You can flip out the first critique. They are all proven through very sophisticated rational reasoning, with freedom and without freedom. The greatness of Kant lies in his use of the third antinomy, which tells us that the highest and most crucial issue for humanity cannot be solved by such a method.
What would Kant be?
Because Kant claimed to be a philosopher of freedom. He believed that the main principle of his philosophy is freedom, and Hegel also believed that the main principle of my philosophy is freedom. How does Kant explain this.
Kant is actually a dualist on the issue of freedom, which means that humans know in practice. In the field of practice, humans are free, but in nature, humans are not free. On the one hand, humans are free animals, and on the other hand, they are inevitable products. As a part of nature, humans are certainly not free. They must conform to all the natural laws of birth, aging, sickness, and death. How can they be free? How can humans be free; However, as a practitioner, he is certainly free, otherwise morality is impossible, freedom is impossible, and humans are also impossible, leaving only slavery possible.
For slaves, there is no such thing as morality or immorality, because all their actions are no longer in their control. Of course, they do not have morality or immorality. Morality is only meaningful to a free person, and dignity and personality are also meaningful to a free person. If you are bound by someone, you can be sold at any time. Where do you get your dignity?
Where do you come from in terms of personality? It's meaningless to talk about these things. I think Kant is a natural extension of his Two Worlds theory when it comes to issues. He believed that he could handle problems well, and we are about to transition to his practical philosophy, which is moral philosophy. Because when we talk about this, we need to transition directly to his moral philosophy. As two worlds and a part of nature, humans are not free; As a member of freedom, a person, as a moral or practical subject, is free no matter what, and can be free in any situation.
This is often ridiculed by British and American people. The most fundamental principle of German classical philosophers is freedom. In fact, it has nothing to do with the conditions of your material possessions. Freedom is only related to your mental state. Your own will is free, and no one can make you feel free as long as your heart is free.
Some of us are now saying that if I can't work in college, then I'm done. Everything I've learned is in vain, and I can only live like an ordinary person. In my opinion, if I didn't sing high and you asked me to open a fruit stall now, I would still be free.
I think there is no contradiction between being called a fruit on one hand and looking at the small logic on the other. On the contrary, those who talk about philosophy in class don't see him as very free. To be honest, what he says is a set, and he doesn't believe it at all. He is still thinking about what time the stock index is today, which is completely possible.
For German philosophers, freedom is a spiritual issue. Ten supervisory officials from Beijing Prison also came to listen, and he raised a question very well. He said he was very humble and said that my educational level was not high, but because I spent all day dealing with prisoners in prison, I was particularly sensitive to freedom issues. Some prisoners also had a certain level of education and discussed with us what freedom is. Freedom is only something that no one cares about or is not subject to certain artificial constraints.
He thinks that at least one thing is that freedom is probably related to people having a certain degree of freedom of action or not having many constraints. He said, 'How do you view the problem?'? The question asked is really a very ultimate question, do humans have freedom?
The problem is Kant's problem, and I would say, of course, freedom. From a common sense perspective, Westerners believe that freedom means being free from many constraints. In English, it is Free fROM, which means being free from many constraints, such as the constraints of money, power, or many worldly pursuits.
Everyone has it. Taoism and Buddhism often advise people to let go and let go, that is, to cut off these fame and fortune. Of course, it does not necessarily mean complete freedom. There is also your own understanding of freedom in your heart. Otherwise, even if you don't care about these things, like Zhuangzi, you don't care about them. Fame and fortune or you will still be subject to these things, and you are afraid of death. I always say that if there is a slight physical problem or suspicion, it may not work either. If there is such a problem, then I will tell him. The first one is, of course, there is no problem at a superficial level. This sense of freedom exists, of course. For example, if someone says they are locking me in a room, today I will lock you in this room and not let you go out. Of course, I have to say that I have no freedom. But on the other hand, fundamentally speaking from human nature, the freedom of that person, of course, I think the primary condition is the freedom of the soul.
