The comprehensive unity of complexity is impossible, and objects cannot appear. Of course, you have no appearance. Inside, the meaning of this sentence is actually very simple, the human subject still has a lot of experience.
Our various experiences can all have the same self reflection, that is, the same subject, because it is both inevitable and comprehensive. The inevitable is always with him, of course, it is inevitable and comprehensive. Of course, if it is not comprehensive, we have no object. The self reflection is both inevitable and comprehensive.
Aristotle once said that what is meant by necessity is that if there is it, there is existence; if there is no it, there is no existence; if there is necessity, there is appearance; if there is no it, there is no appearance. This is necessity. Secondly, he is comprehensive because we do not synthesize nor have appearances. He is both inevitable and comprehensive.
Kant said that I have self-awareness, and judgment is an innate synthesis judgment. Because the unity of self-awareness means that the predicate is not within me, it cannot be analyzed as the unity of self-awareness. However, the conclusion is that it is not derived from experience. I have a unity of self-awareness because my thinking is not derived from experience. What is derived from experience is intuitive truth.
So, it is impossible to enter our subjective experience. After speaking, let's talk about Kant's critique of judgment. In his view, without judgment, there is no knowledge. What is judgment, and the problem of truth is related to judgment. Judgment is what we call right and wrong. Without judgment, there can be no right or wrong.
For example, 'I love you' is not just an expression of emotion, but also a statement of fact. It's hard to say why I love you, and I don't know. I love you, it's not an objective thing that happens, it's just subjective. If you want to express a strong emotion about yourself, love won't happen. Think about it again, is love a thing or an expression of a unique feeling?
We Chinese people are not clear about this matter. They say that many of them regard love as sex, because I have no experience and no love. Of course, this is a matter. This matter is not too complicated. Foreigners often discuss issues. Is this a factual statement or a normative statement? The distinction between fact and norm is obviously not enough in such a statement.
This is a very interesting question because it is a very basic phenomenon in our lives, but it is also a very important philosophical issue.
The psychological process that occurs in each of us is about logical ability. He talks about accompanying or thinking, which is not what we materialistic talk about. I am now starting to think about how much time I spent on the process of thinking, or what problems the process encountered. He is talking about a functional thing in a logical sense.
Similarly, Kant's holistic concept, as he is currently pursuing a master's degree with me, and his thesis titled "Kant's Concept of the Subject," is the biggest difference between Kant and Descartes. It is the first time he distinguished empiricism. When we see the subject as a problem of experience, we naturally look at thinking in a psychological sense. Everyone around us has a problem, for example, if you draw for half an hour, I need to draw for three-quarters of an hour to figure it out clearly.
And the process is also different for me and you. This is how we appeal to each flesh and blood person. Kant's subject is a structure, a priori subject. He broke through many difficulties caused by the lack of strict distinction between empirical subjects and priori subjects by empiricists and Descartes in the pre Kantian philosophers, which is a major contribution of Kant's subject theory.
In the future, if you are interested, you can read Kant's works or pay attention to them. Kant refers to a human ability, not a specific operational process. Zhang San Li Si is a specific subject, and how he specifically does it is two separate matters.
The words he used, of course, refer to comprehensive judgment and so on. In fact, he is referring to this set of logical things here. As a form, the structure of form, how does it operate? Don't misunderstand this, Kant is already an upgraded version of subjectivism.
Especially in modern times, what difficulties and consequences will arise from not distinguishing between empiricism and a priori subjects. If you are interested in Western philosophy, you can revisit this period of history, which is conceptual. For example, when we Chinese are talking about the subject now, because after the Cultural Revolution we were talking about the subject and humanism, he didn't make it clear. What will it eventually become? Everyone pursues their own interests, which is the satisfaction of material desires, resulting in adult divorce and the divorce of trendy individuals. When I was in my thirties or forties studying, I met my classmates in Beijing who hadn't divorced yet. How many people in your class got divorced? It seemed like divorce was only natural.
You know it's even more natural than getting married, so you wonder who doesn't get divorced these days. It's strange that you haven't divorced yet, because he thinks that we are because you were not born at that time. The so-called ideological liberation and human awakening, when he did not understand Western humanism, the concept of others was quite complex. We understand it as the liberation of oneself, and my liberation is nothing else. Liberating desires, liberating me to do whatever I want, all social responsibility ethical norms have no effect on me. I can do whatever I want.
