Π§ΠΈΡ‚Π°ΠΉΡ‚Π΅ ΠΊΠ½ΠΈΠ³ΠΈ ΠΎΠ½Π»Π°ΠΉΠ½ Π½Π° Bookidrom.ru! БСсплатныС ΠΊΠ½ΠΈΠ³ΠΈ Π² ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠΌ ΠΊΠ»ΠΈΠΊΠ΅

Π§ΠΈΡ‚Π°Ρ‚ΡŒ ΠΎΠ½Π»Π°ΠΉΠ½ Β«ΠŸΠΎΠ΄Π²Π°Π»Ρ‹ кантовской ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Π°Ρ„ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠΈΒ». Π‘Ρ‚Ρ€Π°Π½ΠΈΡ†Π° 41

Автор Π’Π°ΡΠΈΠ»ΡŒΠ΅Π² Π’.Π’

ΠžΠ±ΠΎΠ·Π½Π°Ρ‡Π°Ρ Ρ‚ΠΎΡ‚ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠΉ аспСкт ΠΊΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Π³ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΠΉ, ΠšΠ°Π½Ρ‚ Ρ€Π΅ΡˆΠ°Π΅Ρ‚ ваТнСйшиС ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΡ‹ своСй тСорСтичСской философии. Π’Ρ‹Π²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Π³ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΠΉ ΠΈΠ· логичСских Ρ„ΡƒΠ½ΠΊΡ†ΠΈΠΉ Π΄ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Ρ‹Π²Π°Π΅Ρ‚ Π°ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΎΡ€Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΈ нСчувствСнноС происхоТдСниС этих основных понятий рассудка, позволяСт ΠΎΠ³Ρ€Π°Π½ΠΈΡ‡ΠΈΡ‚ΡŒ ΠΎΠ±Π»Π°ΡΡ‚ΡŒ ΠΈΡ… Π²ΠΎΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ примСнСния для познания явлСниями ΠΈ Π² Ρ‚ΠΎ ΠΆΠ΅ врСмя оставляСт Π²ΠΎΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ примСнСния ΠΊΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Π³ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΠΉ ΠΊ Π²Π΅Ρ‰Π°ΠΌ самим ΠΏΠΎ сСбС Π² Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠΊΠ°Ρ… практичСской философии. ΠšΡ€ΠΎΠΌΠ΅ Ρ‚ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ, привязка ΠΊΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Π³ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΠΉ ΠΊ логичСским функциям позволяСт ΡΠΈΡΡ‚Π΅ΠΌΠ°Ρ‚ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ‚ΡŒ элСмСнтарныС понятия чистого ΠΌΡ‹ΡˆΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΈ Π½Π°Π±Ρ€ΠΎΡΠ°Ρ‚ΡŒ ΠΏΠ»Π°Π½ всСй систСмы ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Π°Ρ„ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠΈ.

Π”ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Ρ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΡΡ‚Π²ΠΎ, Ρ‡Ρ‚ΠΎ ΠΏΡ€Π΅Π΄ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ‹ ΠΌΠΎΠ³ΡƒΡ‚ ΠΌΡ‹ΡΠ»ΠΈΡ‚ΡŒΡΡ Ρ‚ΠΎΠ»ΡŒΠΊΠΎ с ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡ‰ΡŒΡŽ ΠΊΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Π³ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΠΉ, заостряСт Π²Π½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π° Ρ„ΡƒΠ½ΠΊΡ†ΠΈΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΊΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Π³ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΠΉ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠ½Ρ†ΠΈΠΏΠΎΠ² конституирования ΠΎΠ±ΡŠΠ΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΠΈ Π² контСкстС ΠΎΠ±Ρ‹Π΄Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΎΠΏΡ‹Ρ‚Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ знания ΠΈ развиваСтся ΠšΠ°Π½Ρ‚ΠΎΠΌ Π² сфСрС "эмпиричСской психологии", ΠΏΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠΉ ΠΈΠΌ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Ρ€Π½ΠΎ Ρ‚Π°ΠΊ, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ сСйчас Π½Π°ΠΌΠΈ понимаСтся "фСномСнология". НаконСц, акцСнтуация Ρ‚ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ, Ρ‡Ρ‚ΠΎ ΠΊΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Π³ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΠΈ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΡŽΡ‚ΡΡ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠ±Ρ…ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΌΡ‹ΠΌΠΈ функциями Сдинства прСдставлСний Π² самосознании, позволяСт ΠšΠ°Π½Ρ‚Ρƒ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎ ΠΎΡ‚Π²Π΅Ρ‚ΠΈΡ‚ΡŒ Π½Π° Π³Π»Π°Π²Π½Ρ‹ΠΉ вопрос Π΅Π³ΠΎ критичСской философии ΠΎ возмоТности Π°ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΎΡ€Π½Ρ‹Ρ… синтСтичСских ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π½Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΈΠ· чистого рассудка.


