BTU Chair of General Ecology Concept of Nature in the „Critique of Pure Reason” 1 THE CONCEPT OF NATURE IN THE LIGHT OF IMMANUEL KANT’S „CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON” Scriptum Udo Bröring BTU, Chair General Ecology Table of Contents Summary Introductory Remarks Prerequisites: Various Philosophers and General Approaches Different Attitudes Towards Nature and the Concept of Causality The „Critique of Pure Reason” - Contents and Reception - Transcendental Aesthetics and Analytics - Transcendental Apperception and the Four Tables of Understanding, Concept of Nature Within the Transcendental Idealism Outlook: The Kantian “Critical Business” References and Further Readings Summary It is reason which prescribes its laws to the sensible universe; it is reason which makes the cosmos. (I. Kant, Prolegom. 85) The „Critique of Pure Reason” (CPR) by Immanuel Kant, first published in 1781, is one of the most important philosophical publications, and the „Copernican Revolution in Philoso- phy” was the result. Various fields of philosophical discussion are affected. I start to give a brief overview on different concepts of science (empirism, rationalism) and different attitudes towards nature before 1781. After some terminological clarifications (transcendental, analytic and synthetic a priori truths, intuition, recognition, reason, and apperception), an overview of the general contents and architecture of CPR and a brief summary of the different parts is given. Special emphasis is laid on the transcendental aesthetic and the transcendental analytic within the first part of CPR („transcendental doctrine of elements”) in order to analyze the concept of nature in the light of the CPR. Discussion within the transcendental aesthetic reveals ideality of space and time, that means that space and time are just modes of our perception („conditions of faculty of experience”) and are not within nature itself. With space and time our intellect arranges our sensations and intuitions by applying the categories of pure understanding. This process is discussed in detail, as according to CPR nature is nothing else than the result of such an application of categories using time schemes within the frame of a
Transcript
BTU Chair of General Ecology Concept of Nature in the „Critique of Pure Reason” 1
THE CONCEPT OF NATURE IN THE LIGHT OF IMMANUEL KANT’S „CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON”
Scriptum
Udo Bröring BTU, Chair General Ecology
Table of Contents
Summary
Introductory Remarks
Prerequisites: Various Philosophers and General Approaches
Different Attitudes Towards Nature and the Concept of Causality
The „Critique of Pure Reason”
- Contents and Reception - Transcendental Aesthetics and Analytics - Transcendental Apperception and the Four Tables of Understanding,
Concept of Nature Within the Transcendental Idealism
Outlook: The Kantian “Critical Business”
References and Further Readings
Summary
It is reason which prescribes its laws to the sensible universe; it is reason which makes the cosmos. (I. Kant, Prolegom. 85)
The „Critique of Pure Reason” (CPR) by Immanuel Kant, first published in 1781, is one of the most important philosophical publications, and the „Copernican Revolution in Philoso-phy” was the result. Various fields of philosophical discussion are affected. I start to give a brief overview on different concepts of science (empirism, rationalism) and different attitudes towards nature before 1781. After some terminological clarifications (transcendental, analytic and synthetic a priori truths, intuition, recognition, reason, and apperception), an overview of the general contents and architecture of CPR and a brief summary of the different parts is given. Special emphasis is laid on the transcendental aesthetic and the transcendental analytic within the first part of CPR („transcendental doctrine of elements”) in order to analyze the concept of nature in the light of the CPR. Discussion within the transcendental aesthetic reveals ideality of space and time, that means that space and time are just modes of our perception („conditions of faculty of experience”) and are not within nature itself. With space and time our intellect arranges our sensations and intuitions by applying the categories of pure understanding. This process is discussed in detail, as according to CPR nature is nothing else than the result of such an application of categories using time schemes within the frame of a
BTU
syste„faciknowsubjeable connaccor„tranintellthe e
Intr
The bookaffec
The the olimitis bey
Figur
Epistphiloto thwordis „tr
Chair of Gene
em of princility of the sw about natuect. We per
to us. Kannection of arding to la
nscendental lectual and
existence of
roductory
„Critique ok ever writtcted. For mo
Kantian appopposite diret of our reasyond our re
re 1: Transc
temology (gosophical reird and four
ds, what areranscendent
eral Ecology
ciples: the synthesis ofure are just rceive appeant himself appearancesaws” (B239laws of natat the same
f things, as i
y Remark
of Pure Reasten in Europodern conce
proach is cection (figuson (Gr. λόγeason (meta
cendentality
gr. ἐπιστήμηeasoning refrth question
e the necesstal”, his phil
result is a f the manifo
appearancearances onlywrites: „B
s as regards9) and in tture”, whiche time syntt is determi
ks
son” by Immpe (Schopeepts of natur
ompletely dure 1). Philoγος, logos, Lphysics)? W
y versus tran
η, epistéme fers to the fn. Contrary sary conditiolosophy is r
Conc
representaold by transces which arey; the thing
By nature, s their existhe chapterh he also chthetic”. By ined by scie
manuel Kanenhauer). Vare and scien
different froosophers befLat. ratio), aWhat is beyo
nscendency
– lat. scienfirst two que
to this Kanons for the referred to a
cept of Nature
ation of thecendental ape manifold
g in itself („in the empstence accor „Analogieharacterizesthis it is co
entific laws.
nt is by far arious fieldntific resear
om the veryfore Kant aand what is ond the visi
y.
ntia: knowleestions, ontnt asked: Wfaculty of e
as „transcen
e in the „Critiq
e world andpperceptionand unreser
„Ding an sicpirical sensrding to ne
es of Pure s as „a prioroncluded tha
the most imds of philosch it is a fun
y beginningsked most fthe limit ofble world?
edge, „Erkenology (gr. ὄ
What is beforexperience?ndental idea
que of Pure R
d the condin” („I think”rvedly arranch selbst”)
se, we undecessary ruReason” h
ri propositioat nature is
mportant phsophical disndamental b
g, he straighfrequently: f our percep
nntnis”) as ὄν – being, re reason, th? By this, thalisms”.
eason” 2
ition is the”). What wenged by theis unknow-erstand theles, that is,
he providesons that are
s essentially
hilosophicalcussion arebasis.
htly goes inWhat is the
ption? What
one field ofsein) refershat is in hishe approach
2
e e e -e , s e y
l e
n e t
f s s h
BTU Chair of General Ecology Concept of Nature in the „Critique of Pure Reason” 3
Revolutions in Europe and Conditions for Philosophical and Scientific Progress
The political, social, cultural, scientific situation in Europe in the middle of the 18th century changed dramatically. Epoch-making changes in a small time window („beginning of the modern age as a historical formation”, „Beginn der Neuzeit”) were:
the publication of „Kritik der reinen Vernunft” (1781) by Immanuel Kant for the field of philosophy and human mind in general;
the French revolution (1789) for the field of socio-political and economic situation; the Napoleonic realignment (since 1800) for the political map of Europe.
