Immanuel Kant: the sensitivity and understanding If we call sensibility to the receptivity that our psyche has always to be affected in some way, in order to receive representations, understanding call the ability to produce by itself, ie, the spontaneity of knowledge. Our nature entails that intuition can only be sensible, ie not containing but the way whereby we are affected by objects. The ability to think the object of intuition is, however, understanding. None of these properties is preferable to the other, without feeling anything and we would be given, without understanding, no one would have thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. Why is it so necessary to sensitive concepts (ie add the object in intuition), how to intuitions intelligible (ie, subjecting them to concepts). The two powers or capacities can not exchange their functions. Not understanding can intuit nothing, the senses can think nothing. Knowledge can only come from their union. But why not confuse their respective contributions. On the contrary, there are many reasons to separate and distinguish each other carefully. Therefore distinguish the science of the rules of sensibility in general, ie, aesthetics, about the science of understanding the general rules, ie, logic.
Critique of Pure Reason , A51-B75. (Alfaguara, Madrid 1978, edition of Pedro Ribas, p. 93).
Comment
What's interesting about this text of Kant, perhaps one of the most cited when testing a system overview developed in the Critique of Reason Pure (CRP: 1 ยช ed. 1781, 2 nd ed. 1787: between one edition and another writes The merits of the Metaphysics of Morals : 1785) is assimilation that it is expressed among certain elements of rationalist epistemology (the principle of intuition) and other items that could be expected would be antithetical to the rationalism and empiricism (the beginning of sensationalism, which could also be related to the Aristotelian epistemology: what is known in the knower according to their nature: cognitum est in knowing ... .) And so when Kant says that "our nature leads which can only be sensible intuition " is actually testing a synthesis of these principles so far opposed and not be assimilated. This assimilation has a clear precedent in the trial-criticism before their Critique of Judgement, in 1790 - and establishing the possibility of synthetic judgments a priori ( JSAP), while with these classic and is exceeded until the current division of judgments or propositions as analytic a priori (one's own intuition, which are elements for the deduction), and synthetic a posteriori ('s own sensitivity, which provide objects that could only be described as such). It is in the lengthy prologue to the CRP where Kant, before entering the study of the a priori forms of space and spatial perception own human (sensible intuitions) provides the excellence of scientific discourse to say that in this find their location these JSAP , trials with which they must be expressed from laws that are universal to the particular project on the objects that are under the control of the former. And it will be on this basis that Kant wrote the first pages of his Aesthetics transcend ntal (the 1 st of three parts that make up the bulk of the CRP ), part this is where it will establish the ways in which takes place this " responsiveness that our psyche has " referred to the first line of our text.
read in the text given to us to comment that " The ability to think the object of intuition is, however, understanding. " With this statement, Kant returns to state again that aspect of tradition criticism and opposing assimilation is certainly the most characteristic feature of his thought, and also gives its size, quite extraordinary, its doctrine and all of his work . And is that the ' ability to think the object of intuition ' is referable to those (intuitions) through which we can represent the objects of our knowledge as possible, that is, to represent the phenomena as 'involved' in a spatial grid and positioned in a spatiotemporal sequence thus constituted as objects of an understanding that objects shall immediately refer such categorical games by which those objects would potentially be assimilated by the superior power of our psyche and / or our cognitive abilities. V. gr: this object is unique or is varied, is limited, it is inherent ... it depends ... like effect, is contingent, but it is not possible (or is) ... etc. Now that the understanding is able to pass through the alembic of the pure intuitions of understanding (the still of the twelve categories) such objects has been necessary for these, as phenomena, have been perceived space and spatial forms in the previous phase which is intuition, which is physiologically phase conditioned by our perceptual complex external and internal: external sensitivity affirm the spatial intuition, and with internal and external superimposed on other space-time . It is, of course, a powerful and telling speech, now it is not strictly original (in fact the originality of Kant would be rather a defect: such is its critical spirit), and we would be very difficult on the basis of this doctrine on sensitivity and understanding as higher cognitive abilities and characteristic of the human body does not remember that 'understanding agent 'Aristotle through abstractive faculty capable of establishing universal course content based on empirical materials and individuals. In any case, this synthesis is expressed in the celebrated sentence Kantian "(...). Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind "that can read in our text and that targets the core of Kant's transcendental epistemology is a genuinely Kantian product provides a clear and strong a limit to our knowledge a possible (as we look at the phenomena, ie the objects of sensible intuitions.)
