Settings and more. Buffering. Emmanuelle Kant (Original Mix) (our 2nd recordeal!) BESTINSPACE ™. An unrelated news platform with which you have had no contact builds a profile based on that viewing behaviour, marking space exploration as a topic of possible interest for other videos. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is the central figure in modern philosophy. He synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism, set the terms for much of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy. Полузащитник «Челси» Н’Голо Канте дал согласие на переход в миланский «Интер». Эммануэль Кант, 07.08.2001. Доступны для просмотра фотографии, лайки, образование.
Doing Nothing with Emmanuel Kant
Иммануил Кант-немецкий философ, родоначальник немецкой классической философии, стоящий на грани эпох Просвещения и Романтизма. Emmanuel Kant. Emmanuel Kant. Follow new publications. Hi there, my name is Emmanuel Kant Duarte and welcome to my profile. Connect with me: Image of linkedin logo Image of Earth Planet Image of twitter bird Image of YouTube logo Image of codepen. Veröffentlichungen von Kant, Emmanuel. Иммануил Кант-немецкий философ, родоначальник немецкой классической философии, стоящий на грани эпох Просвещения и Романтизма.
Я живу в Калининграде. Как мы отпраздновали День рождения Иммануила Канта? С вдохновением...
Тем не менее в нашей стране созданная им теория не столь популярна. В чем причины русского «антикантианства»? Почему история философии делится на «до» и «после» Канта?
Their exact nature remains in dispute. He hoped that perpetual peace could be secured through an international federation of republican states and international cooperation. His cosmopolitan reputation is called into question by his promulgation of scientific racism for much of his career, although he altered his views on the subject in the last decade of his life.
It was said that neighbors would set their clocks by his daily walks. He never married but seems to have had a rewarding social life; he was a popular teacher as well as a modestly successful author, even before starting on his major philosophical works. He first attended the Collegium Fridericianum , from which he graduated at the end of the summer of 1740. Knutzen dissuaded Kant from the theory of pre-established harmony , which he regarded as "the pillow for the lazy mind". The theory of transcendental idealism that Kant later included in the Critique of Pure Reason was developed partially in opposition to traditional idealism.
Kant had contacts with students, colleagues, friends and diners who frequented the local Masonic lodge. In 1749, he published his first philosophical work, Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces written in 1745—1747. In his 1756 essay on the theory of winds, Kant laid out an original insight into the Coriolis force. In 1756, Kant also published three papers on the 1755 Lisbon earthquake. In 1757, Kant began lecturing on geography making him one of the first lecturers to explicitly teach geography as its own subject.
After Kant became a professor in 1770, he expanded the topics of his lectures to include lectures on natural law, ethics, and anthropology, along with other topics. Kant also correctly deduced that the Milky Way was a large disk of stars , which he theorized formed from a much larger spinning gas cloud. He further suggested that other distant "nebulae" might be other galaxies. These postulations opened new horizons for astronomy, for the first time extending it beyond the solar system to galactic and intergalactic realms. In the early 1760s, Kant produced a series of important works in philosophy.
In defense of this appointment, Kant wrote his inaugural dissertation On the Form and Principles of the Sensible and the Intelligible World [c] This work saw the emergence of several central themes of his mature work, including the distinction between the faculties of intellectual thought and sensible receptivity. To miss this distinction would mean to commit the error of subreption , and, as he says in the last chapter of the dissertation, only in avoiding this error does metaphysics flourish. While it is true that Kant wrote his greatest works relatively late in life, there is a tendency to underestimate the value of his earlier works. Recent Kant scholarship has devoted more attention to these "pre-critical" writings and has recognized a degree of continuity with his mature work. In correspondence with his ex-student and friend Markus Herz , Kant admitted that, in the inaugural dissertation, he had failed to account for the relation between our sensible and intellectual faculties.
Kant also credited David Hume with awakening him from a "dogmatic slumber" in which he had unquestioningly accepted the tenets of both religion and natural philosophy. Ideas such as causality , morality , and objects are not evident in experience, so their reality may be questioned. Kant felt that reason could remove this skepticism, and he set himself to solving these problems. Kant was quite upset with its reception. Recognizing the need to clarify the original treatise, Kant wrote the Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics in 1783 as a summary of its main views.