Preconditions were of course the proceeding secularization and the emancipation of human mind. At the end of the 18th century various political and social developments (which started already at the times of the renaissance) and a synthesis of different patterns of thought lead to the end of the age of enlightment („Aufklärung”). The resulting world view is the basis of our today’s scientific and philosophical thinking. A side-effect of this development is of course the irreversible divergence of the philosophy of nature and science („Naturphilosophie” in the sense of Schelling vs. „Naturwissenschaft”) in the course of the 19th century. – „You, that way; we, this way” (Shakespeare, Lost Labour‘s Lost, V,2 the end).
Various patterns of thought are characteristic for the cultural and scientific sphere at the end of the 18th century1:
Science is purely secular (Hume, Kant, and Laplace): The condemnation of the curios-itas (Augustinus)2 and other theological presettings abridging scientific reasoning is rejected. There is no return.3
Scientific knowledge is knowledge of laws in nature, process has to be described in mathematical (quantitative) terms (Kant).
Scientific knowledge is based on experience (Hume, Kant), basic procedure of scien-tific nature research is observation and experiment: Platonic philosophy (e.g. concept of idea and type) and Aristotelian doctrines (e.g. concepts of teleology and entelechy) were eroded.
Scientific research leads to scientific and social progress: Everything is possible, it is just necessary to do more and more research!
Prerequisites: Various Philosophers and General Approaches
When Immanuel Kant was born on April, 22nd 1724 in Kaliningrad, the Leibniz-Wolffian rationalism dominated the philosophical debate in continental Europe, while in Britain empiricism prevailed Newton and Locke. The CPR was revolutionary and crushing down everything completely like an earthquake (Mendelssohn: „alles zermalmend”), however, there
1 See discussion in Trepl (1987) [Geschichte der Ökologie. Frankfurt]. 2 Aurelius Augustinus (354-430) condemned curiosity (curiositas in the „Confessiones”; German: Neugierde) to be too much related to senses and the visible world. His theology had an extremely deep impact for more than thousand years and lead to rejection of scientific research. 3 „Pure religion is based on belief” (Hume 1740 [A treatise on human nature. London. p. 9], see also discussion in Kühn 2001 [Kant. Cambridge: especially p. 301ff.]).
BTU Chair of General Ecology Concept of Nature in the „Critique of Pure Reason” 4
were a number of important precursors, and Kant developed his critique of reason closely in the light of the philosophical discussion of his time.
Rationalism is formed based on the philosophy of different thinkers: Plato (427-347 BC), René Descartes ('Renatus Cartesius' 1596-1650), Baruch de Spinoza (1632-1677), G.W. Leibniz (1646-1716) and Christian Wolff (1679-1754). Accordingly, sensory experiences are neither the basis nor limitations of our recognition. True is not what sense, but only what reason tells us about the world (Descartes). Metaphysics is possible and necessary. For the dogmatist thinking is a cognitive function and has absolutely no boundaries and therefore claims universality. – Empirism is based on Aristotle (384-324 BC), Francis Bacon ('Baco de Verulam', 1561-1626), John Locke (1632-1704), Isaac Newton (1643-1727), George Berkeley (1685-1753), and David Hume (1711-1776). Contrary to rationalism, empirism states that experience is the only source and limitation of all our recognition and knowledge. There is nothing in our intellect that is not in our senses before (Locke). Therefore, metaphysics is impossible. Additionally, for the skepticism thought is completely unable to perform an act of definite or at least assured knowledge.
Kant follows Plato in respect to his distinction between the sensual and the intellectual world, he smoothes and polishes this approach for his own purpose: the construction of the noume-non and the phaenoumenon. The concept of the Platonic idea is modified as well: For the knowledge non-empirical elements are of basic importance, and the idea is not constitutive for knowledge, but has a research- and experience-regulating function (see Höffe 2004). Howev-er, unlike Plato, Kant significantly upgraded the importance of sensuality in the Critique of Pure Reason. Illusion is never in the phenomenon, because senses basically don’t appear in the mode of possible deception: misapprehension occurs only, when inadequate concepts of understanding (“categories”) are applied to given sensations (error) or when reason is expanding or transcending over sensation-based knowledge (illusion). The logic of truth is a theory of the phenomena, the logic of illusion a theory of the nomena („thing in itself”) (discussed in detail in Höffe 2004.). – The logic of illusion is advanced in the largest part of the CPR, the „Transcendental Dialectics” with respect to the transcendental ideas soul (derived from inner sense: immortality), cosmos (derived from outer sense: freedom, i.e. independency of human acting from causality), and (all-embrassing) the ideal of pure reason (god).
Following Francis Bacon and especially George Berkeley, John Locke began to separate the „thing” from its appearance. He separated primary and secondary properties of things. The secondary properties are properties that do not lie in the object itself (such as color or smell). Kant continues on that way consistently in the CPR.
The most important philosopher of skepticism in Kant's time was undoubtedly David Hume with his writings, „A Treatise of Human Nature” (1740) and „An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding” (1748). Hume recognizes the experience as the only source of our knowledge. With regard to any judgments he distinguishes only between „matters of fact” (Kant: analytic judgments a priori), and „relations of ideas” (Kant: synthetic judgments a posteriori): therefore, statements are either purely logical and by this always true („the circle is round”), or based on empirical observations and can be true or false. Kant will show in the Critique of Pure Reason, that there is something in between.
BTU Chair of General Ecology Concept of Nature in the „Critique of Pure Reason” 5
Different Attitudes Towards Nature and the Concept of Causality
Greek and Roman Concept of Nature as Physis and Natura
The Greek word (physis) means everything that is moving, and changing, it is the totality of everything that comes into being and has an origin and passes. Physis means what we call the reality („Wirklichkeit”), in the concept of „physis” a concept of „reality” is available. Contrary to this, for the Romans „natura” is something that is available, the focus was set to nature as being something, that came into being and that has an origin. In this view nature is everything that emerges and that is created. It is something substantial, and the aspect of the development is one-sidedly stressed by exclusion of the aspect of passing. Physis was reduced to the „natura naturans”, and subsequently, to the „natura”. This process was fundamental for the further development of our modern understanding of nature.4
Medieval and Post-Medieval Concepts of Nature
During the late antique and the medieval world nature was everything that is fateful. Nature is unfixed, spontaneous, and ordered by an almighty power. Subsequently, „nature” became the „existence of things, as it is determined by general laws of nature” (Kant, CPR, CJ).
