Welcome!
登入
註冊
美寶首頁
美寶百科
美寶論壇
美寶落格
美寶地圖
首頁
>
學涯 / Cultivation Career
>
學門 Academy
>
西方哲學
>
康德哲學
>
康德判斷力批判
Advanced
康德判斷力批判
作者:
主旨:
Tags:
Message:
boris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Basically speaking, the purposiveness or as-if > principle (look as if there WERE a rule for a > determination in a judgment) is about certain > extra causality required for human aware > experience other than the natural causality. > re: Kant defined purposiveness as the causality of > a concept with regard to its object. Is this the > "certain extra causality" you mentioned? My read: > the conceptual causality (as some calls it) was > explained when purposiveness employs concept with > one of its category: causality. This is > purposiveness used in nature - the territory of > the theoretical philosophy. To me, this > "causality" has nothing to do with the inception > of purposiveness, which is an a priori of the > faculty of judgment. > > On the one hand, such an extra causality makes > experience in space and time possible for it > "offers" formal conformity so that (a) appearance > must be so perceived in space and time under logic > and (b) thus phenomena must be thinkable. > Therefore, such a principle in our awareness > yields the ground for science. > re: In addition to borrow the a priori of the > faculty of pure reason (the form: space and time, > and the categories), the reflecting judgment does > the job (i.e. to deduct a particular to universal, > to transform complexity to simplicity, to conform > parts to whole, and to understand the unthinkable) > under the dynamics of purposiveness. Your > description is close enough. > > On the other hand, such an extra causality (a) > makes it possible that certain act of a "person" > belongs to this "person" ( similar to the formal > conformity between an object cognized and the > object in one's cognition/self-awareness, the act > which is the effect of certain concept of a person > (reason/purpose/motive etc.), is formally > determined to belong to that person); (b) the pure > intelligent being that human being can access or > involve in human's pure awareness (namely, person > in "freedom"), is the only thing intelligent > (among other pure ideas, or "transcendental > paralogisms/illusions in the First Critique, such > as God, soul etc. ) > re: The reflecting judgment does the job for the > realm of practical reason; in analogous to that > for the realm of pure reason. However, both > employment of reflecting judgment are regulative, > not constitutive. > > left via the most radical self-critique of > awareness itself, which is also provided as the > proof for the possible "practical" employment of > pure reason; (a) and (b) altogether give a solid > account and a finer understanding of morality, and > the humanity. > re: Under the notion of "regulative" and the > notion of free will, the "understanding" aspect of > morality is unattainable other than to > practice/legislate it. To me, Kant's "proof", > strictly speaking, is a transcendental deduction > substantiated by providing "obvious" > pseudo-empirical evidence.