康德“知性为自然立法”的概念意涵
The Conceptual Meaning of Kant’s “Intellect Legislates for Nature”
摘要: “知性为自然立法”作为范畴之先验演绎的终极结论,实乃康德哲学之“哥白尼式革命”的核心成果。首先,所谓“自然”,在现象界范畴内,提供了感性直观所赋予的杂多表象之集合,其次,这些杂多表象要得以初步整合,需借助先验想象力的综合作用,最后,知性发挥其本源的综合统一能力,知性凭借范畴,将其本源的综合统一功能施加于经想象力综合后的杂多表象之上,使这些表象在范畴的规定下形成具有普遍必然性的判断,从而产生知识。因此,要理解“知性为自然立法”这一概念的意义,首先就要了解知性范畴的作用和地位,其次是对“自然”概念的了解,这里的自然是一切可经验的对象,不仅仅是知识,最后就需要了解知性是如何立法的。
Abstract: The ultimate conclusion of the priori deduction of the category “intellect as natural legislation” is actually the core achievement of Kant’s philosophy of the “Copernican Revolution”. Firstly, the so-called “nature” provides a collection of diverse representations endowed by sensory intuition within the realm of phenomena. Secondly, these diverse representations need to be preliminarily integrated through the comprehensive effect of prior imagination. Finally, the intellect exerts its comprehensive and unified ability of origin. With the help of categories, the intellect applies its comprehensive and unified function of origin to the diverse representations synthesized by imagination, so that these representations form judgments with universal necessity under the definition of categories, thereby generating knowledge. Therefore, to understand the significance of the concept of “intelligence legislating for nature”, it is necessary to first understand the role and status of the intellectual category, followed by an understanding of the concept of “nature”. Here, nature is all experientiable objects, not just knowledge. Finally, it is necessary to understand how intelligence legislates.
参考文献
|
[1]
|
康德. 纯粹理性批判[M]. 邓晓芒, 译. 北京: 人民出版社, 2017: 68.
|
|
[2]
|
Henrich, D. (1969) The Proof-Structure of Kant’s Transcendental Deduction. The Review of Metaphysics, 22, 640-659.
|
|
[3]
|
李恩来. 康德知性范畴理论研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 桂林: 广西师范大学, 2014.
|
|
[4]
|
蒋益. 试论先验范畴演绎中“我思”概念的认识论特征[J]. 今日中国论坛, 2013(15): 315-316.
|
|
[5]
|
康德. 纯粹理性批判[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2004: 118.
|
|
[6]
|
邓晓芒. 康德哲学讲演录[M]. 桂林: 广西师范大学出版社, 2006: 49, 27, 31.
|
|
[7]
|
徐会利. 论康德的“知性为自然立法” [J]. 理论界, 2019(12): 88.
|