In 1786, Karl Leonhard Reinhold published a series of public letters on Kantian philosophy. Friedrich Jacobi had accused the recently deceased Gotthold Ephraim Lessing a distinguished dramatist and philosophical essayist of Spinozism. The controversy gradually escalated into a debate about the values of the Enlightenment and the value of reason. Most of his subsequent work focused on other areas of philosophy.
We must be free in order to choose what is right over what is wrong, because otherwise we cannot be held responsible.
It also threatened the traditional religious belief in a soul that can survive death or be resurrected in an afterlife. So modern science, the pride of the Enlightenment, the source of its optimism about the powers of human reason, threatened to undermine traditional moral and religious beliefs that free rational thought was expected to support. This was the main intellectual crisis of the Enlightenment. In other words, free rational inquiry adequately supports all of these essential human interests and shows them to be mutually consistent. So reason deserves the sovereignty attributed to it by the Enlightenment.
The Inaugural Dissertation also tries to reconcile Newtonian science with traditional morality and religion in a way, but its strategy is different from that of the Critique. According to the Inaugural Dissertation, Newtonian science is true of the sensible world, to which sensibility gives us access; and the understanding grasps principles of divine and moral perfection in a distinct intelligible world, which are paradigms for measuring everything in the sensible world. So on this view our knowledge of the intelligible world is a priori because it does not depend on sensibility, and this a priori knowledge furnishes principles for judging the sensible world because in some way the sensible world itself conforms to or imitates the intelligible world. Soon after writing the Inaugural Dissertation, however, Kant expressed doubts about this view. As he explained in a February 21, 1772 letter to his friend and former student, Marcus Herz: In my dissertation I was content to explain the nature of intellectual representations in a merely negative way, namely, to state that they were not modifications of the soul brought about by the object.
However, I silently passed over the further question of how a representation that refers to an object without being in any way affected by it can be possible…. And if such intellectual representations depend on our inner activity, whence comes the agreement that they are supposed to have with objects — objects that are nevertheless not possibly produced thereby? The position of the Inaugural Dissertation is that the intelligible world is independent of the human understanding and of the sensible world, both of which in different ways conform to the intelligible world. But, leaving aside questions about what it means for the sensible world to conform to an intelligible world, how is it possible for the human understanding to conform to or grasp an intelligible world? If the intelligible world is independent of our understanding, then it seems that we could grasp it only if we are passively affected by it in some way.
So the only way we could grasp an intelligible world that is independent of us is through sensibility, which means that our knowledge of it could not be a priori. The pure understanding alone could at best enable us to form representations of an intelligible world. Such a priori intellectual representations could well be figments of the brain that do not correspond to anything independent of the human mind. In any case, it is completely mysterious how there might come to be a correspondence between purely intellectual representations and an independent intelligible world. But the Critique gives a far more modest and yet revolutionary account of a priori knowledge.
This turned out to be a dead end, and Kant never again maintained that we can have a priori knowledge about an intelligible world precisely because such a world would be entirely independent of us. The sensible world, or the world of appearances, is constructed by the human mind from a combination of sensory matter that we receive passively and a priori forms that are supplied by our cognitive faculties. We can have a priori knowledge only about aspects of the sensible world that reflect the a priori forms supplied by our cognitive faculties. So according to the Critique, a priori knowledge is possible only if and to the extent that the sensible world itself depends on the way the human mind structures its experience. Kant characterizes this new constructivist view of experience in the Critique through an analogy with the revolution wrought by Copernicus in astronomy: Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but all attempts to find out something about them a priori through concepts that would extend our cognition have, on this presupposition, come to nothing.
