Иммануил Кант — на странице писателя вы найдёте биографию, список книг и экранизаций, интересные факты из жизни, рецензии читателей и цитаты из книг. U.S. News. Full Menu. Последние дни Иммануила Канта: Directed by Philippe Collin. Подробная информация о фильме Последние дни Иммануила Канта на сайте Кинопоиск. Иммануил Кант-немецкий философ, родоначальник немецкой классической философии, стоящий на грани эпох Просвещения и Романтизма.
Doing Nothing with Emmanuel Kant
[–] Emmanuel__Kant 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children). I have allways the high cost champion. Veröffentlichungen von Kant, Emmanuel. Reform of institutions: Emmanuel Macron receives François Hollande at the Élysée.
Канте купил клуб в Бельгии после подписания контракта «Аль-Иттихадом»
| Собрались с мыслями. 300 лет Иммануилу Канту. В чем причины русского "антикантианства"? 25.04.2024 | Find Emmanuel kant stock images in HD and millions of other royalty-free stock photos, illustrations and vectors in the Shutterstock collection. |
| Ипохондрик, гений и городская звезда: 5 фактов об Иммануиле Канте | Онлайн-журнал Эксмо | We will see it from an example of the thought of Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) on education. Let us start by recalling some of these digital issues that current events force us to consider. |
| Daily Mail: Канте хочет перейти в «Интер» | Emmanuel Kant, Gravure sur bois, publiée en 1881. |
| Chronicle of Normand Baillargeon: thinking about education with Emmanuel Kant | Последние дни Иммануила Канта: Directed by Philippe Collin. |
Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...
He urged Europe to be more a master of its own destiny, saying in the past it was over-dependent on Russia for energy and Washington for security. However, many EU officials believe there is currently no credible alternative to the US military umbrella, and some suspect Macron of pushing French industrial interests. Macron said Europe also risks falling behind economically in a context where global free-trade rules are being challenged by major competitors, and he said it should aim to become a global leader in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, space, biotechnologies and renewable energy.
Такое воздаяние, как правило, неосуществимо в земной человеческой жизни. Но поскольку справедливость не знает границ во времени и пространстве, необходимо верить в загробную жизнь людей. Это доказательство, обосновывая разумность и необходимость религиозной веры, не утверждает, однако, что Бог и бессмертие души действительно существуют, ибо трансцендентное абсолютно непознаваемо. Всеобъемлющим нравственным законом является, по Канту, категорический императив безусловное повеление , который гласит: поступай так, чтобы максима т. Теория практического разума включает в себя и учение о праве, правовом государстве.
Право является реализацией свободы члена общества, ограниченной лишь свободой других его членов. Республика, принцип которой составляет разделение властей, — постулат чистого практического разума. Поэтому человек лишь постольку морален, поскольку он признаёт равенство всех других индивидов перед законом, отрицая тем самым любые сословные привилегии. Философско-исторические воззрения Канта непосредственно связаны с его философией права , т. В философии истории Канта придаётся первостепенное значение не только развитию нравственности и права, но и объективному «механизму» человеческой природы. Каждый индивид, сообразуясь только со своим разумением, неизбежно сталкивается с сопротивлением со стороны других индивидов. Это взаимное сопротивление характеризуется Кантом как антагонизм, становящийся движущей силой социального прогресса.
Кант отвергает убеждение Ж. Руссо , будто в предшествующем цивилизации «естественном состоянии» отношения между индивидами носили мирный, идиллический характер: «Люди столь же кроткие, как овцы, которых они пасут, вряд ли сделали бы своё существование более достойным, чем существование домашних животных... Поэтому да будет благословенна природа за неуживчивость, за завистливо соперничающее тщеславие, за ненасытную жажду обладать и господствовать! Без них все превосходные природные задатки человечества остались бы навсегда неразвитыми. Главным направлением культурного прогресса является, по Канту, сближение народов, благодаря которому, вследствие действия того же «механизма природы», будет навсегда покончено с войнами и народы всей планеты объединятся в мирном союзе. Заключительной частью системы Канта является «Критика способности суждения». Кант различает два вида способности суждения: определяющую и рефлектирующую размышляющую.
