For example, if my understanding constructs all appearances in my experience of nature, not only appearances of my own actions, then why am I responsible only for my own actions but not for everything that happens in the natural world? 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.
«Эммануил Кант скачать все альбомы»: в социальных сетях шутят о философе
So I must be able to relate any given representation to an objective world in order for it to count as mine. On the other hand, self-consciousness would also be impossible if I represented multiple objective worlds, even if I could relate all of my representations to some objective world or other. In that case, I could not become conscious of an identical self that has, say, representation 1 in space-time A and representation 2 in space-time B. It may be possible to imagine disjointed spaces and times, but it is not possible to represent them as objectively real.
So self-consciousness requires that I can relate all of my representations to a single objective world. The reason why I must represent this one objective world by means of a unified and unbounded space-time is that, as Kant argued in the Transcendental Aesthetic, space and time are the pure forms of human intuition. If we had different forms of intuition, then our experience would still have to constitute a unified whole in order for us to be self-conscious, but this would not be a spatio-temporal whole.
So Kant distinguishes between space and time as pure forms of intuition, which belong solely to sensibility; and the formal intuitions of space and time or space-time , which are unified by the understanding B160—161. These formal intuitions are the spatio-temporal whole within which our understanding constructs experience in accordance with the categories. So Kant concludes on this basis that the understanding is the true law-giver of nature.
Our understanding does not provide the matter or content of our experience, but it does provide the basic formal structure within which we experience any matter received through our senses. He holds that there is a single fundamental principle of morality, on which all specific moral duties are based. He calls this moral law as it is manifested to us the categorical imperative see 5.
The moral law is a product of reason, for Kant, while the basic laws of nature are products of our understanding. There are important differences between the senses in which we are autonomous in constructing our experience and in morality. The moral law does not depend on any qualities that are peculiar to human nature but only on the nature of reason as such, although its manifestation to us as a categorical imperative as a law of duty reflects the fact that the human will is not necessarily determined by pure reason but is also influenced by other incentives rooted in our needs and inclinations; and our specific duties deriving from the categorical imperative do reflect human nature and the contingencies of human life.
Despite these differences, however, Kant holds that we give the moral law to ourselves, as we also give the general laws of nature to ourselves, though in a different sense. Moreover, we each necessarily give the same moral law to ourselves, just as we each construct our experience in accordance with the same categories. Its highest principle is self-consciousness, on which our knowledge of the basic laws of nature is based.
Given sensory data, our understanding constructs experience according to these a priori laws. Practical philosophy is about how the world ought to be ibid. Its highest principle is the moral law, from which we derive duties that command how we ought to act in specific situations.
Kant also claims that reflection on our moral duties and our need for happiness leads to the thought of an ideal world, which he calls the highest good see section 6. Given how the world is theoretical philosophy and how it ought to be practical philosophy , we aim to make the world better by constructing or realizing the highest good. In theoretical philosophy, we use our categories and forms of intuition to construct a world of experience or nature.
In practical philosophy, we use the moral law to construct the idea of a moral world or a realm of ends that guides our conduct 4:433 , and ultimately to transform the natural world into the highest good. Theoretical philosophy deals with appearances, to which our knowledge is strictly limited; and practical philosophy deals with things in themselves, although it does not give us knowledge about things in themselves but only provides rational justification for certain beliefs about them for practical purposes. The three traditional topics of Leibniz-Wolffian special metaphysics were rational psychology, rational cosmology, and rational theology, which dealt, respectively, with the human soul, the world-whole, and God.
In the part of the Critique of Pure Reason called the Transcendental Dialectic, Kant argues against the Leibniz-Wolffian view that human beings are capable of a priori knowledge in each of these domains, and he claims that the errors of Leibniz-Wolffian metaphysics are due to an illusion that has its seat in the nature of human reason itself. According to Kant, human reason necessarily produces ideas of the soul, the world-whole, and God; and these ideas unavoidably produce the illusion that we have a priori knowledge about transcendent objects corresponding to them. This is an illusion, however, because in fact we are not capable of a priori knowledge about any such transcendent objects.
Nevertheless, Kant attempts to show that these illusory ideas have a positive, practical use. He thus reframes Leibniz-Wolffian special metaphysics as a practical science that he calls the metaphysics of morals. If this was not within his control at the time, then, while it may be useful to punish him in order to shape his behavior or to influence others, it nevertheless would not be correct to say that his action was morally wrong.
Moral rightness and wrongness apply only to free agents who control their actions and have it in their power, at the time of their actions, either to act rightly or not. According to Kant, this is just common sense. On the compatibilist view, as Kant understands it, I am free whenever the cause of my action is within me.
If we distinguish between involuntary convulsions and voluntary bodily movements, then on this view free actions are just voluntary bodily movements. The proximate causes of these movements are internal to the turnspit, the projectile, and the clock at the time of the movement. This cannot be sufficient for moral responsibility.
Why not? The reason, Kant says, is ultimately that the causes of these movements occur in time. Return to the theft example.
The thief decided to commit the theft, and his action flowed from this decision. If that cause too was an event occurring in time, then it must also have a cause beginning in a still earlier time, etc. All natural events occur in time and are thoroughly determined by causal chains that stretch backwards into the distant past.
So there is no room for freedom in nature, which is deterministic in a strong sense. The root of the problem, for Kant, is time. But the past is out of his control now, in the present.
Even if he could control those past events in the past, he cannot control them now. But in fact past events were not in his control in the past either if they too were determined by events in the more distant past, because eventually the causal antecedents of his action stretch back before his birth, and obviously events that occurred before his birth were never in his control. In that case, it would be a mistake to hold him morally responsible for it.
Compatibilism, as Kant understands it, therefore locates the issue in the wrong place. Even if the cause of my action is internal to me, if it is in the past — for example, if my action today is determined by a decision I made yesterday, or from the character I developed in childhood — then it is not within my control now. The real issue is not whether the cause of my action is internal or external to me, but whether it is in my control now.
For Kant, however, the cause of my action can be within my control now only if it is not in time. This is why Kant thinks that transcendental idealism is the only way to make sense of the kind of freedom that morality requires. Transcendental idealism allows that the cause of my action may be a thing in itself outside of time: namely, my noumenal self, which is free because it is not part of nature.
My noumenal self is an uncaused cause outside of time, which therefore is not subject to the deterministic laws of nature in accordance with which our understanding constructs experience. Many puzzles arise on this picture that Kant does not resolve. For example, if my understanding constructs all appearances in my experience of nature, not only appearances of my own actions, then why am I responsible only for my own actions but not for everything that happens in the natural world?
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.
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.
По слухам, футболист сообщил своим представителям о готовности присоединиться к команде Микеля Артеты этим летом. Сообщается, что финансовые условия будут аналогичными тем, которые есть у Канте в «Челси» на данный момент. Материалы по теме.
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.