Just like Liu Yazi, these guys were still practicing Western theory in the late Qing Dynasty. When it comes to liberation, perhaps they are all arranged marriages. So how can we demonstrate sexual freedom? There is a theory to prostitution, and everyone goes to prostitution because they are very wealthy. The naivety of our Chinese theory sometimes causes our own moral defects. I will not say evil deeds. Combining with the theoretical naivety will cause very terrible phenomena, which is a lesson that we latecomers must learn.
Why do I talk about Kant's theory of subjectivity? Although it cannot be said to be perfect, I appreciate his ability to choose a topic for his undergraduate thesis. I still think that addressing the issue is correct, because what does the subject mean to Kant?
If you haven't figured it out, you probably won't be able to get started with Kantian philosophy. Let me be a bit more rigorous in my explanation. Because the subject is a structure to him, a formal structure, not a flesh and blood Zhang San Li Si, you are also the subject, I am still the subject, not in the sense of meaning, he is speaking in the philosophical sense, in a word, the subject is a philosophical concept to him, it is not a fact that there is something there, of course, there are also many.
Also, last time you asked me, what other works about Kant can I read?
I think Otterfleet has a book about Kant's life and thoughts, which was published by People's Publishing House and translated by Guo Dawei. It must be available in the library. That book, when I was in Germany, I read it in German and I thought it was a pretty good book. He spoke very well, but when translated into Chinese, it may be a bit difficult to accept. I feel that there is indeed a problem with the Chinese translation of the question. I am not saying that he translated it wrong, but rather that it is not smooth sailing when reading. There is a problem that needs to be paid attention to when reading.
He is a translation question, and when translating from German, there are often such problems.
Making judgments is not just about combining a concept with an individual concept. In Kant's view, judgment is actually about making oneself obey the norms of making judgments, that is, the concept of rules. When one idea is linked to another, there are rules and cannot be blindly connected.
Someone asked me, is there any wrong experience in Kant's view?
I said of course there is, wrong experience does not mean that our subjective argument does not conform to objective facts, but Kant would say that people use rules incorrectly. For example, this is a table, because we all look at an object in a unified way, and he doesn't know what's wrong with it at this time. He didn't connect the various appearances in this way, nor did he use the rules we recognized to connect the complexity of appearances. He was wrong.
In Kant's view, it is not that matter is incompatible, but that rules are wrong. However, rules do not exist for Yao, nor do they perish for Jie. If you make a mistake in rules, just like we do in math problems, if you make a mistake in deducing an axiom, then you are wrong. It is not that you are wrong, but here you are wrong.
Let's go back to our previous thinking, that's how mistakes arise. For example, when we make judgments, we make ourselves obey rules. All of his judgments are based on these rules or Kant's norms. For example, Kant is a concept here. When Kant appears in judgment, whether we associate Kant with Spruance or Germany, or with an afternoon walk, it is a fact. It is Kant's country, Spruce. Philosopher Kant was born in Germany and takes a walk at 4 pm every day. Whether we associate him with Germany and Spruce with a walk at 4 pm is a factual issue.
However, when it comes to judging facts, obeying certain rules is the right thing to do, and disobeying is the wrong thing to do. It is a standard of correctness.
This set of rules is actually a standard of correctness for the right or wrong of things and the right or wrong of experience. We make judgments, which means we must obey such standards. If you don't obey, don't make judgments. Then we will say, 'This is crazy nonsense. Don't take him seriously. He doesn't exist at all. You can't ignore him.' And we will be very serious, very serious, and say that your statement is wrong. That is, we all assume that you acknowledge the correctness standard, and I also acknowledge the correctness standard. We will discuss whether it is right or wrong again.
This is a judgment that, to some extent, conforms to a correct standard. The correctness standard is the standard that links a certain idea with another idea. What specific connection are you in contact with? It's a matter of fact whether it's with 4 pm or with Prussia. But how can we get in touch? This is a question of correctness standards, this is a question of rules.
网友评论