В первом случае речь идёт о том, чтобы подвести особенное под уже известное общее. Во втором случае особенное должно быть подведено под общее, которое не дано, а должно быть найдено. В данном труде он исследует эту вторую, рефлектирующую способность суждения. Её основными формами являются телеологические и эстетические суждения. И те и другие выявляют целесообразность, присущую не только явлениям природы, например живым организмам, но и объектам суждений вкуса. В действительности, как считает Кант, целесообразность не присуща ни предметам природы, ни предметам суждений вкуса; она привносится в природу априорной рефлектирующей способностью суждения, которая не обогащает наших знаний о природе, но способствует их приведению в систему. Необходимость телеологических суждений обусловлена тем, что рассудок оказывается неспособным объяснить естественными причинами наблюдаемые факты целесообразности в природе.
Работы Канта вдохновили следующие поколения философов и даже Альберта Эйнштейна. Сам Иммануил Кант был увлеченным своим делом ученым, талантливым преподавателем и эксцентричным, но при этом общительным человеком. О занимательных фактах из его биографии рассказываем в нашем материале.
Не любил учебу в гимназии Родители отдали маленького Иммануила в обычную школу на окраине города. Однако друг семьи, немецкий богослов Франц Шульц, отметил способности мальчика и порекомендовал перевести его в престижную гимназию «Фридрихс-Коллегиум». 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.
The politician was speaking at the "Vth Congress of Political Scientists" in Svetlogorsk, a coastal city on the Baltic Sea belonging to the same Russian enclave. The affirmation, a priori and without concept, can make a philosopher smile or choke up. But a geographer will see it as a sign of an old grudge.
Spotify is currently not available in your country.
Breaking Irish and International News. Источник: РИА "Новости". О сервисе Прессе Авторские права Связаться с нами Авторам Рекламодателям Разработчикам. О сервисе Прессе Авторские права Связаться с нами Авторам Рекламодателям Разработчикам. Читайте последние новости на тему в ленте новостей на сайте РИА Новости.
Advance: концепция Макрона о воинственной и сильной Европе ошибочна
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.
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.
И как учения философа помогут современному человеку бороться с фейками и информационными атаками? Гости: Александр Федоров, ректор Балтийского федерального университета имени Иммануила Канта, и Алексей Козырев, исполняющий обязанности декана философского факультета Московского государственного университета имени М. Показать больше.
Что подтверждал и в высказываниях, называя брак рабством. Женщин же он считал существами, не способными логически мыслить. Рецепт один — отойти в сторону, чтобы не заразиться. Был момент, когда Кант в Кенигсберге оказался практически рок-звездой. Его работы мало кто мог прочесть и осмыслить, но это добавляло загадочности персонажу.
В городе его знали все, и все делали вид, что понимают хоть что-нибудь. С другой стороны, если уж Генрих Гейне, которому было семь лет, когда Кант умер, так сильно спустя годы реагировал на упоминание философских трудов чудака из Кенигсберга не любил Гейне «Критику чистого разума», что тут поделаешь? График не на фиг Он был узнаваем. Человек, ненавидевший дневник в гимназии и самокопание, придумал для себя график. График, практически исключавший вмешательства извне. Как ни странно, этот график как раз извне был особенно интересен: выход из дома в определенный час на прогулку по определенному маршруту. Те, кто в дом были вхожи, знали и другие правила. В пять утра встать после семичасового сна, надеть колпак, а сверху — маленькую треугольную шляпу.
Работать до семи в кабинете. Прочитать лекцию. Без пятнадцати час начать одеваться к обеду, пообедать и пойти на прогулку. Его прогулки стали настолько известными, что на пути Канта стали караулить местные попрошайки. На прогулках он дышал носом. Считал, что это правило гигиены. Что же касается обеда, то это был единственный прием пищи, с тремя блюдами. В остальное время был слабый чай, а за обедом — полбутылки французского вина философ предпочитал медок.
Пива не любил. Часто приглашал друзей, но при условии, что за едой никто не будет говорить о философии. Сам страдал, когда видел, что кому-то может быть нанесен вред. Одна история: слуга разбил бокал во время обеда.