According to the post-medieval view of nature at the beginning of the modern age ideas of scientific perception, perception of laws, importance of experiments, and the idea of progress in science became important for the concept of nature.
The Concept of Causality
Causality denotes the relation between cause and effect. David Hume introduced the principle of causality as subjective-psychological tendency of mind to arrange observed processes in time according to obvious apparent necessity in order to set up a coherent imagination. According to Hume, the verdict: „Every change has a cause” is not derived from perception, since we empirically perceive only a sequence.5 Causality within the Critique of Pure Reason is something different, here it is one of 12 categories („pure concepts of understanding”), and by this it is a necessary way of thinking.6 The objectivity of appearances is constituted by the cause–effect relationship.
Every change is always the result of the principle of causality, because a series of appearances can only be interpreted as being an objective event, when it is accepted as a temporal succes-sion, in which the sequence of events is not invertible, and that means that the later situation is the result of the cause–effect rule. The former situation is not only „before” (temporal, „the
4 Of course, this is one of the most important reason for the doctrine of exploitation (and overexploitation) of nature resources, and not the DOMINIUM TERRAE of 1 Mose 1.28 (= Gen 1.28; „fill the earth and subdue it”; „macht euch die Erde untertan”) as it is supposed most often. 5 An extensive discussion in: Höffe 2004 [Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft]. 6 The difference to Hume‘s approach on causality is discussed most clearly in Critique of Practical Reason A 92, for the (philosophical) concept of causality in CPR see Höffe (2004) [Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft].
BTU Chair of General Ecology Concept of Nature in the „Critique of Pure Reason” 6
lightning occurs before the thunder”), but also therefore („because”, conditional, „it thunders because there was a lightning”). Nature at all is what we know from it a priori, before any real contact: Conformity of appearances, and by this, causality in both forms of intuition (space and time). The concept of nature is a concept of a nature which is realized in its coherency of laws.7
The „Critique of Pure Reason”
„We cannot go beyond experience.” (D. Hume, THN: p. 4)
Nur in der Erfahrung liegt die Wahrheit. („Only in experience there is truth.”)
(I. Kant, Prolegomena: p. 3)
Contents and Reception
The first sentence of the preface to the first edition is on an important property of reason:
„Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer. - The perplexity into which it thus falls is not due to any fault of its own.”8
Subsequently, the main objectives of the CPR are outlined: Examination and analysis of the ability of the faculty of perception. Therefore, it is asked: Is pure metaphysics, i.e. metaphys-ics independent of all experience possible, and if, in which way? Kant writes:
„I do not mean by this a critique of books and systems, but of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all knowledge after which it may strive independently of all experience. It will therefore decide as to the possibility or impossibility of metaphysics in general, and determine its sources, its extent, and its limits - all in accordance with principles.” (A IX)9
In the preface to the second edition it is explained, why a „Copernican turn of metaphysics” is initiated, and by this a revolution in the mentality („Revolution in der Denkungsart”). It is stated that our knowledge is not in accordance with the objects, but the objects are constituted according to our way of perception. As the thing-in-itself cannot be the object of our experi-ence, reason enters serious problems when it tries to focus on the essence of reality. Serious contradictions are resulting, and this is shown in the dialectics-chapter.
7 Höffe 2004 [Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft]. 8 „Die menschliche Vernunft hat das besondere Schicksal in einer Gattung ihrer Erkenntnisse: daß sie durch Fragen belästigt wird, die sie nicht abweisen kann; denn sie sind ihr durch die Natur der Vernunft selbst aufgegeben, die sie aber auch nicht beantworten kann; denn sie übersteigen alles Vermögen der menschlichen Vernunft. - In diese Verlegenheit gerät sie ohne ihre Schuld.” 9 „Ich verstehe aber hierunter nicht eine Kritik der Bücher und Systeme, sondern die des Vernunftvermögens überhaupt, in Ansehung aller Erkenntnisse, zu denen sie, unabhängig von aller Erfahrung, streben mag, mithin die Entscheidung der Möglichkeit oder Unmöglichkeit einer Metaphysik überhaupt und die Bestimmung sowohl der Quellen, als des Umfanges und der Grenzen derselben, alles aber aus Prinzipien.”
BTU Chair of General Ecology Concept of Nature in the „Critique of Pure Reason” 7
In the introduction basic terms for the analysis of intellect and reason are introduced, pure and empiric knowledge, analytic versus synthetic judgments, judgments a priori versus judgments a posteriori and the notion of „transcendental philosophy”. Additionally, metaphysics is defined, and by this another main objective of the Critique of Pure Reason: The „unavoidable problems set by pure reason itself are God, freedom, and immortality. The science which, with all its preparations, is in its final intention directed solely to their solution is metaphysics; and its procedure is at first dogmatic, that is, it confidently sets itself to this task without any previous examination of the capacity or incapacity of reason for so great an undertaking.” (B46)
The „Critique of Pure Reason” is difficult to read and to understand. Problems of reception and translation arise due to many reasons. Kant liked to include commonly used terms and concepts assigning unusual meanings. Sometimes different definitions are given (reason), sometimes broad, sometimes narrow (idea, apperception), sometimes a definition is missing (category). Sometimes he is not consequent in using certain terms (understanding or intellect = „Verstand”, reason = „Vernunft”, perception = „Anschauung”, imagination = „Vorstel-lung”). Additionally, discussion within different chapters is sometimes dismatched and not well-structured (e.g. chapter „Transcendental Deduction” in both editions10).
The standard English translation is by Norman Kemp-Smith (published 1929), though there is a more recent one by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. Some important translations used are presented in table 1.
Table 1: Some important German – English translations.
10 The first edition (referred to as “A-edition”) was released in April 1781; Kant revised the text considerably and published the second edition in 1787 (referred to as “B-edition”). Commonly, citation is done referring to this notation, so B46 means page 46 of the second edition.
BTU Chair of General Ecology Concept of Nature in the „Critique of Pure Reason” 8
In order to meet some of the reception problems in table 2 some translations into modern language are given – these translations, of course, must be used very carefully.
Table 2: Some translations into modern language (use carefully!).
