Nietzsche said that the best books are written in blood, and blood has a temperature. Other than someone saying that someone is born in the Year of the Fish, this is a very malicious insult because fish blood is cold.
Since that's the case, Kant, in his first critique, referred to philosophy as moral philosophy. For a long time, our study of Kant has often been based on modern philosophy, but philosophers like Hume have not paid much attention to it. The Platonic background of Kantian philosophy. Plato's metaphysics is concerned with the world of ideas, and the real world is never as important to him as the world of ideas.
Kant's ontological world and phenomenal world actually followed Plato's path, but later he followed his own path, which came from Plato. Of course, we also know that on the surface, Plato and Kant are only binary in agreement, with completely opposite conclusions.
Plato believed that phenomena are unimportant, and we should focus on the pursuit of ideas. On the contrary, Kant believed that the ontological world is not important, and it is just an X, a hypothesis. If we set it up, we will collapse it. All our power must be used in the phenomenal world. On the surface, after setting up the binary world, the two of us seem to have gone against each other.
We are not following the same path at all. In fact, although the ontological world cannot be our object of understanding, it is closely related to us in the implementation of metaphysics.
What makes a person human is the ability to become a human being. In the true sense of human beings, it is precisely here that we can prove this through practical events. These things are the immortality of God's soul, and freedom is crucial for human beings. This is what makes a person human. Don't simply draw conclusions. Kant doesn't pay attention to the ontological world, but focuses on it. He doesn't pay attention to it in the field of natural metaphysics. He wants to speak extensively in another metaphysical field, the field of practical metaphysics. He believes that freedom of will, immortality of the soul, and the existence of God are the ultimate goals of our rational understanding. Our reason has many purposes, and understanding natural laws is certainly a purpose. To classify phenomena under the laws of concepts, of course. It also refers to the purpose of reason, but the ultimate purpose of our reason is, These three things, freedom of will, immortality of the soul, and the existence of God, are the ultimate goals of humanity.
On the contrary, theoretical attention is very insignificant here, and compared to Kant's moral philosophy, theoretical attention is not important.
And I can say that Kant spent about ten years brewing his critical philosophy, during which he hardly wrote much, mainly thinking about a fundamental philosophical breakthrough of his own. However, his initial plan was to write "Metaphysics of Morality", not "Critique of Pure Reason". It was only later that he realized that he needed to clarify the epistemological issues first, because for example, there are two worlds, phenomena and ontology. The ontological world is not a knowledge object, but a purpose of a moral world.
It's a teleological thing. If you don't clearly define the scope of reason, you won't be able to explain the moral metaphysics behind it. Later, he told a friend of his that I was going to take action, but later I felt like I needed to clean up the road first. I need a preparatory work in front of me, and I need to explain clearly what needs to be explained earlier.
This is how he wrote the first philosophy, which is "Critique of Pure Reason". At first, he wanted to write "Metaphysics of Morality", but in my opinion, because his entire moral philosophy system does not have the dualism and other issues mentioned earlier, it has already highlighted the limitations of reason. It is indeed difficult to explain the later part, and there are many issues that you must explain. According to his thinking, when he was planning to execute the plan, he suddenly came out and said that he should write this book "Critique of Pure Reason" first. It was also necessary for him, and indeed, from the perspective of thinking, it should be like this.
Let's explain first. I think 'Critique of Pure Reason' actually reveals that scientific knowledge is limited, it is not everything that humans possess, and there are more important things worth pursuing. I think he played such a role. Since modern times, especially during the Enlightenment era when Kant lived, people's admiration for scientific knowledge has reached an unprecedented level. They not only believe that it can bring us material well-being, but even believe that scientific knowledge can make people more kind and happy.
Kant believed that scientific knowledge has a moral function, but like Rousseau, Kant had a firm critical and opposing attitude towards problems. Impressive, of course, he was inspired by Rousseau. In the second edition of Critique of Pure Reason, there is a passage that succinctly expounds Kant's views on theoretical and practical issues.