S U M M A R Y

To sum up, let us expound the results of our study in a question – answer form.

Why is it important to study deduction of categories? Transcendental deduction of the categories is the core of the Transcendental Analytic, which in turn is the central part of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. So, in a sense, the deduction is the main part of the theoretical philosophy of Kant. It helps to answer the central question of critical philosophy concerning possibility, scope and borders of synthetic knowledge a priori.

What is the tr. deduction of categories alike? – It is an explanation of the possibility of categories as pure notions of understanding to be the grounds of synthetic knowledge a priori. The explanation is an a priori inquiry itself which does not use any information derived from experience. To be successful, the deduction should make clear that the categories are conditions a priori of the possibility of some kinds of objects. As a result, the tr.deduction confirms the non-sensual origin of the categories.

What is the necessity of deduction for Kant? – If tr. deduction turns to be impossible, the categories could not be recognized as pure notions of understanding and are to be considered as having their origin in experience (main premise of tr. deduction). In this case the sharp distinction between sense and understanding, which is someway a hidden corner-stone of Kant's metaphysics, disappears. The "main premise" of tr. deduction is nothing else as an "argument of Hume" which awoke Kant from his "dogmatic slumber" in 1771.

Is it still possible to build the system of critical philosophy without tr. deduction? – Yes. The possibility of knowledge a priori from pure understanding is already proved when it is known that the tr. deduction of categories is possible, but the fact of its possibility may be ascertained on the basis of metaphysical deduction of categories which proves theirs origin a priori deriving them from the logical functions of judgements, connected with the main premise of tr. deduction (see previous question). This way, however, has some a posteriori "inclusions", because it is already presupposed in the main premise of the tr. deduction that experience conforms, at least approximately, with the rules of understanding; so for Kant, as he wants to reach the highest degree of certainty, the way a priori with the full expounding of the tr. deduction is preferable.

What is the "objective" deduction of categories? – It is an inquiry which shows that the only possible objects of knowledge a priori are appearances, because categories could not be conditions a priori of existence of things themselves anyway: we are not gods.

What is the "subjective" deduction of categories? – It is the proof a priori that the categories contain the conditions of possibility of appearances as the objects of possible perception or experience. In other words, subjective deduction is the tr. deduction of categories as such.

What is the "sufficient" deduction of categories? – It is the reduced version of subjective deduction. It shows that only perceptions which are connected in accordance with categories may be thought as having relation to a transcendental object. It is "sufficient" within the framework of that way of achievement of the goals of critical philosophy which set the tr. deduction as such aside and pays most attention to the metaphysical deduction, and also has some components a posteriori.

What is the "complete" subjective deduction? – It is an inquiry which is to prove that categories are not necessary conditions of thinking of objects only, but also that they are the grounds of possibility of perceiving these objects.

Has the "complete" subjective deduction any innere subdivisions? – It is divided into two stages. At first, Kant proves that categories have an a priori relation to the manifold of sense intuition in general, then - that they have the same necessary relation to the manifold of our intuition, space and, primarily, time. Such a devision is necessary because when there is still a possibility that categories could have objective validity on the manifold of our sense intuition only, then the risk of amalgamation of categories with the modi of our sense intuition is not to the end avoided, while the tr. deduction should confirm the very fact of non-sensual origin of the categories.

What role does the "sufficient" deduction play in the structure of the "complete" subjective deduction of the categories? – This role could be clarified on the basis of the original version of "complete" deduction which Kant had created some time before the publication of the Critique of Pure Reason. On the one hand, in the "sufficient" deduction Kant tried to prove that only perceptions which stay under categories could have relation to a transcendental object. On the other hand, Kant believed that all possible objects of perception are to have a necessary relation to the tr. unity of apperception. As Kant was sure that there was a parallelism between the tr. unity of apperception and a transcendental object he could overturn the result of the "sufficient" deduction on the apperception and so came to the conclusion that all objects of apprehension are to be in the correspondence with the categories. The parallelism between the tr. unity of apperception and transcendental object is due to the fact that former as well as latter seem to be the things as they exist in themselves, and the original apperception is an exemplar of tr. object. In Critique of Pure Reason Kant has changed this position and made a sharp distinction between the unity of apperception as a form of thinking and a hypothetical unity of subject itself, and the tr. deduction lost its evidence.