Hence let us once try whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition, which would agree better with the requested possibility of an a priori cognition of them, which is to establish something about objects before they are given to us. This would be just like the first thoughts of Copernicus, who, when he did not make good progress in the explanation of the celestial motions if he assumed that the entire celestial host revolves around the observer, tried to see if he might not have greater success if he made the observer revolve and left the stars at rest. Now in metaphysics we can try in a similar way regarding the intuition of objects. If intuition has to conform to the constitution of the objects, then I do not see how we can know anything of them a priori; but if the object as an object of the senses conforms to the constitution of our faculty of intuition, then I can very well represent this possibility to myself. Yet because I cannot stop with these intuitions, if they are to become cognitions, but must refer them as representations to something as their object and determine this object through them, I can assume either that the concepts through which I bring about this determination also conform to the objects, and then I am once again in the same difficulty about how I could know anything about them a priori, or else I assume that the objects, or what is the same thing, the experience in which alone they can be cognized as given objects conforms to those concepts, in which case I immediately see an easier way out of the difficulty, since experience itself is a kind of cognition requiring the understanding, whose rule I have to presuppose in myself before any object is given to me, hence a priori, which rule is expressed in concepts a priori, to which all objects of experience must therefore necessarily conform, and with which they must agree.
Bxvi—xviii As this passage suggests, what Kant has changed in the Critique is primarily his view about the role and powers of the understanding, since he already held in the Inaugural Dissertation that sensibility contributes the forms of space and time — which he calls pure or a priori intuitions 2:397 — to our cognition of the sensible world. But the Critique claims that pure understanding too, rather than giving us insight into an intelligible world, is limited to providing forms — which he calls pure or a priori concepts — that structure our cognition of the sensible world. So now both sensibility and understanding work together to construct cognition of the sensible world, which therefore conforms to the a priori forms that are supplied by our cognitive faculties: the a priori intuitions of sensibility and the a priori concepts of the understanding. This account is analogous to the heliocentric revolution of Copernicus in astronomy because both require contributions from the observer to be factored into explanations of phenomena, although neither reduces phenomena to the contributions of observers alone. For Kant, analogously, the phenomena of human experience depend on both the sensory data that we receive passively through sensibility and the way our mind actively processes this data according to its own a priori rules.
These rules supply the general framework in which the sensible world and all the objects or phenomena in it appear to us. So the sensible world and its phenomena are not entirely independent of the human mind, which contributes its basic structure. First, it gives Kant a new and ingenious way of placing modern science on an a priori foundation. In other words, the sensible world necessarily conforms to certain fundamental laws — such as that every event has a cause — because the human mind constructs it according to those laws. Moreover, we can identify those laws by reflecting on the conditions of possible experience, which reveals that it would be impossible for us to experience a world in which, for example, any given event fails to have a cause.
From this Kant concludes that metaphysics is indeed possible in the sense that we can have a priori knowledge that the entire sensible world — not just our actual experience, but any possible human experience — necessarily conforms to certain laws. Kant calls this immanent metaphysics or the metaphysics of experience, because it deals with the essential principles that are immanent to human experience. In the Critique Kant thus rejects the insight into an intelligible world that he defended in the Inaugural Dissertation, and he now claims that rejecting knowledge about things in themselves is necessary for reconciling science with traditional morality and religion. This is because he claims that belief in God, freedom, and immortality have a strictly moral basis, and yet adopting these beliefs on moral grounds would be unjustified if we could know that they were false. Restricting knowledge to appearances and relegating God and the soul to an unknowable realm of things in themselves guarantees that it is impossible to disprove claims about God and the freedom or immortality of the soul, which moral arguments may therefore justify us in believing.
Moreover, the determinism of modern science no longer threatens the freedom required by traditional morality, because science and therefore determinism apply only to appearances, and there is room for freedom in the realm of things in themselves, where the self or soul is located. We cannot know theoretically that we are free, because we cannot know anything about things in themselves. In this way, Kant replaces transcendent metaphysics with a new practical science that he calls the metaphysics of morals. Transcendental idealism Perhaps the central and most controversial thesis of the Critique of Pure Reason is that human beings experience only appearances, not things in themselves; and that space and time are only subjective forms of human intuition that would not subsist in themselves if one were to abstract from all subjective conditions of human intuition. Kant calls this thesis transcendental idealism.
