Emmanuel Kant. Emmanuel Kant. Follow new publications. emmanuelle_kant. ·@emmakant·. Loving life. Смотрите 57 фотографии онлайн по теме кант мемы. suggesting in 2013 that he should be made an official symbol of the Kaliningrad Region. 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.
Emmanuel Kant Duarte
Эммануэль (а именно такое имя при рождении получил будущий гений философии) Кант родился 22 апреля 1724 года в Кёнигсберге в семье шорника – мастера по изготовлению. emmanuelle_kant. Архив. Фотографии. Blog grant promo. Recommend this entry Has been recommended Send news. подкасты – радио sputnik, эммануэль макрон, нато, евросоюз, мулен руж, вторая мировая война (1939-1945), европа, польша, россия, анджей дуда, политика – радио sputnik, боевые действия. Полузащитник «Челси» Н'Голо Канте дал предварительное согласие на переход в «Арсенал» по окончании сезона, сообщает Fichajes. U.S. News. Full Menu.
Кто такой Иммануил Кант
- Последние дни Иммануила Канта (1994) Les derniers jours d Emmanuel Kant
- Искусственный интеллект «оживил» Иммануила Канта в Калининграде
- Читайте также
- Кто такой Иммануил Кант
Последние дни Иммануила Канта (1996)
Comment ne plus voir ce message? Nous vous conseillons de modifier votre mot de passe. Subscribe to continue reading.
They were careful to avoid all the old arguments and all the old slogans of their predecessors in the seventeenth century. Not once did the idealists quote Scripture in defense of passive obedience; not once did they preach the divine right of kings in the old sense of the word. To have done so would have been impolitic.
Hence the members of the idealist school were careful never to attack these terms—they were merely so reinterpreted as to become meaningless. McGovern understood that some idealists those who argued that reality as we know it is largely a construction of the human mind , most notably Kant, were liberal individualists in their political theory, whereas other idealists, such as Hegel, were far more authoritarian. Instead, I wish to conclude by calling attention to the disdain that some fascist philosophers displayed toward Kant. But here we need to consider the crucial question: To what extent should a philosopher be held responsible for how later thinkers used his ideas, especially when those later interpretations differ radically from how the original philosopher understood his own system?
Though Kant is as German as Tolstoy, who regarded himself as a philosopher and not a writer, is Russian, their brilliance belongs to the world. Scholz, in other words, is free to quote Tolstoy, once, of course, he first learns to read. Putin, as it happens, spent much of his working life in Germany and he speaks the language of Kant, Schiller and Goethe at least as fluently as Scholz which is, admittedly, a low bar. Not only that but Putin has been praising and quoting Kant for decades and has even gone so far as saying that the philosopher should be made an official symbol of Kaliningrad Region. Catherine the Great , who was actually born in Prussia, and the German speaking and Kant admiring Putin have carried on those links into more modern times. Scholz, who fancies himself as something of a bar room philosopher, is having none of that. But Kant was a philosopher, not a statesman and he wrote that thesis in 1795, just when the French Revolutionary Wars and a certain Napoleon Bonaparte were getting into their stride.
The philosopher, famous for his work on ethics, aesthetics and philosophical ontology, is rightly considered one of the pillars of German classical philosophy. Though he is as undeniably German as the Nord Stream pipeline, Putin and anyone else anywhere has a right to quote him morning, noon and night. Though Kant is as German as Tolstoy, who regarded himself as a philosopher and not a writer, is Russian, their brilliance belongs to the world. Scholz, in other words, is free to quote Tolstoy, once, of course, he first learns to read. Putin, as it happens, spent much of his working life in Germany and he speaks the language of Kant, Schiller and Goethe at least as fluently as Scholz which is, admittedly, a low bar. Not only that but Putin has been praising and quoting Kant for decades and has even gone so far as saying that the philosopher should be made an official symbol of Kaliningrad Region. Catherine the Great , who was actually born in Prussia, and the German speaking and Kant admiring Putin have carried on those links into more modern times.