To conclude our discussion we would like to point out that the basis of the extract gave us no chance, rather than a defective form, to refer to another concept crucial truly comprehensive critique of pure reason Kant finished: the concept of a noumenon or 'thing itself'. But let us not resist the observation that targeted these " two faculties or capacities" that "can not exchange functions", since neither " understanding can intuit nothing, the senses can think nothing ", ie sensible intuition and understanding in fact do not cover Full mastery of what is reality for the human mind as an intelligible (as something that is legitimate to ask questions), as there is a domain that exists for us if only in a 'horizontal' (the horizon ' .) This domain knowledge which justifies, even though it is not possible as a science, which generates an address we can not avoid and which will need to find its justification: the metaphysics.
10/III/2009
read in the text given to us to comment that " The ability to think the object of intuition is, however, understanding. " With this statement, Kant returns to state again that aspect of tradition criticism and opposing assimilation is certainly the most characteristic feature of his thought, and also gives its size, quite extraordinary, its doctrine and all of his work . And is that the ' ability to think the object of intuition ' is referable to those (intuitions) through which we can represent the objects of our knowledge as possible, that is, to represent the phenomena as 'involved' in a spatial grid and positioned in a spatiotemporal sequence thus constituted as objects of an understanding that objects shall immediately refer such categorical games by which those objects would potentially be assimilated by the superior power of our psyche and / or our cognitive abilities. V. gr: this object is unique or is varied, is limited, it is inherent ... it depends ... like effect, is contingent, but it is not possible (or is) ... etc. Now that the understanding is able to pass through the alembic of the pure intuitions of understanding (the still of the twelve categories) such objects has been necessary for these, as phenomena, have been perceived space and spatial forms in the previous phase which is intuition, which is physiologically phase conditioned by our perceptual complex external and internal: external sensitivity affirm the spatial intuition, and with internal and external superimposed on other space-time . It is, of course, a powerful and telling speech, now it is not strictly original (in fact the originality of Kant would be rather a defect: such is its critical spirit), and we would be very difficult on the basis of this doctrine on sensitivity and understanding as higher cognitive abilities and characteristic of the human body does not remember that 'understanding agent 'Aristotle through abstractive faculty capable of establishing universal course content based on empirical materials and individuals. In any case, this synthesis is expressed in the celebrated sentence Kantian "(...). Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind "that can read in our text and that targets the core of Kant's transcendental epistemology is a genuinely Kantian product provides a clear and strong a limit to our knowledge a possible (as we look at the phenomena, ie the objects of sensible intuitions.)
To conclude our discussion we would like to point out that the basis of the extract gave us no chance, rather than a defective form, to refer to another concept crucial truly comprehensive critique of pure reason Kant finished: the concept of a noumenon or 'thing itself'. But let us not resist the observation that targeted these " two faculties or capacities" that "can not exchange functions", since neither " understanding can intuit nothing, the senses can think nothing ", ie sensible intuition and understanding in fact do not cover Full mastery of what is reality for the human mind as an intelligible (as something that is legitimate to ask questions), as there is a domain that exists for us if only in a 'horizontal' (the horizon ' .) This domain knowledge which justifies, even though it is not possible as a science, which generates an address we can not avoid and which will need to find its justification: the metaphysics.
10/III/2009
0 comments:
Post a Comment