A person's soul is not free, for example, if they inherit a large inheritance, they do not need to do many other things for five dou of rice every day like us. They are also not free. Whether we read Faust or Tang Huang, these two very complex personality images shaped in modern Western literature will make us think about such a problem.
Of course, Kant's freedom is more positive. In daily life, you can embody living according to your own principles, and regard principles as absolute commands that have nothing to do with your own interests. Moreover, you can tell yourself that as a human, you have to do whatever you want. This is freedom, and this is Kant's problem.
Kant, we are now far apart. I believe Kant's answer to the problem is twofold. In the natural world, as a natural being, humans do not have freedom because they obey the laws of nature; However, as a moral practitioner, of course, humans are absolutely free, otherwise morality would not exist.
We Chinese are really clever. When I answered the questions of those people today, I also said that the biggest tragedy in China today is the way we used to excuse ourselves. A person asked me, 'Nowadays, driving cars causes a lot of pollution and the environment is so bad. Is there any way for us humans to reverse it?' The biggest problem we humans face today is that we have no choice but to drive all the problems we encounter. It's useless for me not to drive alone. Even if I drive a car, it won't increase pollution much. Today, none of us would say, 'Don't ask people like Kant or us Song Mingru. Don't ask others. Ask yourself first. Confucius turned to himself and asked others how to be different from others. There are always bastards in the world who make a profit without doing anything. There are also those who act recklessly.' Human faced beasts, there are plenty of such people. Don't bother with others, just focus on yourself. When the time comes, you will be free. I later told that person, I asked when we humans will break free from pollution and have a solution for the world. He also asked, how can philosophy transform the world?
On that day, philosophy will be able to transform the world, but it is impossible to do so now. Moreover, every problem we encounter has nothing to do with me. When we say this, we have already assumed that we are not free, and all our actions are determined by others, because others do the same. I am doing the same now, which Kant considers absurd. Kant would say that if you speak in this way, morality has been lost throughout history, and we are like machines. Whatever you calculate next is something that Kant cannot acknowledge.
Don't consider the problem as a thought-provoking question. We all have problems living in the world, and we don't treat them as knowledge-based questions for you to answer. Instead, we answer them as questions about our own lives, as questions about moral ontology. I am deeply moved by this.
I didn't expect that in today's Shanghai, there are still many people thinking about these questions. You can say that his questions are childish or very basic, but they are the right ones. When we talk about the issue of freedom today, we also need to stop here, because we are about to enter Kant's moral philosophy, talk about his moral philosophy, such as the idea that humans are ends, and so on, because then this is not an epistemological problem, it is a matter of faith for us.
We must believe that we are free and do so. On the contrary, we cannot do anything about the phenomena in society now. If everything is like this, what can I do? If Kant's moral philosophy can be applied, it is simply not feasible because it is said to be like this. What can I do.
Kant's epistemology counts as long as he talks about it. There is one point in German classical philosophy that he always emphasizes. Everyone believes that if you don't fight for personal rights, such as property freedom, life safety, or anything else, but talk about spiritual freedom, you don't know that this is the key.
Because otherwise, we will blame others for many things and take on many responsibilities that we should bear. We will hand them over to society, to our parents, and to others, just like every year when they tell me that I want to study philosophy, but my parents do not agree. I want to say that you are already 22 years old, and there is nothing else to talk about freely, but I don't want to provoke others. He said no, and that's what I said. You should listen to your parents.
But sometimes I feel very sad, why so sad?
Because it seems that Kant can be omitted from this part, and all our actions should be resolved by our parents. It's a ridiculous thing. How can we push everything onto our parents, and how can major life decisions be pushed onto them? Of course, if you can't take on such a responsibility, how can you say that I will still have to take on my responsibility to the world in the future? This is unacceptable.
I don't think I would agree with you on this issue, at least on this point. Not tolerant, you will say that the teacher is really unkind. Because we only have two paths, either we do not turn to ourselves, whether it is Confucius or Confucianism, the principle of turning to ourselves is too crucial, and the foundation of freedom lies in these four words.
网友评论