Climate change and the environment take a back seat in Emmanuel Macron's speech on Europe
В бюллетенях голосования "Великие имена России", раздаваемых в самолётах, немецкого философа Иммануила Канта называют "Эммануилом". Settings and more. Buffering. Emmanuelle Kant (Original Mix) (our 2nd recordeal!) BESTINSPACE ™. Эммануэль Кант, 07.08.2001. Доступны для просмотра фотографии, лайки, образование. Источник: РИА "Новости".
Spotify is currently not available in your country.
Knutzen dissuaded Kant from the theory of pre-established harmony , which he regarded as "the pillow for the lazy mind". The theory of transcendental idealism that Kant later included in the Critique of Pure Reason was developed partially in opposition to traditional idealism. Kant had contacts with students, colleagues, friends and diners who frequented the local Masonic lodge. In 1749, he published his first philosophical work, Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces written in 1745—1747. In his 1756 essay on the theory of winds, Kant laid out an original insight into the Coriolis force. In 1756, Kant also published three papers on the 1755 Lisbon earthquake. In 1757, Kant began lecturing on geography making him one of the first lecturers to explicitly teach geography as its own subject. After Kant became a professor in 1770, he expanded the topics of his lectures to include lectures on natural law, ethics, and anthropology, along with other topics. Kant also correctly deduced that the Milky Way was a large disk of stars , which he theorized formed from a much larger spinning gas cloud.
He further suggested that other distant "nebulae" might be other galaxies. These postulations opened new horizons for astronomy, for the first time extending it beyond the solar system to galactic and intergalactic realms. In the early 1760s, Kant produced a series of important works in philosophy. In defense of this appointment, Kant wrote his inaugural dissertation On the Form and Principles of the Sensible and the Intelligible World [c] This work saw the emergence of several central themes of his mature work, including the distinction between the faculties of intellectual thought and sensible receptivity. To miss this distinction would mean to commit the error of subreption , and, as he says in the last chapter of the dissertation, only in avoiding this error does metaphysics flourish. While it is true that Kant wrote his greatest works relatively late in life, there is a tendency to underestimate the value of his earlier works. Recent Kant scholarship has devoted more attention to these "pre-critical" writings and has recognized a degree of continuity with his mature work. In correspondence with his ex-student and friend Markus Herz , Kant admitted that, in the inaugural dissertation, he had failed to account for the relation between our sensible and intellectual faculties.
Kant also credited David Hume with awakening him from a "dogmatic slumber" in which he had unquestioningly accepted the tenets of both religion and natural philosophy. Ideas such as causality , morality , and objects are not evident in experience, so their reality may be questioned. Kant felt that reason could remove this skepticism, and he set himself to solving these problems. Kant was quite upset with its reception. Recognizing the need to clarify the original treatise, Kant wrote the Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics in 1783 as a summary of its main views. In 1786, Karl Leonhard Reinhold published a series of public letters on Kantian philosophy. Friedrich Jacobi had accused the recently deceased Gotthold Ephraim Lessing a distinguished dramatist and philosophical essayist of Spinozism. The controversy gradually escalated into a debate about the values of the Enlightenment and the value of reason.
Most of his subsequent work focused on other areas of philosophy. The 1790 Critique of the Power of Judgment the third Critique applied the Kantian system to aesthetics and teleology. There were several journals devoted solely to defending and criticizing Kantian philosophy. Despite his success, philosophical trends were moving in another direction. In what was one of his final acts expounding a stance on philosophical questions, Kant opposed these developments and publicly denounced Fichte in an open letter in 1799. Kant always cut a curious figure in his lifetime for his modest, rigorously scheduled habits, which have been referred to as clocklike. 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.
But just as Kant denies that things in themselves are the only or privileged reality, he also denies that correspondence with things in themselves is the only kind of truth.
