This is determined by his rational nature. Your current nature dictates that reason is driven to seek things beyond effective reasoning. What he can do is only effective reasoning, but his nature determines that he must go beyond effective reasoning and find the ultimate basis for effective reasoning.
If the problem lies in the place, he will inevitably try to find some endpoint, inevitably find the unconditional one, because if he doesn't find it, there will be the so-called Aristotle's infinite regression, which is impossible to keep pushing forward. We must have a resolution. He needs to find the unconditional, find the whole. All the individual elements are just the elements of the whole, which is reason, the so-called metaphysics. Why do people have metaphysics?
Kant said that metaphysics is human nature, which is reason. People must pursue Daquan. Daquan not only means that everything is there, but also means that he is the basis of everything. He regards everything as the final basis, and can't push it any more, because people always need a reason that you want to give me, and you want to give me a reason, so that they can catch up with the world. Why does the world like this? He also wants a reason that is simple in the eyes of the pre modern people. The reason is that we Chinese call him Heaven, while Westerners call him God or God.
Kant is right that metaphysics is human nature in terms of meaning, because humans always need to find a final basis. Without a final basis, they cannot live comfortably. Why is the truth simple? Without a final basis, humans are like living in mid air. We have it now, but many of us have firm beliefs and no problems.
Most modern people have no direction, not only that, but also no foothold. Their entire life is drifting aimlessly, with everything that can be done. I am the same as others, and I am the same as others. This can be done or that can be done, very drifting. We can look at ancient books, you can look at our ancient Chinese and Western ancestors, the ancient people in the Middle Ages were not like this.
We feel that they are particularly firm, down-to-earth, and well-rounded. Including our ancestors. Let's not talk about people like Wen Tianxiang, those Donglin Party members in the late Ming Dynasty. It's hard for us to imagine how a person could live like this and treat their own life like this now.
There's nothing we can do about it, Kant said. Metaphysics is about human nature, and people always have to find it. It's hard not to find it. I also think that even if we live in the so-called postmodern era, human nature still exists and we will still look for it. But I'm just that nowadays people are more stupid and often find cults and other things.
It's a human nature, and people always need to find a basis, a complete set. Kant referred to such a whole as the concept of reason, which is used to perceive objects and is the possibility for consciousness to perceive these objects. What does the concept of reason do?
Ideas are used to construct and arrange our reflections on the world. Intellect is relatively simple, as it constructs our experiences to construct perceptual objects, while ideas are used to construct and arrange our reflections on the world. Ideas are related to reflective things, not direct things.
So, some people say that ideology is a concept with a secondary status, while the category of intellect has a primary status, directly dealing with objects. Ideology deals with reflective things, and it is a secondary concept. They collect and organize our reflections and speculations about individual objects at the primary level, thus providing us with an order of experience.
When we are satisfied with using ideas and experiences to provide order, their use is very appropriate and does not create a priori fantasy problem. Because their effectiveness is indeed within the scope of experience, although they are secondary, their effectiveness is with an object that cannot be surpassed. They are used to provide order in experience, and their use is very legitimate and inevitable. Although it is subjective and inevitable, we do not need them as possible conditions for experience.
For example, imagining the world as an interconnected whole is essential for us to conduct scientific research, but this necessity is subjective, a subjective necessity or necessity, otherwise we cannot study the world as a whole. This is subjective necessity, although such a world concept is not a priori necessity, because we are still conscious actors without thinking about the whole through ideas.
The innate concept of intellect gives us natural objectivity, while reason gives us a representation of a natural order, which is a representation of a natural order. This is the concept. The concept of intellect gives us a natural objectivity, while ideas give us a natural and orderly appearance. Such ideas are not only used for us to study, but also as a regulatory method for organizing our experiences. In fact, they are a regulatory method that cannot directly generate knowledge.
He is just the most effective way to regulate our phenomena and organize our experiences, and he can also make himself a whole. As a separation of experience, as a whole of the ontological world, when they act as a whole, as a precise representation of the world separated from experience, as an ontological world, it directly leads to the contradiction of the two laws.
When they are just a regulatory method, adjusting our experiential knowledge and organizing our experiences, it's okay to just be satisfied with it. However, when he did not want to be satisfied with doing so, he tried to form a whole of his own ideas, forming an accurate and precise representation of the world as an ontology that was not in line with experience and separated from it. When he said that what I expressed was a world of ontology.
Kant believed that when he did, he would lead to a antinomy, causing their unconditional statements to become equally plausible statements. For example, Kant's statement that the world has no beginning in time is a antinomy.
We will read 'Critique of Pure Reason' and find that Kant uses equally good rational arguments to prove that both propositions are equally plausible. The world has a beginning in time, but ultimately there is no beginning in time. Every entity in the world is composed of simple parts, and apart from simple things or things made up of the combination of simple things, there is nothing that holds. There is no composite thing in the world, nor is there any compound made up of simple parts, and there is no simple thing that holds anywhere in the world.
Whenever there is a contradiction between two laws, both propositions are equally plausible, and Kant believed that there must be problems within them. Here, in these contradictions, opposing propositions can be proven with seemingly flawless arguments on the surface. This problem creates an unsolvable and contradictory position.
Of course, Kant attempted to demonstrate that the emergence of such a antinomy and the phenomenon of using reason for things in themselves is fundamentally problematic.
The most famous of these two contradictory laws is the third one, which actually means that everything in the world must have causality. However, he said that in the end, there must be something that is the cause of everything, but he himself is not the cause. Only then can we conclude that the world has freedom.
Because as long as it is determined by something, causal determinism proves that there is no freedom. Its main theme is that there must be a causal series in the world, and the final link is completely free. It is not the final link itself and is not the result of any reason. The world is free.
The reverse question is that everything in the world happens according to natural laws, so there is nothing without a reason, and the world is not free. Why is it said that the third most famous among the two laws of rebellion?
Because later on, many philosophers used the term 'antinomy' to describe things. The reason why 'antinomy' is used to describe things is because it involves the biggest question we have about ourselves, which is the most important question considered by the Enlightenment, whether people are free or not. You see it this way, because if we go against the third second law, we will come up with two completely opposite propositions.
The question is whether people have freedom. According to the tradition of the Enlightenment movement, either people have freedom or people do not have freedom, and people do not have freedom. This is unacceptable for the Enlightenment movement. However, the question is whether people have freedom through rational means?
Kant is profound here, and there is no way to prove it through rational reasoning. At this point, he has already told us that rational reasoning is not the ultimate judge, nor is it the most valuable and highest judge in the human world. Because from a theoretical perspective, which is the perspective of intellectual thinking, we must address the issue of freedom, whether it is skepticism, lack of freedom, or dogmatism. Humans have freedom.
However, regarding the issue of freedom, Kant did not further elaborate on it. What Kant meant here is to imply that the fundamental problem of modern thought is the possibility of freedom, because the liberation of people in the modern bourgeois revolutionary enlightenment movement, and everything, including our current liberal democratic system, is based on the fact that freedom is possible and a fact.
If freedom is impossible, fascism is legitimate, and any system that oppresses people is reasonable and unacceptable to humanity. However, the question is whether freedom is a belief or a question that can be argued rationally. Kant seems to be implying that according to this modern intellectual thinking, freedom is destined to be non-existent.
It can be said that the problem is unsolvable on the level of rationality discussed by Kant. Both of them make sense, and from a purely rational perspective, if both are equally reasonable, it is in line with reason.
网友评论