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: ------------------------------------------------------- > Kant's Transcendental Deduction was grounded on > that space and time are non-contextual. Hegel > argued that time is not an empty container, and > replaced it, the empty container, with "history", > a concrete history. Thus begins Hegel's project of > Spirit. > > The hardest part of 3rd critique of Kant, my view, > is the sublime. Kant's excerpts are scattered and > didn't elaborate much on the subject of sublime. > The sublime is on the opposite side of the > beautiful, almost. The free-play and > purposiveness are not adequate to explain the > mechanism of the inner movement invoking the > feeling of the sublime brought upon man. If so, > then how could Kant designate purposiveness as the > a priori for the aesthetic judgment? > > The beautiful is about faculties of intuition, > imagination and understanding, while the sublime > is about faculties of intuition and reason. The > understanding, properly speaking, is the pure > reason of the 1st critique, and the reason related > to the sublime precisely is the practical reason > of the 2nd critique. We need to somehow join the > two seemingly unrelated parts, the beautiful and > the sublime, of the reflective aesthetic judgment. > Kant put these two aesthetic judgment together, I > and others think it is not by accident. The > question raised here is in what way the beautiful > and the sublime relate to morality, or by Kant's > term, moral judgment. Can we employ Kant's > Copernican Turn to be the vehicle to explain the > sublime feeling? I think that's exactly what Kant > is in mind that it can. > > To say the rose is beautiful is the feeling of > pleasure occurs to a person . To get such > pleasure, the faculty of imagination is in a state > in harmony with the faculty of understanding. In > the process, the object - the rose vanishes. > > Determining Judgment > However, when we say the rose is beautiful may > will be sparkling the cognitive judgment, in which > we may employ concept and all the a priori > categories induced by it. The concept may be the > rose's shape, color, smell, so on and so forth. By > that way to judge the rose, we will still get the > pleasure, but this pleasure is induced by the > success accomplished by our ability to reason > (theoretical reason). The object - the rose > exists. So the problem is "What prompts a man to > favor reflective aesthetic judgment than > reflective/determining cognitive judgment?" > > Kant's subjectivity (vs. empirical objectivity) is > arguable. One prominent view on Kant's > subjectivity is he distinguishes "human's > prospective" from "God's prospective," or "knowing > infinitely" from "infinite knowing." Human is > knowing infinitely, while God is infinite knowing. > Why? Hegel rejected such distinction. > > Dynamical sublime - something cannot be > comprehended, only be apprehended. We sometimes > regard Kant's just referring natural objects that > induce the sublime feeling upon men. However, > here I am more concerned about normal human > encounter. such as, > 1. sudden lost parents, > 2. video camera catch unspeakable, unbelievable > moment, > 3. first instance to learn of getting a cancer, > 4. witnessing a gruesome murder, etc. > Why camera taking still pictures are proven more > preferable by hobbyists than camcorders? > > My critique on Kant's whole a priori project is: > Before judgment (be it theoretical, moral, or > aesthetic) starts, an even more fundamental > faculty of man at work: power of categorization. > Categorize first, then judge next. This > categorization is not Kant's a priori categories.