Empirical judgments are true just in case they correspond with their empirical objects in accordance with the a priori principles that structure all possible human experience. But the fact that Kant can appeal in this way to an objective criterion of empirical truth that is internal to our experience has not been enough to convince some critics that Kant is innocent of an unacceptable form of skepticism, mainly because of his insistence on our irreparable ignorance about things in themselves. The role of things in themselves, on the two-object interpretation, is to affect our senses and thereby to provide the sensory data from which our cognitive faculties construct appearances within the framework of our a priori intuitions of space and time and a priori concepts such as causality. But if there is no space, time, change, or causation in the realm of things in themselves, then how can things in themselves affect us? Transcendental affection seems to involve a causal relation between things in themselves and our sensibility. If this is simply the way we unavoidably think about transcendental affection, because we can give positive content to this thought only by employing the concept of a cause, while it is nevertheless strictly false that things in themselves affect us causally, then it seems not only that we are ignorant of how things in themselves really affect us. It seems, rather, to be incoherent that things in themselves could affect us at all if they are not in space or time. On this view, transcendental idealism does not distinguish between two classes of objects but rather between two different aspects of one and the same class of objects.
That is, appearances are aspects of the same objects that also exist in themselves. So, on this reading, appearances are not mental representations, and transcendental idealism is not a form of phenomenalism. One version treats transcendental idealism as a metaphysical theory according to which objects have two aspects in the sense that they have two sets of properties: one set of relational properties that appear to us and are spatial and temporal, and another set of intrinsic properties that do not appear to us and are not spatial or temporal Langton 1998. This property-dualist interpretation faces epistemological objections similar to those faced by the two-objects interpretation, because we are in no better position to acquire knowledge about properties that do not appear to us than we are to acquire knowledge about objects that do not appear to us. Moreover, this interpretation also seems to imply that things in themselves are spatial and temporal, since appearances have spatial and temporal properties, and on this view appearances are the same objects as things in themselves. But Kant explicitly denies that space and time are properties of things in themselves. A second version of the two-aspects theory departs more radically from the traditional two-objects interpretation by denying that transcendental idealism is at bottom a metaphysical theory. Instead, it interprets transcendental idealism as a fundamentally epistemological theory that distinguishes between two standpoints on the objects of experience: the human standpoint, from which objects are viewed relative to epistemic conditions that are peculiar to human cognitive faculties namely, the a priori forms of our sensible intuition ; and the standpoint of an intuitive intellect, from which the same objects could be known in themselves and independently of any epistemic conditions Allison 2004.
Human beings cannot really take up the latter standpoint but can form only an empty concept of things as they exist in themselves by abstracting from all the content of our experience and leaving only the purely formal thought of an object in general. So transcendental idealism, on this interpretation, is essentially the thesis that we are limited to the human standpoint, and the concept of a thing in itself plays the role of enabling us to chart the boundaries of the human standpoint by stepping beyond them in abstract but empty thought. One criticism of this epistemological version of the two-aspects theory is that it avoids the objections to other interpretations by attributing to Kant a more limited project than the text of the Critique warrants. There are passages that support this reading. The transcendental deduction The transcendental deduction is the central argument of the Critique of Pure Reason and one of the most complex and difficult texts in the history of philosophy. Given its complexity, there are naturally many different ways of interpreting the deduction. The goal of the transcendental deduction is to show that we have a priori concepts or categories that are objectively valid, or that apply necessarily to all objects in the world that we experience. To show this, Kant argues that the categories are necessary conditions of experience, or that we could not have experience without the categories.