What may be the case with objects in themselves and abstracted from all this receptivity of our sensibility remains entirely unknown to us. We are acquainted with nothing except our way of perceiving them, which is peculiar to us, and which therefore does not necessarily pertain to every being, though to be sure it pertains to every human being. We are concerned solely with this. Space and time are its pure forms, sensation in general its matter. We can cognize only the former a priori, i.
The former adheres to our sensibility absolutely necessarily, whatever sort of sensations we may have; the latter can be very different. Space and time are not things in themselves, or determinations of things in themselves that would remain if one abstracted from all subjective conditions of human intuition. Space and time are nothing other than the subjective forms of human sensible intuition. Two general types of interpretation have been especially influential, however. This section provides an overview of these two interpretations, although it should be emphasized that much important scholarship on transcendental idealism does not fall neatly into either of these two camps.
It has been a live interpretive option since then and remains so today, although it no longer enjoys the dominance that it once did. Another name for this view is the two-worlds interpretation, since it can also be expressed by saying that transcendental idealism essentially distinguishes between a world of appearances and another world of things in themselves. Things in themselves, on this interpretation, are absolutely real in the sense that they would exist and have whatever properties they have even if no human beings were around to perceive them. Appearances, on the other hand, are not absolutely real in that sense, because their existence and properties depend on human perceivers. Moreover, whenever appearances do exist, in some sense they exist in the mind of human perceivers.
So appearances are mental entities or mental representations. This, coupled with the claim that we experience only appearances, makes transcendental idealism a form of phenomenalism on this interpretation, because it reduces the objects of experience to mental representations. All of our experiences — all of our perceptions of objects and events in space, even those objects and events themselves, and all non-spatial but still temporal thoughts and feelings — fall into the class of appearances that exist in the mind of human perceivers. These appearances cut us off entirely from the reality of things in themselves, which are non-spatial and non-temporal. In principle we cannot know how things in themselves affect our senses, because our experience and knowledge is limited to the world of appearances constructed by and in the mind.
Things in themselves are therefore a sort of theoretical posit, whose existence and role are required by the theory but are not directly verifiable. The main problems with the two-objects interpretation are philosophical. Most readers of Kant who have interpreted his transcendental idealism in this way have been — often very — critical of it, for reasons such as the following: First, at best Kant is walking a fine line in claiming on the one hand that we can have no knowledge about things in themselves, but on the other hand that we know that things in themselves exist, that they affect our senses, and that they are non-spatial and non-temporal. At worst his theory depends on contradictory claims about what we can and cannot know about things in themselves. Some versions of this objection proceed from premises that Kant rejects.
But Kant denies that appearances are unreal: they are just as real as things in themselves but are in a different metaphysical class. But just as Kant denies that things in themselves are the only or privileged reality, he also denies that correspondence with things in themselves is the only kind of truth. Empirical judgments are true just in case they correspond with their empirical objects in accordance with the a priori principles that structure all possible human experience. 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.
По некоторым данным, дядя Иммануила взял на себя расходы по публикации дебютной работы Канта — «Мысли об истинной оценке живых сил». Это произведение автор писал три года, и оно увидело свет в 1749 году. После смерти отца молодой человек бросил учебу в университете. Чтобы прокормить семью, Иммануил стал домашним учителем. В свободное от уроков время он занимался теоретическим исследованием Солнечной системы и вскоре опубликовал свою гипотезу о ее происхождении из первоначальной туманности. В 1755 году Кант защитил докторскую диссертацию, давшую ему право преподавать в университете. После этого он в течение сорока лет вел лекции в альма-матер.
Последние дни Иммануила Канта (1996)
Kant would undoubtedly add that this would also facilitate learning and would say how. Kant and the educational benefits of immobility Kant is such an important name in so many areas of philosophy that one might forget that he was also interested in education. One of his ideas concerns the importance of keeping still for children. Let us translate: through this window created by immobility and listening, and by the attention it allows, ideas can come to their senses. This idea obviously raises important questions and debates about the nature and role of authority in education. This is because the means discipline here seem to contradict the intended end freedom and autonomy. But let us leave these questions aside and transpose what Kant said in the XVIIIe century in our time and to the infinite and so irresistible stimuli that cellphones and social networks constantly provoke. One can easily see in this an immense danger for the very practice of transmitting and understanding ideas and knowledge, and for the formation of work habits. A danger so great that the ban on cellphones in the classroom, especially for the youngest, can be considered a good idea. My fear is that we refuse to see these dangers even when they are documented.