Original: Critique of Pure Reason (Kemp‐Smith)
Modern English Original: Kritik der reinen Vernunft
Modern German
Critique of Pure Reason Examination and Analysis of Pure Thinking
Kritik der reinen Vernunft
Genaue Analyse/Unter‐suchung des Denkens
pure Conditional, without any empirical ingredients
Rein (Vernunft, Ver‐standesbegriffe etc.)
Vorempirisch, erfahrungs‐unabhängig
Thing in itself Essence of things without a relation to the observer
Ding an sich Eigentliches Wesen und Essenz der Dinge
dition of relty of judgmain a priori er a series of
re 2: Transc
re 3: Structu
esthetic” hereptio = Engl./Fnt’s „Critique
SensitiviIntuition
Transcendental ctrine of elemen
eral Ecology
ntal doctrinelogic. In orout content
ne Inhalt sin sensibilityand), whichcognition iment (the flaws (unde
f universal i
cendental co
ure of the tr
e simply referFrench percepe of Judgment”
Recogn
ityn
nts
T
e of elemender to analare empty, nd leer, Any, which prh elaboratesis given (fifaculty of cerstanding, ideas (reaso
onditions fo
ranscendent
s to the origintion = Ger. W”).
ition
UnderstConc
Transcendenaestetics (Theo
perception)
Transcendental(Theory of think
Conc
nts is compolyse cognitiintuitions w
nschauungeroduces intus and fixes tigure 2). Inconnecting t
Verstand) on, Vernunf
or possible r
tal doctrine
nal Greek aisWahrnehmung,
tandingcept
ntal ory of )
l logic king)
cept of Nature
osed of the ion both aewithout conen ohne Beuitions („senthem. By con recognitiothe intuitionand the fac
ft: see figure
recognition:
of elements
thesis (derive, and has noth
Transcendanalytics (Th
understan
Transcenddialectics (T
reason
e in the „Critiq
transcendensthetic and
ncepts are blegriffe sindnsible ideasombining boon he distins with eacculty of arre 3).
: Intuition a
s.
d from αἰσθηhing to do with
dental heory of nding)
dental heory of n)
que of Pure R
ntal aesthetanalytic is
lind” (Kantd blind”). Ks”), and undoth, the traninguishes bch other) acranging our
and concept
ητικός [aistheth „beauty” (th
Analysis o
Analysis o
Dialecon
Dialectica
eason” 9
ic11 and thes necessary:, CPR B75:
Kant distin-derstandingnscendental
between theccording tor judgments
.
tikos)]) = Lat.his is different
of concepts
of principles
ectical cepts
l inferences
9
e : : -g l e o s
. t
BTU
The judgmgebradentathe ddistinprovistrucreaso
Figur
Figur
Chair of Gene
inquiry conment (use oauch”), or ial analytic idoctrine of nction betwides a theor
cture is showon”) are intr
re 4: Structu
re 5: Structu
Transcendenlogic
TranscenTheo
eral Ecology
ncerning thof the intellinto the tranis discussedjudgment,
ween phainry of reasonwn in figureroduced.
ure of the tr
ure of the tr
ntal
ndental dialectic: ory of reason
he understanlect, „Verstanscendental d by introdu
which inclomenon an
n, the largese 5. The tran
ranscendent
ranscendent
Idea of transcelogic
Transcendeanalytics
Transcendedialectics
Conc
nding is suandesgebrauanalytic an
ucing the taludes the s
nd noumenost chapter wnscendental
tal logic.
tal dialectic
endental
ental s
ental s
Transcenden(illusion and
Concepts of pTranscende
Dialectic inferereas
cept of Nature
ubdivided inuch”) and t
nd the transable of cateschematismon (figure
within the crideas soul,
s.
Analysis of co(Table of cate
Analysis of pr(Doctrine of ju
ntal illusiond reason)
pure reason: ental ideas
ences of pure on
e in the „Critiq
nto the critithe critique cendental d
egories and , a system 4). The tr
ritique of pufreedom, an
oncepts egories)
rinciples dgment)
„
„C
„Th
que of Pure R
tique of theof reason (
dialectic. Thby the introof principl
ranscendenture reason,
and God (“id
Metaphysical (Types of ju
Transcendeduct
(Transcendeawaren
Schema(Connection o
and categ
Principleprecondit
possible ex
PhainomeNoume
„Psycology”: The sparalogisms
Cosmology”: The antinomies
heology”: The ideareason (God
eason” 10
e faculty of(„Vernunft-he transcen-oduction ofles and theal dialecticthe general
deal of pure
deduction udgment)
dental tion ental self-ess)
atism of intuition gories)
es of ions of perience
non vs. enon
souls
worlds
al of pure d)
0
f --f e c l e
BTU Chair of General Ecology Concept of Nature in the „Critique of Pure Reason” 11
In order to analyse the question whether metaphysics is possible as a science all types of all possible judgments are examined: The result was that there are analytical and synthetical, a priori and a posteriori judgments (table 3). Kant shows subsequently that metaphysics is possible, if „synthetic a priori judgments” are possible. Then, „synthetic a priori truths” are found and it is asked: How is it possible? The answer is given in the first part of the CPR.
Table 3: True Propositions, analytic and synthetic truths, judgments a priori and judgments a posteriori.
Judgments Analytic Truths
Intentional (reflecting)
Synthetic Truths
Extensional (expanding)
Judgments a priori
transcendental
(before experience)
Analytic a priori
Hume: „matters of fact” (necessary, universal)
The circle is round. There is no ironwood.
Synthetic a priori
Hume: impossible
7 + 5 = 12. An area cannot be limited by two straight lines.
Judgments a posteriori
empirical
(after experience)
Analytic a posteriori
Senseless, not considered
Synthetic a posteriori
Hume: „relations of ideas” (not necessary or universal)
Empirical statements on observations
In the transcendental aesthetics the pure concepts of intuition are derived. The conclusion of
the critical examination of sensibility is the extraction of the pure concepts of intuition: an outer and an inner sense: space and time. It is shown that space and time are empirically real, but transcendentally ideal. They are just modes of perception. We necessarily perceive appearances through space and time, but space and time are not applicable concepts to things in themselves. This is contrary to various other approaches which claim space and time to be purely ideal or purely real (figure 6). The rationale is: In order to assume sensations to be out of the perceiving subject necessarily there must be space. It follows that it is impossible to imagine that there is no space. Space itself cannot be divided, singular spaces are necessarily parts of the space itself. Therefore space is imagined to be an infinite defined quantity. – Thus similarly, it is impossible to imagine succession of events when there is no time, and there-fore, it is impossible to imagine that there is no time at all. Time is something unseparated, it cannot be divided. Single time segments are always part of the overall time itself. The basic representation of time is unlimited: Space and time are necessarily related to reason and its intuitive activity, therefore, things in themselves are considered independently by the reason which thinks them. If sensibility shows us things in time and space, it does not show them as they are in themselves, but as they appear to it through its spectacles, one of the glasses is the
) all our intntuit are nothemselves atitution of tbjects in spacannot exis
m all this reing but our ed in by evconcern.” (B
…) alle unserehauen, nicht dhaffen sind, alit der Sinne übst Raum underen können. ptivität unsereahrzunehmen,mmen muß. M
eral Ecology
the space: S– „Betweenntellect.
