自由概念:康德判断力批判如何可能的基石

康德整个批判哲学体系的最伟大之处就是，用先验的方法把自由从自然领域划分出来，并厘定了自由与自然的界限与各司其职。因而，自由概念在其批判哲学中也就占据了核心地位。而作为前两大批判的桥梁，判断力正是在自由概念铺陈展开下完成了其体系的搭桥手术：在前两大批判中，康德分析先验自由与实践自由都属于理性自由，这只是自由存在的应然与必然，而在判断力中，审美主体的自由感的内在心理事实的获得才是自由存在的实然也是自然人向自由人过渡的必然，从而完成判断力批判如何可能。     

康德时间的中介性

康德以前的时间观主要有实存型时间观、属性型时间观和主观型时间观三种，康德以主观型时间观为蓝本，批判继承了前面二者的合理内核，提出了他独有的验前型时间观。康德认为：时间作为验前纯粹直观形式，是感性去直观对象而形成感性表象的中介，同时它还是知性纯粹概念(范畴)去综合统一感性表象的中介。康德对时间中介的分析，对时间作为主体的内感官形式优于外感官形式(空间)的分析，其根本目的都是突出作为认识主体的人的能动性。     

论《判断力批判》在康德批判哲学体系中的地位问题

康德哲学以其三大批判为核心构成一个严实缜密的体系而著称。这一体系被称之为＂批判哲学体系＂。其中,《判断力批判》被康德赋予了作为沟通知性与理性、自然与自由的＂桥梁＂的重大使命和地位,从而完成其整个批判哲学体系。但是,第三批判是否如康德所言完成了这一使命,则历来在学者间不无疑义。本文即旨在就此问题作简要的分析,以重新认识《判断力批判》在康德批判哲学体系中的地位。     

康德《判断力批判》论域中的美学透视与建构

康德美学思想体系是康德思想大厦的基石之一。在《判断力批判》理论著作中,其从质、量、关系和方式四个维度厘清了审美判断的界定：从质上讲,康德美学思想认为鉴赏判断的审美快感是没有任何利害关系的,是经验与理想审美的二元构成;从量上讲,审美不凭借概念而属于普遍令人愉快的,是目标与过程美感的统一体;从关系上讲,美的判定仅仅是单纯形式的合目的性;从方式上讲,美是不依赖概念而被当作一种必然的愉快的对象,这种必然是建立在人都有“共通感”这个前提上的。     

康德圆善论与牟宗三圆善论之对比

本文对康德和牟宗三的圆善论进行了比较研究:分析了两者对于"最高善"、"圆善"、"圆善论"之根据的不同理解,追溯了背后的原因为各自宗教、思想背景的不同造成双方对于基本概念的理解和准设有所不同,并评判了牟氏对康德圆善论的批判。本文试图论述牟氏对康德的批评根本上并非是哲学性的批判,而是从儒家的立场对康德所所持有的基督教理念不能认同。牟氏并未从根本上认同康德,也未在哲学上驳倒康德,而是通过吸收批判在康德圆善论的架构中填充了儒家的内核,建立了儒家意义上的圆善论。康德与牟宗三的差异其本质为其背后信仰的诸神不同。     

对康德哲学的两种不同的批判和继承——论黑格尔和叔本华对康德哲学的批判和发展

叔本华和黑格尔对康德哲学的批判分别代表着现代非理性主义的开端与传统理性主义的完成，他们对康德的批判哲学中的不同点的强调，标志着哲学发展史上的一个转折的开始。因此，理解他们的对康德哲学的不同的批判和继承对于理解传统哲学与现代西方哲学之间的关系和由传统哲学到现代西方哲学的转折具有重要的意义。     

审美理念及其现代意义探微

“审美理念”是康德美学中一个重要的概念，对它的准确把握是对康德美学进行深度理解的关键。审美理念作为一个美学概念有其自身的特征，并且在作为沟通知性和理性、认识和实践的桥梁的审美领域中也发挥着功不可没的重要作用。这里对《判断力批判》作了深入解读和思考后，对审美理念的特征、它与天才和艺术的关系及它与“美的理想”的关系作了深入浅出的剖析，并阐明审美理念对于今天现代生活的影响和意义。     