For they then are related necessarily and a priori to objects of experience, since only by means of them can any object of experience be thought at all. The transcendental deduction of all a priori concepts therefore has a principle toward which the entire investigation must be directed, namely this: that they must be recognized as a priori conditions of the possibility of experiences whether of the intuition that is encountered in them, or of the thinking. Concepts that supply the objective ground of the possibility of experience are necessary just for that reason. Here Kant claims, against the Lockean view, that self-consciousness arises from combining or synthesizing representations with one another regardless of their content. In short, Kant has a formal conception of self-consciousness rather than a material one. Since no particular content of my experience is invariable, self-consciousness must derive from my experience having an invariable form or structure, and consciousness of the identity of myself through all of my changing experiences must consist in awareness of the formal unity and law-governed regularity of my experience. The continuous form of my experience is the necessary correlate for my sense of a continuous self. There are at least two possible versions of the formal conception of self-consciousness: a realist and an idealist version.
On the realist version, nature itself is law-governed and we become self-conscious by attending to its law-governed regularities, which also makes this an empiricist view of self-consciousness. The idea of an identical self that persists throughout all of our experience, on this view, arises from the law-governed regularity of nature, and our representations exhibit order and regularity because reality itself is ordered and regular. Kant rejects this realist view and embraces a conception of self-consciousness that is both formal and idealist. According to Kant, the formal structure of our experience, its unity and law-governed regularity, is an achievement of our cognitive faculties rather than a property of reality in itself. Our experience has a constant form because our mind constructs experience in a law-governed way. In other words, even if reality in itself were law-governed, its laws could not simply migrate over to our mind or imprint themselves on us while our mind is entirely passive. We must exercise an active capacity to represent the world as combined or ordered in a law-governed way, because otherwise we could not represent the world as law-governed even if it were law-governed in itself. Moreover, this capacity to represent the world as law-governed must be a priori because it is a condition of self-consciousness, and we would already have to be self-conscious in order to learn from our experience that there are law-governed regularities in the world.
So it is necessary for self-consciousness that we exercise an a priori capacity to represent the world as law-governed. But this would also be sufficient for self-consciousness if we could exercise our a priori capacity to represent the world as law-governed even if reality in itself were not law-governed. In that case, the realist and empiricist conception of self-consciousness would be false, and the formal idealist view would be true. Self-consciousness for Kant therefore involves a priori knowledge about the necessary and universal truth expressed in this principle of apperception, and a priori knowledge cannot be based on experience. The next condition is that self-consciousness requires me to represent an objective world distinct from my subjective representations — that is, distinct from my thoughts about and sensations of that objective world. Kant uses this connection between self-consciousness and objectivity to insert the categories into his argument. In order to be self-conscious, I cannot be wholly absorbed in the contents of my perceptions but must distinguish myself from the rest of the world. But if self-consciousness is an achievement of the mind, then how does the mind achieve this sense that there is a distinction between the I that perceives and the contents of its perceptions?
According to Kant, the mind achieves this sense by distinguishing representations that necessarily belong together from representations that are not necessarily connected but are merely associated in a contingent way. Imagine a house that is too large to fit into your visual field from your vantage point near its front door. Now imagine that you walk around the house, successively perceiving each of its sides. Eventually you perceive the entire house, but not all at once, and you judge that each of your representations of the sides of the house necessarily belong together as sides of one house and that anyone who denied this would be mistaken. But now imagine that you grew up in this house and associate a feeling of nostalgia with it. You would not judge that representations of this house are necessarily connected with feelings of nostalgia. That is, you would not think that other people seeing the house for the first time would be mistaken if they denied that it is connected with nostalgia, because you recognize that this house is connected with nostalgia for you but not necessarily for everyone. The point here is not that we must successfully identify which representations necessarily belong together and which are merely associated contingently, but rather that to be self-conscious we must at least make this general distinction between objective and merely subjective connections of representations.
That is the aim of the copula is in them: to distinguish the objective unity of given representations from the subjective. Kant is speaking here about the mental act of judging that results in the formation of a judgment. We must represent an objective world in order to distinguish ourselves from it, and we represent an objective world by judging that some representations necessarily belong together. Moreover, recall from 4. It follows that objective connections in the world cannot simply imprint themselves on our mind. The understanding constructs experience by providing the a priori rules, or the framework of necessary laws, in accordance with which we judge representations to be objective. These rules are the pure concepts of the understanding or categories, which are therefore conditions of self-consciousness, since they are rules for judging about an objective world, and self-consciousness requires that we distinguish ourselves from an objective world. Kant identifies the categories in what he calls the metaphysical deduction, which precedes the transcendental deduction.