ideal or rea
ives a shortpernican rev
tuition is not in themselas they appthe senses iace and timst in themseeceptivity omode of peery being, tB 82)12
e Anschauungdas an sich ses sie uns ersc
überhaupt aufhd Zeit verschwWas es für ei
er Sinnlichkeit, die uns eige
Mit dieser habe
Space and
Sensibility gus and the
al-ideal cha
t summary volution in p
othing but tlves what wpear to us, n general, b
me, nay spacelves, but onof our sensierceiving ththough, cert
g [sei] nichts elbst sind, woheinen, und dheben, alle diewinden würdeine Bewandtnt haben mögentümlich ist,
en wir es ledig
Time
Conc
gives us appe object is th
aracter of sp
of the transphilosophy”
the represenwe intuit the
and (…) be removedce and timenly in us. Wibility, rem
hem - a modrtainly, by e
als die Vorstofür wir sie
daß, wenn wire Beschaffenhen, und als Ernis mit den Gee, bleibt uns gädie auch nich
glich zu tun.”
REAL(things
themselv
IDEAL(intermed
approac
REAL-IDE(appearen
cept of Nature
pearances anhe cognitio
pace and tim
scendental ”:
ntation of aem as beingif the subj
d, the wholee themselveWhat objectsmains complde which is pevery human
ellung von Eranschauen, nor unser Subjekheit, alle Verhrscheinungen egenständen aänzlich unbek
ht notwendig j(B 82)
Lin
ves)
Liate
ch)
EALnces)
e in the „Critiq
nd it is incan apparatus
me (accordi
aesthetics w
appearance; , nor their rect, or evee constitutios, would vas may be inletely unknpeculiar to un being. W
rscheinung (…och ihre Verhkt oder auch nhältnisse der Onicht an sich
an sich und abkannt. Wir kenjedem Wesen,
Essential pro(Descartes
1747)
Independent(Newton, Kan
Relationmaintain(Leibnit
Simply imag(Berkele
Subjecticonditions (
CRP 178
que of Pure R
apable of gis” (Schopen
ing to Höff
which inclu
(…) the threlations so en only theon and all thanish. As apn themselvenown to us.us, and not
With this alon
…): daß die Dhältnisse so anur die subjekObjekte im Rah selbst, sondebgesondert vonnen nichts, a, obzwar jede
operties , Kant )
t things nt 1768)
ns ning tz)
gination ey)
ive (Kant: 81)
eason” 12
iving us thenhauer): the
fe 2004, op.
udes a large
hings whichconstituted
e subjectivehe relationsppearances,s, and apart. We knownecessarilyne have we
Dinge, die wiran sich selbstktive Beschaf-aum und Zeit,ern nur in unson aller dieserals unsere Art,em Menschen,
2
e e
.
e
h d e s , t
w y e
r t -, s r , ,
BTU
Aftersensiwhicthe f(figuof inthis, necechap
Figur
With„Purethinkare ecategrelatihighe1908
As tojudgmhypoor ap
13 Es QualithöchsA. 19
Chair of Gene
r extractionitive facultych are necesfaculty to apure 7). The intuition to a
fixes it fossary ingredter „Transc
re 7: The in
hin the trane” means th
king leads toexactly 12 gories, arranion, and mest category
813 accordin
o the quantments are e
othetical or podictic. Th
sind zwölf Ktät, Relation
ste Kategorie, 08. History of
eral Ecology
n of the pury of intuitiossary preconpply concepintellect is ta complete or the self-dients. Thesendental An
ntellect appl
nscendental hat there aro the dissectypes of junged in thre
modality. Ony, since ev
ng to CPR B
tity judgmeeither affirminfinite or d
he assigned c
Kategorien, inund Modalitädenn jedes U
f Philosophy.
re concepts on, the next nditions for pts, the facuthe faculty (imaginationawareness.se considernalytics”.
lies concept
analytic chre no empirction via theudgments twees, under fone of these,ery judgme
B79).
nts are eithmative or nedisjunctive,categories a
n Dreiergruppät. Eine, näm
Urteil, was es aNew York. (h
Concepts
Conc
of intuitiostep is the the thinkin
ulty to gene(„the condin, it compo
Faculty ofrations are d
ts, generates
hapter the rical ingrede expositionwelve categfour groups , relation, gent, whatev
her universaegative or c, and as to tare accordin
pen unter viemlich die Rela
auch immer sehttp://www.cla
Intellec
Laws
cept of Nature
n, derived isolation og of the inteerate knowltion of the p
oses judgmef imaginatidiscussed in
s knowledge
pure concedients in then of the gengories are aor fundame
governs andver it may b
al or particucategorical, the modalit
ngly:
er fundamentation bestimmein mag, bringass.uidaho.edu
ct
s
Kl
e in the „Critiq
from necesf pure concellect: Undeledge, and tpossibility”ents into a on and fac
n detail with
e and derive
epts of undese conceptneral types oassigned: „Tental categod embracesbe, express
ular or singas to the r
ty either pro
alen Kategormt und umfass
gt eine Relatiou/mickelsen/T
Know-ledge
que of Pure R
ssary preconcepts of understanding (the faculty ”) to synthesingular un
culty of judhin the first
es laws.
derstanding ts. The examof judgmenThere are (ories: quants all the resses a relatio
gular, as to relation theyoblematic o
rien angeordnst alle andereon zum Ausdr
ToC/Weber%2
eason” 13
nditions forderstanding,(intellect) isto use lawssize objects
nity and, bydgment aret part of the
are found.mination ofts. As there(…) twelveity, quality,st. It is theon” (Weber
the qualityy are either
or assertoric
net: Quantität,en. Sie ist dieruck. (Weber,20ToC.htm).