For this reason, Kant also supplies a synthetic argument that does not depend upon the assumption in dispute. Kant himself said that it is the one that cost him the most labor. The task of the "Analytic of Principles" is to show both that they must universally apply to objects given in actual experience i. The second book continues this line of argument in four chapters, each associated with one of the category groupings. In some cases, it adds a connection to the spatial dimension of intuition to the categories it analyzes. Some commentators consider this the most significant section of the Critique. He argues that the unity of time implies that "all change must consist in the alteration of states in an underlying substance, whose existence and quantity must be unchangeable or conserved. That was the end of the chapter in the A edition of the Critique. The B edition includes one more short section, "The Refutation of Idealism". In this section, by analysis of the concept of self-consciousness, Kant argues that his transcendental idealism is a "critical" or "formal" idealism that does not deny the existence of reality apart from our subjective representations. Against this, Kant reasserts his own insistence upon the necessity of a sensible component in all genuine knowledge. In particular, it is concerned to demonstrate as spurious the efforts of reason to arrive at knowledge independent of sensibility. This endeavor, Kant argues, is doomed to failure, which he claims to demonstrate by showing that reason, unbounded by sense, is always capable of generating opposing or otherwise incompatible conclusions. Like "the light dove, in free flight cutting through the air, the resistance of which it feels", reason "could get the idea that it could do even better in airless space". He presents the speculative excesses of traditional metaphysics as inherent in our very capacity of reason. Moreover, he argues that its products are not without some carefully qualified regulative value. They are different from the concepts of understanding in that they are not limited by the critical stricture limiting knowledge to the conditions of possible experience and its objects. Kant replaces the first with the positive results of the first part of the Critique. He proposes to replace the following three with his later doctrines of anthropology, the metaphysical foundations of natural science, and the critical postulation of human freedom and morality. He does this by developing contradictions in each of the three metaphysical disciplines that he contends are in fact pseudosciences. In this context, it not possible to do much more than enumerate the topics of discussion. The first chapter addresses what Kant terms the paralogisms—i. He argues that one cannot take the mere thought of "I" in the proposition "I think" as the proper cognition of "I" as an object. In this way, he claims to debunk various metaphysical theses about the substantiality, unity, and self-identity of the soul. Originally, Kant had thought that all transcendental illusion could be analyzed in antinomic terms. Whereas an idea is a pure concept generated by reason, an ideal is the concept of an idea as an individual thing. In an Appendix to this section, Kant rejects such a conclusion. The ideas of pure reason, he argues, have an important regulatory function in directing and organizing our theoretical and practical inquiry. With regard to morality , Kant argued that the source of the good lies not in anything outside the human subject, either in nature or given by God , but rather is only the good will itself. A good will is one that acts from duty in accordance with the universal moral law that the autonomous human being freely gives itself. This law obliges one to treat humanity—understood as rational agency, and represented through oneself as well as others—as an end in itself rather than merely as means to other ends the individual might hold. Kant is known for his theory that all moral obligation is grounded in what he calls the " categorical imperative ", which is derived from the concept of duty.
Emmanuel Kant
Breaking Irish and International News. [–] Emmanuel__Kant 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children). I have allways the high cost champion. Breaking Irish and International News.
Последние дни Иммануила Канта (1994) Les derniers jours d Emmanuel Kant
Гости: Александр Федоров, ректор Балтийского федерального университета имени Иммануила Канта, и Алексей Козырев, исполняющий обязанности декана философского факультета Московского государственного университета имени М. Лаб: все выпуски.
Let us note that earlier the governor of the Kaliningrad region, Anton Alikhanov, called the philosopher Immanuel Kant a Russian trophy. Kant for us is a Russian trophy.
Like everything you see in the Kaliningrad region - said Alikhanov. He added that any prudent owner must deal with the inheritance received, and said that Russian thought often opposed Kant.
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?
А вот понимание права - уже совсем другой вопрос. Для Иммануила Канта право являлось, по сути, категорическим императивом. В то же время существует метафизика нравственности, в рамках которой Кант предлагал воспринимать этику как некую науку, отличную от философии, - заключил ученый. Это довольно императивные суждения, не требующие, по мнению философа, доказательства. Думаю, что основная путаница вызвана тем, что в своих работах Кант не уделил достаточно внимания связи нравственной философии с философией права. Канта" Вечную актуальность трудов Иммануила Канта подтвердили зарубежные участники международного конгресса.
Труды философа там изучают, потому что они фундаментальны. Студентам интересны практически все темы - от теории познания до этики.
Главное правило жизни, которому учит философия Канта
18+. Вы здесь. Главная» Эммануэль Макрон. Полузащитник «Челси» Н’Голо Канте дал согласие на переход в миланский «Интер». 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.
Иммануил Кант
[–] Emmanuel__Kant 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children). I have allways the high cost champion. Иммануил Кант — на странице писателя вы найдёте биографию, список книг и экранизаций, интересные факты из жизни, рецензии читателей и цитаты из книг. President Emmanuel Macron, during a speech on Europe, in the amphitheater of the Sorbonne University, Paris, April 25, 2024. 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.