试论美学在康德哲学体系中的地位与作用

康德的三大批判是支撑他哲学体系的主要构架,其中《判断力批判》的上卷是美学.美学在康德哲学体系中的地位与作用也就是判断力与其他两大批判的关系问题.这个问题一般的提法就是判断力怎样成为沟通其他两者之间的桥梁.这是康德在《判断力批判》上卷"导论"中用整整九节加以阐述的.这     

从解释世界到改变世界——论马克思对康德实践观的超越

马克思在对德国古典哲学的基本命题—主客关系问题进行批判继承的基础上提出了以实践活动为出发点的"实践唯物主义哲学"。马克思的实践唯物主义哲学与作为德国古典哲学源头的康德的实践哲学在实践主体、实践客体、实践的主客体关系及实践的目的等四个方面有着内在的联系和区别,其区别之处正是马克思实践观对康德实践观的超越之处。     

康德“美与道德”关系之论析——兼论伦理批评尺度

美与善(道德)的逻辑关联,是传统美学的重要命题之一.康德的《判断力批判》对美善之逻辑分析,不少中西学者以为存在着内在的矛盾.其实,康德在第三批判中的观点符合其一以贯之的哲学玄思.从美之分析到崇高之分析,康德不是割裂美与善(道德)关系,而是呈现了递进式的逻辑命题和运思的统一性.全书的主旨并非“勾引出美的特殊领域”,而是通...     

康德体系与美学格局

康德的时代虽然离我们越来越远,但他的著作在美学史上的重要性无可置疑.阅读康德虽然是对人们智力的一种考验,但这不应该成为我们拒绝康德的一种借口.康德是思想史上的悲剧英雄,因为他在古典形而上学已将倒塌之际力图力挽狂澜.康德学说里四处可见的矛盾使他的思想迄今仍拥有一种活力.     

Interpreting Kant in Education: Dissolving Dualisms and Embodying Mind – Introduction

This introduction to my Interpreting Kant in Education: Dissolving Dualisms and Embodying Mind begins with a disturbing puzzle. Immanuel Kant is one of the most significant thinkers of modern times, with unrivalled influence, but he receives a great deal of criticism in educational theory. The widespread, supposedly ‘Kantian’ picture – according to which mind structures or makes sense of experience and imposes its meaning and maxims – is frequently disparaged for its alleged dualisms, intellectualism and disembodied mind, detached from real life. But this ‘Kantian’ Kant stands in sharp contrast to the Kant to be found in more careful exegesis and contemporary work in the philosophy of mind and epistemology. By contrasting interpretations of some of Kant's central terms and insights, the chapters that follow seek to show that Kant can be understood in an altogether different and more valuable way. Exploring Kant's philosophy is at the same time delving into different ideas about knowledge and concepts, about rationality, about what it means to be minded and to be human, and about the role of education in these. This introduction gives a taste of Kant's status in educational theory. It lays the way for the argument that his conception of mind, as a capacity for knowledge, can be read as embodied and his idea of the human subject understood as embedded and engaged in everyday life.     

Kant versus the Managers: Historical Reconstruction and the Modern University

This paper examines the role of normative ideals in contemporary critiques of the university. It begins by suggesting that the normative ideal of the university advanced by Immanuel Kant in The Conflict of the Faculties is particularly relevant to current critiques, as exemplified by a manifesto produced at the University of Aberdeen entitled ‘Reclaiming our University’. The second portion of the paper notes that such critiques cannot however encompass all aspects of the modern university. The paper thus concludes that a Kantian framework enables a narrower, but more powerful critique of New Public Management, which foregrounds issues of legitimate conflict within the university and its institutional reproduction over time instead of speaking to broader concerns about the university's civic/humanist origins     

Can Kant Have an Account of Moral Education?