3
r , s s s y e e
. f e e , e r
y r c
, e ,
BTU Chair of General Ecology Concept of Nature in the „Critique of Pure Reason” 14
1. Categories of Quantity: Unity – Plurality – Totality 2. Categories of Quality: Reality – Negation – Limitation 3. Categories of Relation: Inherence/Subsistence (substantia et accidens) - Causality/
Dependence (cause and effect) – Community (reciprocity between agent and patient) 4. Categories of Modality: - Possibility/impossibility – Existence/ Non-Existence – Ne-
cessity/Contingency
Example for a synthetic judgment a priori: The sum of angles in a triangle is always 180°.
1. Category of Quantity: unity, as it is a universal statement (judgment) 2. Category of Quality: real, as it is an affirmative statement (judgment) 3. Category of Relation: causal, as it is an infinite statement (judgment) 4. Category of Modality: necessary, as it is an apodictic statement (judgment)
The tables of judgments and categories including some examples are given in table 4.
Table 4: Tables of possible judgments and assigned categories with some examples.
Judgments Examples Categories Examples
Quantity
Universal
Particular
Singular
All M are N.
Some M are N.
One M is N.
Quantity
Unity
Plurality
Totality
All people sleep.
Some people sleep.
Kant was sleeping.
Quality
Affirmative
Negative
Catagorical
M is N.
M is not N.
M is not -N
Quality
Reality
Negation
Limitation
This woman sleeps.
This man doesn’t sleep.
For sleeping one must be able to sleep.
Relation
Hypothetical
Infinite
Disjunktive
M is N.
If M is N, than S is T.
M is either N or S or T.
Relation
Inherence
Causality
Coexistence
This man sleeps.
When you lay down you fall asleep.
Either the students or the teachers sleep.
Modality
Problematic
Assertoric
Apodictic
Maybe, M is N.
Actually, M is N.
M must be N.
Modality
Possibility
Actuality
Necessity
Maybe, some people sleep.
Actually, some people sleep.
Everybody has to sleep.
BTU
Thesgriffe(„VecategAftering iorderillust
Figur
Figur
Tran
At thundeobjecof, fcausaThe n
Chair of Gene
se „transcenfe) link therstand”) stagories orderr dissectings necessaryred. This istrations see
re 8: Recep
re 9: Transc
nscendenta
his stage weerstanding (cts of experfor exampleality (of counext questio
eral Ecology
ndental conhe conceptsamps the car different e
g the pure coy. With the a the preconfigure 8 an
ptivity of im
cendental ae
al Appercep
e have the p12 categoririence whice, causality urse) in theon to answe
ncepts” („pus („Begriffategories liexperiences oncepts of inaid of the o
ndition for thd figure 9).
mpressions an
esthetic and
ption and th
ure conceptes). As we
ch were ordinto the rrepresentat
er is, how, i
Conc
ure concepffe”) to a ike a stamp
into the unntuition a d
outer and thehe faculty o
and spontane
d transcende
he Four Ta
ts of intuitiohave seen i
dered by theraw materiation again. in which wa
cept of Nature
pts of undejudgment
p into the senity of the sdissection ofe inner sensof understan
eity of think
ental logic.
ables of Un
on (space anin the previe inner and al of the seThe result iay the link
e in the „Critiq
rstanding”, („Urteil”)
ensitive persubject. – Sf the pure cose (space annding to ass
king.
derstandin
nd time), anious chapterouter sense
ensitive peris a synthetiis possible,
que of Pure R
„reine Ve). The undrceptions. B
So far we haoncepts of und time) sensign it to co
ng
nd the pure r the intellee, stamps thrception antic judgmen
and maybe
eason” 15
erstandesbe-derstandingBy this, theave by this:understand-nsations areoncepts (for
concepts ofect fixes thehe categoryd finds the
nt a priori. –e, this is the
5
-g e : -e r
f e y e – e
BTU Chair of General Ecology Concept of Nature in the „Critique of Pure Reason” 16
most difficult and important question in the CPR. Kant answers: By the synthesis of the unity of the manifold by the transcendental apperception, and by application of transcendental schematism under the conditions of the system of principles.
The „I Think” is the transcendental self-awareness, which runs parallel to all recognition process and unifies the manifold of intuitions with the aid of the categories. The necessary and subjective „I Think” is the objective condition for the recognition of things, because the realized object is the product of the unifying action of the transcendental self-awareness which uses the pure concepts of understanding. In which way this is done? Kant looks for a linking and unifying approach. He finds it in the „transcendental schematism”.
Intuitions and categories, extremely different sources of recognition, must have something in common. This is the time. Time includes sensitive and conceptual elements, which are transcendental both, and must be, otherwise, evidently empirical sources are included and the properties of the (transcendental) „conditions of a faculty” are lost. Categories are closely related to certain determinations of time („Zeitbestimmtheiten”). The pure concepts of understanding can be applied to empirical intuitions by the form of all intuitions. The application of a category to the form of time is the „scheme of this form of time”. The scheme „conceptualizes” intuitions and „intuitionizes” concepts, and the result is: nature, as it appears to us! „Suddenly you have a representation of the world” („Mit einem Schlage steht die Welt vor dir”). [Schopenhauer]
The schemata of the concepts of pure understanding according to the categories are:
Categories of the Quantity correspond with the scheme of the time series (temporal succession: counting);
Categories of the Quality correspond with the scheme of the time content (fulfillment from real to not real);
Categories of the Relation correspond with the schemata of the time order (duration, course of time, simultaneity).
Categories of the Modality correspond with the schemata of time concepts (anytime is possible, this time is real, every time is necessary).
Additionally a corresponding system of principles is derived: Quality, quantity, relation, and modality correspond to certain principles which offer a frame for all judgments, the limits of our intellect. First, for all main categories main principles are advanced.
Quantity is related to the „Axioms of Intuition”: „All intuitions are extensive magni-tudes.”
Quality is related to the „Anticipations of Perception”: „In all appearances, the real that is an object of sensation has intensive magnitude, that is, a degree.”
Relation is related to „Analogies of Experience”: „Experience is possible only through the representation of a necessary connection of perceptions.”
Modality is related to „Postulates of Empirical Thought in General”.
Subsequently, the tables of understanding can be completed for all categories. We receive the four tables of understanding (table 5): „The four tables ... are all parts of one whole, a schematic construction that stands between the analysis of thought and its synthesis in the system which is the Critique [of Pure Reason]. It deals with the construction of Nature out of
BTU Chair of General Ecology Concept of Nature in the „Critique of Pure Reason” 17
the material of thought. The Aesthetic adds to this the necessary prerequisite, in the parallel construction of space and time out of the material of intuition” (Kant: Logic. Cited according to Hartman & Schwarz 1974).
Table 5: The four tables of understanding. Categories and judgments with the schemata and the system of principles.