But since categories are not mere logical functions but instead are rules for making judgments about objects or an objective world, Kant arrives at his table of categories by considering how each logical function would structure judgments about objects within our spatio-temporal forms of intuition. For example, he claims that categorical judgments express a logical relation between subject and predicate that corresponds to the ontological relation between substance and accident; and the logical form of a hypothetical judgment expresses a relation that corresponds to cause and effect. Taken together with this argument, then, the transcendental deduction argues that we become self-conscious by representing an objective world of substances that interact according to causal laws. To see why this further condition is required, consider that so far we have seen why Kant holds that we must represent an objective world in order to be self-conscious, but we could represent an objective world even if it were not possible to relate all of our representations to this objective world. For all that has been said so far, we might still have unruly representations that we cannot relate in any way to the objective framework of our experience. So I must be able to relate any given representation to an objective world in order for it to count as mine. On the other hand, self-consciousness would also be impossible if I represented multiple objective worlds, even if I could relate all of my representations to some objective world or other. In that case, I could not become conscious of an identical self that has, say, representation 1 in space-time A and representation 2 in space-time B.
It may be possible to imagine disjointed spaces and times, but it is not possible to represent them as objectively real. So self-consciousness requires that I can relate all of my representations to a single objective world. The reason why I must represent this one objective world by means of a unified and unbounded space-time is that, as Kant argued in the Transcendental Aesthetic, space and time are the pure forms of human intuition. If we had different forms of intuition, then our experience would still have to constitute a unified whole in order for us to be self-conscious, but this would not be a spatio-temporal whole. So Kant distinguishes between space and time as pure forms of intuition, which belong solely to sensibility; and the formal intuitions of space and time or space-time , which are unified by the understanding B160—161. These formal intuitions are the spatio-temporal whole within which our understanding constructs experience in accordance with the categories. So Kant concludes on this basis that the understanding is the true law-giver of nature. Our understanding does not provide the matter or content of our experience, but it does provide the basic formal structure within which we experience any matter received through our senses.
He holds that there is a single fundamental principle of morality, on which all specific moral duties are based. He calls this moral law as it is manifested to us the categorical imperative see 5. The moral law is a product of reason, for Kant, while the basic laws of nature are products of our understanding. There are important differences between the senses in which we are autonomous in constructing our experience and in morality. The moral law does not depend on any qualities that are peculiar to human nature but only on the nature of reason as such, although its manifestation to us as a categorical imperative as a law of duty reflects the fact that the human will is not necessarily determined by pure reason but is also influenced by other incentives rooted in our needs and inclinations; and our specific duties deriving from the categorical imperative do reflect human nature and the contingencies of human life. Despite these differences, however, Kant holds that we give the moral law to ourselves, as we also give the general laws of nature to ourselves, though in a different sense. Moreover, we each necessarily give the same moral law to ourselves, just as we each construct our experience in accordance with the same categories. Its highest principle is self-consciousness, on which our knowledge of the basic laws of nature is based.
Given sensory data, our understanding constructs experience according to these a priori laws. Practical philosophy is about how the world ought to be ibid. Its highest principle is the moral law, from which we derive duties that command how we ought to act in specific situations. Kant also claims that reflection on our moral duties and our need for happiness leads to the thought of an ideal world, which he calls the highest good see section 6. 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.
Thanks to Germany reneging on the Minsk Accords, colluding in blowing up Nordstream and tooling up the Nazi regime in Kiev to the hilt, other wars are now picking up pace and, at the time of writing, it is uncertain if all of us will come out safe on the other side of Armageddon, which is increasingly being talked about. But talk, like philosophy, gets us so far and no further. But what he cannot and should not do is encourage the Nazi regime in Estonia to attack their Orthodox Christian monasteries because they will not break with the Moscow Patriarchy.