To discover Follow information on the war in Ukraine with the Figaro application But a geographer will see it as a sign of an old grudge. Because, at the time, this enclave was not Russian, but constituted the eastern slope of Prussia, a region fortified by the Teutonic knights from the 13th century. As "one of the founding fathers of the modern West" , Immanuel Kant "laid the foundations of classical German philosophy" , cutting it off from , he explains quite generally, without say more about these values.
В третьем ответе кантовского чат-бота надежду чат-бот высказал относительно того, что будет развиваться, но уровня человеческого мышления не достигнет, но, на мой взгляд, это сомнительно. Мне кажется, что это вполне реально, и я, с одной стороны, боюсь, с другой — надеюсь застать это на своём веку. Ну и, конечно, последний вопрос: чем вообще является искусственный интеллект? Если по Канту, человек — это моральное существо, можем ли таким моральным существом считать искусственный интеллект? Популярное за сутки.
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.
«Мы в центре мощнейшей когнитивной войны»: Алиханов объяснил, почему нужна ревизия учения Канта
Et l'activité mentale, Filosofia, Kant (Emmanuel). Etudes. Immanuel Kant Idealism. The inscrutable wisdom [of God] through which we exist is not less worthy of veneration in respect to what it denies us than in respect to what it has granted. 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]. 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. 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.
Doing Nothing with Emmanuel Kant
The Life, Work and Legacy of Carl Jung. Category: Emmanuel Kant. French President Emmanuel Macron delivers a speech on Europe in the amphitheater of the Sorbonne University, Thursday, April 25 in Paris. Полузащитник «Челси» Н'Голо Канте дал предварительное согласие на переход в «Арсенал» по окончании сезона, сообщает Fichajes. Cited Names – Emmanuel Kant. Article. Theorizing American Studies: German Interventions into an Ongoing Debate [Full text].
‘Nothing would survive’ Scientists warn dark energy could ‘END universe at any moment’
| Emmanuel Kant Photos and Premium High Res Pictures - Getty Images | Et l'activité mentale, Filosofia, Kant (Emmanuel). Etudes. |
| I Kant Even: German Chancellor Triggered After Putin Quotes Legendary Philosopher | Иммануил Кант родился в Кенигсберге в 1724 году, прожил в городе всю жизнь, не покидая его пределов, и был похоронен у северной стены Собора в профессорском склепе. |
| Кант Иммануил. Большая российская энциклопедия | Emmanuel Kant is Lupa's first experience with Polski Theatre in Wroclaw, though the leading part is played by the protagonist of his first productions in Jelenia Gora, Wojciech Ziemianski. |
| Канте может перейти в «Арсенал» летом - Чемпионат | An unrelated news platform with which you have had no contact builds a profile based on that viewing behaviour, marking space exploration as a topic of possible interest for other videos. |
Искусственный интеллект «оживил» Иммануила Канта в Калининграде
Retrouvez toute l’actualité de Emmanuel Kant. Suivez nos dernières informations, reportages, décryptages et analyses sur Le Point. Иммануил Кант родился в Кенигсберге в 1724 году, прожил в городе всю жизнь, не покидая его пределов, и был похоронен у северной стены Собора в профессорском склепе. Эммануэль, но не Кант! Шольц для Путина является более весомой фигурой, который представляет интересы бизнеса Германии. Путин видит давление, которому подвергается. В Калининграде мероприятия в честь юбилея Иммануила Канта. Один из самых известных горожан родился 300 лет назад 22 апреля.