Schemata
(judgments/derivations)
Categories
(judgments)
Principles
(limits of the intellect)
Time Series
Unlimited
Limited
Unconstrictable
Quantity
Unity (Universal)
Plurality (Particular)
Totality (Singular)
Axioms of intuition
Extension
Time Content
Real (fulfilled)
Not-real (empty)
Transition (real, not real)
Quality
Reality (Affirmative)
Negation (Negative)
Limitation (Catagorical)
Anticipations of perception
Intensity
of the impact
on the sense
Time Order
Duration
Succession
Simultaneity
Relation
Inherence (Hypothetical)
Causality (Infinite)
Coexistence (Disjunctive)
Analogies of experience
Substance
Causality
Reprocicity
Time Modality
Anytime
At a certain time
Every time
Modality
Possibility (Problematic)
Actuality (Assertoric)
Necessity (Apodictic)
Postulates of empirical thought
Formal Correspondence
Material Coherence
Connection with the Actual
The conditions for the faculty of recognition from experience are illustrated in figure 9. The condition of the unification of sensual perception (intuition) with the categories using the schemes to judgments is the transcendental „I think” („transcendental self-awareness”). The evidence is given in the famous chapter „Transcendental deduction” within the „Transcenden-tal analytic of the elements”. This is the necessary instance (a condition) for all recognition.
By this, also, the laws of continuity and causality can be constituted: Every phenomenon, everything presented by the intuitive faculty as existing in space and in time, is a quantity, i.e. a fixed extent and a fixed duration. This principle excludes the hypothesis of the indivisible. Every phenomenon has certain content, a certain degree of intensity. This principle excludes
BTU
the hhypoexcluspacesuspe
Figur
Con
„By their analopropo
Humobjecmetaitselfing. Tan siessenthe s
The aesththan this,
Chair of Gene
hypothesis oothesis of chudes the idee and time,ension of th
re 9: Synthe
ncept of N
nature, in texistence
ogies providositions tha
man reason acts are comaphysics. Ref. The objecTherefore, och”) cannotnce of thingecond part o
necessary phetic and anthat, etc.), the argume
eral Ecology
of the empthance. Therea of fate. and every
hese laws, w
etic unifyin
Nature Wi
the empiricaccording tde „transcenat are intelle
assigns lawmplied witheason can octs, the sensonly referent be object o
gs in reality.of the doctr
preconditionnalytic (figubut an arra
entation is n
tiness. All pre is a reciprEvery phenphenomeno
which exclud
g the manif
ithin the T
al sense, wto necessarndental law
ectual and at
w to nature. h our recogonly recognsitive worldnces as to apof our expe. As the resurine of elem
ns are arranure 10). Notangement ofnot psycholo
Conc
phenomena rocal actionnomenon ison is necesdes miracle
fold by trans
Transcen
we understanry rules, tha
ws of naturet the same t
Our recoggnition. Thinize in natud are emergppearances
erience, reasult there wi
ments (chapt
nged graphite that it is nf necessary ogical, and,
cept of Nature
are united n between ths possible, asary, the abs.
scendental a
dental Id
nd the connat is, accor”, which Ktime synthet
gnition is nois is the esure what waged by reaso
are possiblson has probill always ocer „transcen
cally in ordnot a (tempconditions of course, n
e in the „Critiq
by causalithe effects aand this cobsence of w
apperceptio
ealism
nection of arding to lawant also chatic” (CPR A
ot compliedsence of thas implemeon so that ae. As the „tblems, whenccur contradndental dial
der to illustrporal) proce
for the facnot linguisti
que of Pure R
ty, which eand their cauonforms to twhich would
on (Kant, CP
appearancesws” (CPR Baracterizes
A216/B263)
d with objehe Copernicented beforeappearancesthing for itsn it tries to dictions as lectics” in C
rate the traness (first thisculty of knoical.
eason” 18
xcludes theuses, whichthe laws ofd imply the
PR).
s as regardsB239). Theas „a priori).
cts, but thecan turn ine by reasons are result-self” („Ding
refer to theis shown in
CPR).
nscendentals, than that,
owledge; by
8
e h f e
s e i
e n n -g e n
l ,
y
BTU
Figurphae
The and tthinkconca parand c
By thrationit dopointof thimpofor a
The „spatperceReprtime:ality”
The mis nowith factsself-e
Chair of Gene
re 10: Ovenoumenon
inner and otemporalityk”), limitedepts of undrt of the wocommon kn
he Kantian tnalism are „
oesn´t begint of view is
hings outsideossible, (2)
new era in
argumentattiality” andeption and resentation o: various sp” and „temp
most imporot outside of
the aid of . There is nevidence of
eral Ecology
erview of th(world).
outer sensesy. The resultd by certainderstanding orld. Differenowledge, p
transcenden„crushed don where sci wrong bece our mode that neithermodern ph
tion is: Ned „temporal
make expof space an
paces and timporality”) ar
rtant implicaf our mind the conditiono cognitionf things. Wh
he synthesis
s receive imt is a rathern transcendby applyingent realizatiarticularly,
ntal approacown” (Mendience shoulcause it tries
of perceptir dogmatismilosophy.
cessarily, elity” from periences pnd time is thmes are parre unlimited
ations of Kaand percepons of the fn of nature
hat we perce
Conc
s of the m
mpressions r rough intu
dental princg certain timions lead towhaen it is
ch and his Cdelssohn). Tld that is ws what is imion. By showm nor skept
empirism mexperience
possible. –he precondirt of the oved quantities
ant´s revolution. The qfaculty of e
e, what it iseive are phe
cept of Nature
anifold: fro
which are uition. The ciples, uses me schemeso experienclinguistical
Copernican The empiric
with synthetmpossible: awing (1) thaticism is ten
must be wroe. Space an
Necessarilition of all terall space and no con
ution as to thquestion whaexperience, by itself (t
enomena (m
e in the „Critiq
om noumen
structured btranscendenthe intelle
s. The resulte, and subslly and textu
turn in metacal point of vic a priori
an attempt toat both of thnable, Kant
ong: It is ind time arely, rationalthe various and time. S
ncepts.
he concept at facts are i.e. our facuthings in th
manifestation
que of Pure R
non (thing i
by assigninntal self-awect to assiglt is a repressequently toually fixed.
aphysics emview is wrotruths. Theo know the hese points actually se
impossible e preconditlism must concepts o
Space and ti
of nature iscan only b
culties how hemselves), ns, appearan
eason” 19
in itself) to
ng spatialitywareness (“Ign the puresentation ofo individual
mpirism andong becausee rationalist
true natureof view are
ets the stage
to excludetions of allbe wrong:f space andime („spati-
s that naturee describedto perceivethere is no
nces).