And, if Scholz wants to go all Kant on us, he should refresh his mind on what both Kant and Mendelssohn had to say on the sort of religious oppression we see the Estonian, Ukrainian and similar states meting out to Orthodox Christians. Scholz and those Americans he must answer to have no interest in Kant, in Mendelssohn or in any German or other philosopher worth their salt. If Westerners want to cite Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy or any other great Russian to have a pop at Putin, well then they should, as the Yanks say, bring it on. But engagement no longer seems to be their thing.
То есть вы используете самого себя для достижения цели.
Но дальше — хуже. Вы меняете своё поведение, чтобы понравиться другим. Манипулируете их представлениями о вас, чтобы получить одобрение. А значит, используете их как средство для достижения цели. Это основа токсичных отношений.
Манипуляции и принуждение Даже когда вы не лжёте, но общаетесь с человеком, чтобы получить от него что-то без его чётко выраженного согласия, вы ведёте себя неэтично. Кант придавал много значения согласию. Он считал, что это единственная возможность для здоровых взаимоотношений между людьми. Для того времени это была радикальная идея, да и сегодня нам трудно её принять. Сейчас вопрос согласия острее всего стоит в двух сферах.
Во-первых, секс и романтические отношения. По правилу Канта, всё, кроме чётко выраженного и трезвого согласия , этически неприемлемо. Сегодня это особенно наболевший вопрос. Лично у меня впечатление, что люди его слишком усложняют. Уже начинает казаться, что на свидании нужно 20 раз спросить разрешения, прежде чем что-то сделать.
Это не так. Главное — проявлять уважение. Скажите, что вы чувствуете, спросите, что чувствует другой человек, и с уважением примите ответ. Никаких сложностей. Уважение занимает важное место в системе ценностей Канта.
Он утверждал, что у всех разумных существ есть достоинство и с этим нужно считаться. Вопрос о согласии — это демонстрация уважения. Любые действия без согласия между двумя людьми в какой-то степени неуважительны. 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.
информация о фильме
- emmanuelle_kant (emmakant) - Profile | Pinterest
- Иммануил Кант — биография
- 33 emmanuel kant stock photos, vectors, and illustrations are available royalty-free for download.
- «Мы в центре мощнейшей когнитивной войны»: Алиханов объяснил, почему нужна ревизия учения Канта
- Новая экспозиция, первая книга, премьера лекции и стендап
Emmanuel Kant Duarte
Neither stars nor even galaxies would survive a disaster like this. 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.
The group was escorted through the back doors of the Kodak Theater with no idea what was in store, as Kimmel had the house lights turned down. When the tourists—Awww, ordinary slobs! Look, Meryl!
The little people!
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.
Правда, впоследствии он испытывал неловкость, когда вспоминал о своей пробе пера. Был ипохондриком и строго следовал расписанию Еще в детстве будущий философ читал труды по медицине и находил симптомы описанных болезней у себя. Его ипохондрия с возрастом только усилилась и привела к появлению еще одной его особенности.
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. This immediate consciousness of the moral law takes the following form: I have, for example, made it my maxim to increase my wealth by every safe means. Now I have a deposit in my hands, the owner of which has died and left no record of it. This is, naturally, a case for my maxim. Now I want only to know whether that maxim could also hold as a universal practical law. I therefore apply the maxim to the present case and ask whether it could indeed take the form of a law, and consequently whether I could through my maxim at the same time give such a law as this: that everyone may deny a deposit which no one can prove has been made. I at once become aware that such a principle, as a law, would annihilate itself since it would bring it about that there would be no deposits at all.