There is an apparent tension between Immanuel Kant's model of moral agency and his often-neglected philosophy of moral education. On the one hand, Kant's account of moral knowledge and decision-making seems to be one that can be self-taught. Kant's famous categorical imperative and related 'fact of reason' argument suggest that we learn the content and application of the moral law on our own. On the other hand, Kant has a sophisticated and detailed account of moral education that goes well beyond the kind of education a person would receive in the course of ordinary childhood experience. The task of this paper will be to reconcile these seemingly conflicting claims. Ultimately, I argue, Kant's philosophy of education makes sense as a part of his moral theory if we look not only at individual moral decisions, but also at the goals or ends that these moral decisions are intended to achieve. In Kant's case, this end is what he calls the highest good, and, I argue, the most coherent account of the highest good is a kind of ethical community and end of history, similar to the Groundwork 's realm of ends. Seen as a tool to bring about and sustain such a community, Kant's philosophy of moral education exists as a coherent and important part of his moral philosophy.     

审美无利害与报告文学的功利性

康德在《判断力批判》中把“审美无利害“作为审美最基本也是最重要的特点,它有别于对善的追求所引起的愉悦.报告文学无法摆脱社会道德观念、摆脱对善的追求却与在一定程度上借助了道德的、具备无功利性的审美之间并无悖论.报告文学的社会功利性体现在创作的过程中,而审美的超功利性发生在审美主体的接受过程中.     

简述康德对传统理性神学的批判

在《纯粹理性批判》中,康德厘定了思辨理性的应用范围,认为人的认识能力只能限于经验领域,而传统理性神学中证明上帝存在的本体论、宇宙论和设计论的错误在于抽掉了认识可依托的经验,仅从概念上推论出某一最高原因的存在。经过批判哲学的认识论思想分析,康德认为在纯粹思辨理性的范围内,对上帝存在的任何证明都是不可能的。     

康德判断力批判的基本问题

康德的判断力是连接自然和道德的桥梁,他一方面希望以启蒙精神克服新教信仰,另一方面将新教的先验唯灵论精神吸纳到自己的理性精神中来,将新教精神转化为自己哲学的合理内核。康德的自然和道德的分裂的原因就是启蒙理性精神和新教信仰的分裂,他最后将二者统一到有强烈新教精神的先验唯心论中来。康德在理智上是一位启蒙理性精神的实践者,在情感上往往是反对自己的启蒙理性精神的。     

什么是艺术作品的规定——海德格尔与康德的一个比较

何谓艺术作品的规定,是西方美学探讨的重要问题。康德从主体论美学出发,把艺术作品规定为天才的作品,从而形成了他的天才论的艺术观。与康德不同,海德格尔基于存在论,揭示了艺术作品对艺术的敞开,以及存在及其对艺术作品的规定,从而克服了康德主体论美学与理性形而上学的根本困境。就力图为艺术作品寻求某种规定而言,海德格尔的美学思想仍然具有某些形而上学的残余,但他的形而上学与一般的形而上学却有着极大的不同。     

Knowledge,education and aesthetics

Abstract

The philosophy of Immanuel Kant has been important in education theory, especially in the historical context of the Enlightenment and its legacies on contemporary understandings of global education. Particular reference is given to Kant’s writing on Enlightenment thinking and especially to his 1803 Über Pädagogik/Lectures on pedagogy whose groundwork tends to be thought from an empirical anthropology. This paper aims to question education, though from the perspective of a Kantian understanding of aesthetic experience, a perspective developed initially from my reading of Denis J. Schmidt’s Lyrical and Ethical Subjects (2005). In the Critique of Judgement (1986), Kant develops an ‘Analytic of the Beautiful’ that offers transcendental grounds for the possibility of aesthetic experience. In doing so, he discusses, somewhat briefly, training in the fine arts and even more briefly offers, somewhat indirectly, a far-reaching transcendental ground for pedagogy. It is these two brief accounts that form the substance of this paper, requiring a somewhat extended introduction to Kant’s Critique of Aesthetic Judgement in order to develop its analysis. From this analysis, two key questions arise: if fine art cannot be learned, and if imitation would ultimately aim at producing an objectively determinable rule—via a determinable concept—for the production of art works, how does one proceed with education in the fine arts? And, secondly, as a corollary, if genius is reserved for precisely what cannot be learned but yet can be conceived and communicated, what possible purpose is served by aesthetic ideas with respect to cognition itself?