9
o
y I e f l
d e t e e e
e l : d -
e d e o
BTU
Therintuitexpre
Whacausarecogpotenaesth
Out
An ephaeis der
-
-
-
Figur
Chair of Gene
refore, confotion (time ession of a n
at follows foality! Do itgnition of nntial and sphetical judgm
tlook: The
essential prnoumenon.rived (figur
from thegisms thfrom theand cosmadditionaexistence
re 11: The a
eral Ecology
formity of phand space)nature with
or scientifict in mathemnature is apace for furment: art).
e Kantian
roperty of h Kant claim
re 11),
e inner senshat cannot bee outer sensmological qually, and eve cannot be
agenda of th
henomena w) must be tin a body o
c research? matical terma process itrther ideas
n “Critica
human reasms that from
e the idea oe solved, se the idea uestions) w
verything inproved: the
he Critique
Conc
with naturataken into f scientific
Observe anms as far as tself. And: to be elabo
al Busines
son is askinm the outer
of the soul (
of freedomwhich lead toncluding the e famous fo
of Pure Rea
cept of Nature
l laws and caccount. Tlaws.
nd describe you can! ABeyond ou
orated (prac
ss”
ng questionand the inn
(including im
m (including o antinomie
idea of the our medieva
ason.
e in the „Critiq
causality wiThe express
pattern andAs our intelur intellect ctical reason
ns which exner sense ea
mmortality)
the indepes that cannoideal of pu
al god’s proo
que of Pure R
ithin the twsion of „na
d process allect is stricthere is a
on: ethics an
xceed the lach a transc
) which lead
endence fromot be solvedure reason, gofs are rejec
eason” 20
wo modes ofature” is an
nd look forctly limitedreasonable
nd religion,
limit of theendent idea
d to paralo-
m causalityd, god, and hiscted.
0
f n
r d e ,
e a
-
y
s
BTU Chair of General Ecology Concept of Nature in the „Critique of Pure Reason” 21
The discussion of these questions is outside the empirical world, outside of scientific research, thus transcendent. It leads to ethics and theology.
The Critique of Pure Reason provides a general frame for the transcendental idealism, in Kant’s words the “Critical Business” (table 6). Fixing the intellect as a basic faculty of human mind, and by this, fixing the borderline of the empirical world, two further faculties are separated referring to a human faculty of desire and a feeling of pleasure and aversion. In the CPR it was shown that the idea of freedom is thinkable (but not provable), therefore, the elaboration of ethics from principles a priori is possible; this is carried out in the second critique, the “Critique of Practical Reason”. Within the “Critique of Judgment” the business is completed: the aesthetic and teleological judgment is founded by exposing the suitability of objects as a principle a priori: Aesthetic judgment refers to an outer suitability for the observer (beauty and sublime), and teleological judgment refers to an inner suitability of the object appearing to the observer (teleology).
Table 6: Foundation of transcendental idealism: the complete „Critical Business” (according to the “Critique of Judgment”, Introduction: 9).
Faculty of Mind (Gemüt)
Faculty of Recognition
Principles a priori
Application
Faculty of Recognition Intellect
(Verstand) Lawfulness
Nature
(Natur)
Feeling of Pleasure / Aversion
Judgment
(Urteilskraft) Suitability
Art
(Kunst)
Faculty of Desire Reason
(Vernunft) Final Purpose
Freedom
(Freiheit)
Due to these different faculties of human mind objects as appearences can be explained, judged and evaluated (figure 12). By this, the intellect answers the question whether some-thing is true or false. Knowledge and scientific research is restricted to this area. Reason produces ideas, f.i. the idea of freedom, and can answer the question whether something is good or bad. Note that from this point of view both areas cannot be dismatched and thus must be separated very seriously. Otherwise a naturalistic fallacy (to be – to ought – false conclu-sion, “Sein-Sollen-Fehlschluß”) is the result. Additionally, a judgment as to the suitability is
BTU
possinot aorgan
Figuraccor
Refe
Refe
Kantdel, W
KantkönnSuhr
See a
SchoVorsVerla
Chair of Gene
ible by the and whethernization and
re 12: Exprding to Ka
erences a
erences: Ba
t, I. (1781, 1W. (Hrsg.):
t, I. (1783):nen. Abgedrkamp, Fran
also:
openhauer, stellung. Bdag.
eral Ecology
faculty of jr somethingd purposive
planation, ant’s “Critiq
nd Furth
asics
1787): KritiImmanuel
Prolegomedruckt in: Wnkfurt: 96pp
A. 1819. Kd. 2. Abgedr
Explanatioappearenc
Intellec(Concept
MechanicIs it true or f
Science
judgment, tg is appropreness, teleol
judgmentque of Judgm
er Readin
ik der reinenKant Werka
ena zu einerWeischedel,p.
Kritik der ruckt in: Hü
on ofces
ctts)
allyfalse?
e
Conc
this refers triate or notlogy and art
and evaluament” (Intro
ngs
n Vernunft.ausgabe. Ba
r jeden Met W. (Hrsg
Kantschen übscher, A
Object
Judgmenappearen
Faculty Judgme
TechnicallyAesthetic
Does it work?fit in?
OrganizatPurposiveTeleology
cept of Nature
to the questt, respectivet.
ation (Erkloduction).
. 1. und 2. Aand III und
taphysik di.): Immanu
Philosoph. red., Züric
t
nt ofnces
ofent
y and cally? Does it ?
ion / ness/ Art
e in the „Critiq
tion whetheely, and is r
ärung, Beu
Auflage. AbIV. Suhrkam
e als Wisseuel Kant W
ie. In: Diecher Ausgab
Evaluatioappearen
Reaso(Ideas
EthicalIs it good or
Ethics and Ph
que of Pure R
er somethinrelated with
urteilung, B
bgedruckt inamp, Frankfu
enschaft wirWerkausgabe
e Welt als abe, 2. Band
on ofnces
ns)
lyr bad?
hilosophy
eason” 22
ng works orh aspects of
Bewertung)
n: Weische-furt: 717pp.
rd auftretene. Band V.
Wille undd. Diogenes
2
r f
)
-
n .
d s
BTU Chair of General Ecology Concept of Nature in the „Critique of Pure Reason” 23
Some WEB - References
Critique of Pure Reason (Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Critique de la raison pure, Critica de la regione pura, Critica de la razon pura) – Translations:
English: http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/ or: http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html (by N. Kemp-Smith)