The issue is not whether it would be good if everyone acted on my maxim, or whether I would like it, but only whether it would be possible for my maxim to be willed as a universal law. This gets at the form, not the matter or content, of the maxim. A maxim has morally permissible form, for Kant, only if it could be willed as a universal law. If my maxim fails this test, as this one does, then it is morally impermissible for me to act on it. If my maxim passes the universal law test, then it is morally permissible for me to act on it, but I fully exercise my autonomy only if my fundamental reason for acting on this maxim is that it is morally permissible or required that I do so. Imagine that I am moved by a feeling of sympathy to formulate the maxim to help someone in need. In this case, my original reason for formulating this maxim is that a certain feeling moved me. Such feelings are not entirely within my control and may not be present when someone actually needs my help. So it would not be wrong to act on this maxim when the feeling of sympathy so moves me.
But helping others in need would not fully exercise my autonomy unless my fundamental reason for doing so is not that I have some feeling or desire, but rather that it would be right or at least permissible to do so. Only when such a purely formal principle supplies the fundamental motive for my action do I act autonomously. Even when my maxims are originally suggested by my feelings and desires, if I act only on morally permissible or required maxims because they are morally permissible or required , then my actions will be autonomous. And the reverse is true as well: for Kant this is the only way to act autonomously. The highest good and practical postulates Kant holds that reason unavoidably produces not only consciousness of the moral law but also the idea of a world in which there is both complete virtue and complete happiness, which he calls the highest good. Furthermore, we can believe that the highest good is possible only if we also believe in the immortality of the soul and the existence of God, according to Kant. On this basis, he claims that it is morally necessary to believe in the immortality of the soul and the existence of God, which he calls postulates of pure practical reason. Moreover, our fundamental reason for choosing to act on such maxims should be that they have this lawgiving form, rather than that acting on them would achieve some end or goal that would satisfy a desire 5:27. For example, I should help others in need not, at bottom, because doing so would make me feel good, even if it would, but rather because it is right; and it is right or permissible to help others in need because this maxim can be willed as a universal law.
Although Kant holds that the morality of an action depends on the form of its maxim rather than its end or goal, he nevertheless claims both that every human action has an end and that we are unavoidably concerned with the consequences of our actions 4:437; 5:34; 6:5—7, 385. This is not a moral requirement but simply part of what it means to be a rational being. Moreover, Kant also holds the stronger view that it is an unavoidable feature of human reason that we form ideas not only about the immediate and near-term consequences of our actions, but also about ultimate consequences. But neither of these ideas by itself expresses our unconditionally complete end, as human reason demands in its practical use. And happiness by itself would not be unconditionally good, because moral virtue is a condition of worthiness to be happy 5:111. So our unconditionally complete end must combine both virtue and happiness. It is this ideal world combining complete virtue with complete happiness that Kant normally has in mind when he discusses the highest good. Kant says that we have a duty to promote the highest good, taken in this sense 5:125. He does not mean, however, to be identifying some new duty that is not derived from the moral law, in addition to all the particular duties we have that are derived from the moral law.
Канте может перейти в «Арсенал» летом
emmanuelle_kant. Архив. Фотографии. Blog grant promo. Recommend this entry Has been recommended Send news. Смотрите 57 фотографии онлайн по теме кант мемы. 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.
Ведущие ученые мира выступили с докладами на Международном Кантовском конгрессе
Reform of institutions: Emmanuel Macron receives François Hollande at the Élysée. Что любопытно, Эммануэль Макрон говорит об этом сейчас, когда реальна перспектива возвращения к власти в США Дональда Трампа. [–] Emmanuel__Kant 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children). I have allways the high cost champion. Reform of institutions: Emmanuel Macron receives François Hollande at the Élysée. Emmanuel Kant. 39 лет, Павлодар.
DEV Community
- The Last Days of Immanuel Kant (1993) - IMDb
- DEV Community
- Кто такой Иммануил Кант
- Best Emmanuel Kant Royalty-Free Images, Stock Photos & Pictures | Shutterstock
- Лауреат Каннского кинофестиваля, французский режиссёр Лоран Канте умер в 63 года