Π­Ρ‚ΠΎ элСктронноС ΠΈΠ·Π΄Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒΡŽ повторяСт ΠΏΠ΅Ρ‡Π°Ρ‚Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΈΠ·Π΄Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ 1998 Π³., Π·Π° ΠΈΡΠΊΠ»ΡŽΡ‡Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ Π½Π΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ»ΡŒΠΊΠΈΡ… Π½Π΅Π·Π½Π°Ρ‡ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½Ρ‹Ρ… исправлСний.

ЗамысСл этой ΠΊΠ½ΠΈΠ³ΠΈ состоял Π² Ρ‚ΠΎΠΌ, Ρ‡Ρ‚ΠΎΠ±Ρ‹ ΡΠΌΠΎΠ΄Π΅Π»ΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ‚ΡŒ логичСский Π»Π°Π±ΠΈΡ€ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚ Π½Π° ΠΌΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΠ°Π»Π΅ Π΄Π΅Π΄ΡƒΠΊΡ†ΠΈΠΈ ΠšΠ°Π½Ρ‚Π°. ΠœΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄Ρƒ Ρ‚Π΅ΠΌ, ΠΈΡ‚ΠΎΠ³ ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π° состоит Π² ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠ·Π½Π°Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΎΡˆΠΈΠ±ΠΎΡ‡Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΠΈ мнСния, Ρ‡Ρ‚ΠΎ Ρ‚Ρ€ΡƒΠ΄Π½Π΅Π΅ всСго Π²Ρ‹Π±ΠΈΡ€Π°Ρ‚ΡŒΡΡ ΠΈΠ· Π»Π°Π±ΠΈΡ€ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚Π° - Π½Π΅Π²Π°ΠΆΠ½ΠΎ, Ρ€Π΅Π°Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ логичСского. Думая Ρ‚Π°ΠΊ,   Π·Π°Π±Ρ‹Π²Π°ΡŽΡ‚, Ρ‡Ρ‚ΠΎ  Π² Π»Π°Π±ΠΈΡ€ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚Π΅ Ρƒ нас всСгда   Π΅ΡΡ‚ΡŒ чСткая   Ρ†Π΅Π»ΡŒ. ΠžΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½Ρ‹Π΅ ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΡ‹  Π½Π°Ρ‡ΠΈΠ½Π°ΡŽΡ‚ΡΡ   ΠΏΠΎ Π²Ρ‹Ρ…ΠΎΠ΄Ρƒ ΠΈΠ· Π»Π°Π±ΠΈΡ€ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚Π°.  Π’ случаС с ΠšΠ°Π½Ρ‚ΠΎΠΌ это особСнно ΠΎΡ‡Π΅Π²ΠΈΠ΄Π½ΠΎ. РСшив историко-философскиС вопросы, ΠΌΡ‹ Π΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΆΠ½Ρ‹ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΡΡ‚ΡƒΠΏΠ°Ρ‚ΡŒ ΠΊ философским - Π½ΠΎ здСсь ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π²Π° сразу ΠΆΠ΅ ΡƒΡ…ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡ‚ ΠΈΠ· ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ Π½ΠΎΠ³.

Π’ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π΅ кантовской Π΄Π΅Π΄ΡƒΠΊΡ†ΠΈΠΈ я, разумССтся, опирался Π½Π° достиТСния соврСмСнной кантовСдчСской Π½Π°ΡƒΠΊΠΈ. К соТалСнию, объСм ΠΊΠ½ΠΈΠ³ΠΈ (Π° Ρ‚Π°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅, отчасти, Π½Π΅ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π²Π΄Π°Π²Π°Ρ‚ΡŒΡΡ Π² ΠΊΡ€ΠΈΡ‚ΠΈΠΊΡƒ) Π½Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΠΈΠ» ΠΌΠ½Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Ρ€ΠΎΠ±Π½ΠΎ ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΠ°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ‚ΡŒ  всС   Π·Π½Π°Ρ‡ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½Ρ‹Π΅ ΠΊΠΎΠ½Ρ†Π΅ΠΏΡ†ΠΈΠΈ. Бамая нСобходимая информация Π½Π° этот счСт Π΄Π°Π½Π° Π² примСчаниях.


+++