Practice here refers to morality, not the meaning in our everyday language. A rough glance at this work may lead people to think that its usefulness is only negative, that is, never take risks and rely on speculative rationality to surpass the boundaries of experience.
He said that at a rough level, there would be such thoughts, just asking us not to cross the line, but this is actually the first use of this metaphysics. However, the usefulness will soon become positive, as long as we pay attention to the principles that speculative rationality ventures beyond its boundaries. If we examine their inevitable consequences more carefully, in fact, it does not expand our rational application, but narrows it down.
To be honest, it's not about emphasizing how great our rationality is, but about narrowing it down. He believes that this is a positive effect, not a negative one. Generally, we believe that reducing rationality should have a negative effect, while he sees it as a positive effect, which actually reduces it.
Because these principles pose a threat to reality, it is necessary to expand his emotional boundaries that originally belonged to him to encompass everything, thereby completely rejecting the purely practical rational application. What he was worried about happened, and this is too well explained.
Just like today, when we only understand rationality as a result of scientific rationality, Kant had already seen that all practical rationality applications were excluded. Just like today, many computer science professors believe that moral issues are ultimately a problem of neuroscience. This person is a purely speculative rationality problem, without practical rationality, only one rationality, which is scientific rationality.
He wants to expand this kind of emotional application into the field of our teleology, no wonder people of the times find it difficult to establish trust. He thinks that if you can use logical or mathematical formulas to prove to me that you cannot prove that people have freedom, I can give you a hundred reasons why people are not free.
Therefore, a criticism that restricts that kind of expansion, although negative in nature, at the same time eliminates that restriction. Because he criticizes in this way, he can eliminate that restriction and even threaten to completely eliminate the obstacles to rational practical application. In fact, it has a positive significance.
Kant's whole idea is that when we understand Kant's moral philosophy, we must pay attention to the "Metaphysics of Morals". Nowadays, we generally refer to it as moral philosophy or something similar. Moral philosophy always comes from Kant's question, which is related to our code of conduct and what I should do. Behavior is precisely because we have a code of conduct that we can know whether it is correct or incorrect.
Kant called such a normative principle a norm, and he expressed our spontaneous and spontaneous actions in the field of practice based on the characteristics of one norm and one criterion for action. Action is about doing something on my own, rather than being driven by external forces.
In our daily lives, actions based on our physiological needs are not spontaneous. They are governed by an external force, such as' I want to live, I want to make a living, I want to eat, 'and are driven by external forces. Kant believed that moral behavior is driven by moral behavior. For example, helping someone is completely different. If you don't help them, you can still survive. There is no external force that forces you to help the elderly.
In Kant's fundamental principle, moral behavior must be based on human spontaneity.
Same content as the previous section
For different forms, in the second critique, he must have a clear explanation of his true motivation or purpose for his work. But because our country is really strange, as long as a fixed view is formed, it is difficult to change. So, most people do not pay attention to Kant's own statement about their own works, and always feel that the ideas they formed are correct.
In Kant's works, he made it very clear that if one roughly browses through this work, one will think that its usefulness is always negative, that is, never take risks. Through dialectics, one can transcend the boundaries of experience in speculative thinking, which is actually the first use of metaphysics. If we only understand it this way, saying that this work needs to set rational boundaries and not exceed today's boundaries, its effectiveness lies in experience.
He is right, in fact, it is also the first utilitarian question of this metaphysics. He called his philosophy metaphysics, which was the first use of this metaphysics. Back in the day, we had a teacher in our department who failed to pass his doctoral thesis because it was based on ideas. The old gentlemen who came to defend him also thought he was corrupt. Why did you want to be different from him? At that time, he had to punish you to death.
He was already in his thirties at the time, and he couldn't even hold onto his nervous cigarette in his hand, causing it to fall to the ground. Later, it was because my mentor was highly respected and had more seniority than all the people who came to defend him. He spoke a few fair words and saved him. That is, our country is very strange. I don't know whether China has something to do with the national character of the Chinese people, or just some fixed practices in the academic world, or why I don't understand.
网友评论