Chronicle of Normand Baillargeon: thinking about education with Emmanuel Kant
В рамках международного Кантовского конгресса в Калининграде инициаторы развития «Балтийской платформы» – ИМЭМО РАН, МГИМО МИД России, БФУ имени И. Канта при. Kant observed that men formed states to constrain their passions, but that each state sought to preserve its absolute freedom, even at the cost of “a lawless state of savagery.”. Иммануил Кант — самый русский из европейских и самый европейский из русских философов. Он родился и всю жизнь работал в Кенигсберге — сегодня это Калининград, несколько лет. Bowman on Kant anti-Semitism. Иммануи́л Кант — немецкий философ, один из центральных мыслителей эпохи Просвещения. Всесторонние и систематические работы Канта в области эпистемологии, метафизики. Ректор БФУ им. Иммануила Канта Александр Федоров отметил: философия не эксклюзивное занятие, ею, осмысляя действительность и место в ней, занимается каждый.
Я живу в Калининграде. Как мы отпраздновали День рождения Иммануила Канта? С вдохновением...
| Immanuel Kant - Wikipedia | Posts about Emmanuel Kant written by Jack Marshall. |
| Immanuel Kant (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) | President Emmanuel Macron, during a speech on Europe, in the amphitheater of the Sorbonne University, Paris, April 25, 2024. |
| Immanuel Kant | Просмотрите свежий пост @fakepontchartrain в Tumblr на тему "emmanuel kant". |
| Immanuel Kant - Wikipedia | Retrouvez toute l’actualité de Emmanuel Kant. Suivez nos dernières informations, reportages, décryptages et analyses sur Le Point. |
| Искусственный интеллект «оживил» Иммануила Канта в Калининграде | Источник: РИА "Новости". |
Последние дни Иммануила Канта (1994) Les derniers jours d Emmanuel Kant
Гонорары, правда, были не очень большими, и Канту, помимо философии, пришлось навесить на себя также логику, математику, физику, метафизику, географию, этику — уже хотя бы это позволяет понять, каким разносторонним был Иммануил Кант, чьи реальные заслуги перед наукой до известной степени даже выходят за рамки чистой философии. Периодически Канта «подсиживали» на преподавательских должностях, из-за чего он даже пытался жаловаться прусскому королю Фридриху II. Вообще, несмотря на периодические финансовые подарки судьбы, он всю жизнь страдал от нехватки средств, и, скорее всего, потому так и не обзавёлся семьёй — боялся, что не сможет содержать её. В нашей стране довольно широко известен тот факт, что четыре года Кант прожил под властью русской короны. Случилось это в разгар Семилетней войны. Русская армия, одержав блистательную победу в Гросс-Егерсдорфском сражении, погнала прусские войска на запад, и генерал Виллим Фермор занял Кёнигсберг. Положение для Пруссии тогда было угрожающее, скоро русская армия займёт Берлин, а Фридрих Великий в отчаянии даже хотел отречься от престола.
По существовавшей тогда традиции, население города привели к присяге русской императрице, присягу дал тогда и Кант, ставший на несколько лет русским подданным. И если бы не смерть Елизаветы Петровны и не воцарение Петра III, может, и древний славянский Кролевец, превратившийся со временем в Кёнигсберг, стал бы частью русского государства ещё тогда. Русские офицеры, образованные люди, с удовольствием ходили на лекции Канта, и даже брали у него частные уроки. А в 1762 году философа избрали членом Петербургской Академии наук. Философ и мыслитель В тот период Кант был столь загружен, что ему некогда было заниматься собственно наукой. До 1762 года, когда Кёнигсберг вновь попал под власть Берлина, вышло лишь одно его небольшое эссе.
Зато как раз в том году он публикует свой известный труд «Ложное мудрствование в четырёх фигурах силлогизма», а в 1763 году продолжил развитие высказанных идей в своей следующей работе «Опыт введения в философию понятия отрицательных величин». Это одно из самых известных его произведений, своеобразное исследование противоположностей и суждений. Тогда же обозначились его стремления создать и сформулировать свою собственную теорию познания. Но путь к своей теории занял у Канта десятки лет. Сам он формулировал её как смычку трёх элементов — метафизики, морали и религии. Соответственно, Кант рассматривал их как совокупность вопросов, соответственно каждому элементу это: «Что я могу знать?
Высшей же точкой своей модели он видел антропологию, которая должна была отвечать на вопрос «Что такое человек? Пик творчества Канта — это его зрелость, 1780-е годы. Именно тогда вышли самые знаменитые его работы, которые и по сей день являются одними из фундаментальных работ мировой философской мысли. В 1781 году выходит «Критика чистого разума» Кант попытался осмыслить возможности познания, в первую очередь эмпирическим путём. Как известно, данный путь познания, предполагающий практические опыты и исследования, является основополагающим в науке и по сей день, а заложенные Кантом мысли, творчески развитые и обогащённые последующими поколениями философов, имеют хождение не только в гуманитарных, но и в точных науках, и по сей день. Такие понятия, как «вещь себе», субъективность пространства и времени, подчинение бытия человеческой мысли и по сей день являются важнейшими постулатами в философии.
В продолжение своего трактата в 1788 году Кант выпускает «Критику практического разума». Каждому, кто изучал в университете философию, известно о разделении учёным разума на теоретический и практический, о необходимости сдерживать теорию при доброкачественной культивации практики. Ещё более Кант в этой своей работе определил разум как основоположник познания в целом. Наконец, третья основополагающая философская работе Канта вышла в 1790 году, и получила название «Критика способности суждения». Здесь он окончательно подводит итоги своим мыслям, высказанным в двух вышерассмотренных трудах. Кант делит философию на практическую и теоретическую, в основе которых лежит не метод, а предмет познания; а также выделяет царство свободы и царство природы, каждое из которых обладает своими собственными законами, только первое — физическими, основанными на принципах естествознания, то второй — человеческой моралью и нравственностью.
Канта говорили о соотношении практической и моральной философии, об этике, теории познания и значении человеческого достоинства. Так, например, профессор кафедры истории зарубежной философии МГУ им. Ломоносова Валерий Семенов выступил с докладом "Сознание и мышление как основа Кантовской трансцендентальной философии". Профессор Самаркандского университета Алексей Крюков и приват-доцент Геттингенского университета, профессор Самаркандского университета Гутшмидт Хольгер подискутировали на тему познания опыта и разграничения понятий "явление" и "феномен". С одной стороны, попытаться найти оригинального Канта - это задача фактически каждого поколения. С другой стороны, попытаться связать и по-хорошему использовать учение Канта для решения заново или впервые возникающих проблем - это задача каждого нового поколения. Тема исследования Канта не будет исчерпана еще следующие лет триста, - отметила научный директор Академии Кантианы БФУ им. Канта" Актуальность работ Канта можно было проследить и по многочисленным вопросам, которые докладчикам на сессиях задавали прямо из зала.
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. Gone are the days of the greatest of Germans and Europeans like Leibniz gracing the court of Peter the Great and in are drag clowns like Zelensky dancing like a cut price Salome to titillate, for a price, Scholz and his uncultured ilk. Call me old-fashioned but I would prefer to have Putin and everyone else reading the German greats than to have German embarrassments like Scholz and that insufferable von der Leyen parasite not only pull that once great nation into the gutter but drown her in their own rank ignorance and myopia. The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. 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 night.
После смерти отца молодой человек бросил учебу в университете. Чтобы прокормить семью, Иммануил стал домашним учителем.
В свободное от уроков время он занимался теоретическим исследованием Солнечной системы и вскоре опубликовал свою гипотезу о ее происхождении из первоначальной туманности. В 1755 году Кант защитил докторскую диссертацию, давшую ему право преподавать в университете. После этого он в течение сорока лет вел лекции в альма-матер. В 1770 году он был назначен профессором логики и метафизики Кенигсбергского университета. Тогда Иммануил работал в рамках нескольких дисциплин: философских, физических и математических, решая вопросы из области морали, религии, метафизики и антропологии.
Ведущие ученые мира выступили с докладами на Международном Кантовском конгрессе
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. 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.
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. 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.
In a large auditorium, Macron outlined climate issues by integrating them with other challenges, including energy, competitiveness, and production. After taking action to "overcome our dependence on Russian fossil fuels," the EU must now pursue the "deployment of renewable energies and [the] deployment of nuclear power" to build "an atomic Europe. You have 46.
Тем не менее в нашей стране созданная им теория не столь популярна. В чем причины русского «антикантианства»? Почему история философии делится на «до» и «после» Канта?