ผลต่างระหว่างรุ่นของ "หน้าหลัก"

จาก wiki.surinsanghasociety
ไปยังการนำทาง ไปยังการค้นหา
(ทำหน้าว่าง)
Tag: ทำหน้าว่าง
แถว 1: แถว 1:
 
+
D in this way the idea supposedly unifies a number of
 +
D in this way the concept supposedly unifies a number of sense impressions into an object of knowledge (e.g., a chair). More common concepts may also unify subsidiary ideas, like when the concept furniture contains within it concepts for chairs, tables, beds, sofas, and so on. Concepts, for Kant, are thus formal structures, insofar as they recognize the vital and adequate properties or characteristics a thing must have to become that specific sort of thing. Kant succinctly summarizes the relative contribution of both intuitions (as the product of the faculty of sensations) and concepts (as the solution in the faculty of understanding): "Our expertise springs from two basic sources with the thoughts; the first will be the capacity of getting representations (receptivity for impressions), the second could be the energy of realizing an object by way of these representations (spontaneity within the production of ideas).... Intuition and concepts constitute, for that reason, the components of all our knowledge, in order that neither ideas without having an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without having concepts, can yield knowledge" (Kant, 1781, A50/B74). Because the past two centuries of Kant-influenced philosophy and its critics have demonstrated, once you distinguish the matter of sensations from the formal structure of ideas, you cannot really explain how the two get combined in acts of judgment. As soon as Humpty-Dumpty is broken (i.e., as soon as form (the notion) and matter (the sensations) are separated), you can't place Humpty back with each other once more. In his well-known "Schematism with the Pure Ideas of Understanding" (Kant, 1781, A137/B176--A147/B186), Kant attempted to bridge the gap in between the material of sensations supplied by the physique plus the formal structuring supplied by the thoughts by obtaining a third capacity--imagination--that supposedly has 1 foot inside the material and one more inside the formal, and somehow unites them in one synthetic act. Nonetheless, as has been well documented in Kant scholarship, this unifying move leaves the faculty of imagination a bit out in no man's land. On the 1 hand, it appears bodily within the way it constitutes pictures out of sensations. However, it remains non-bodily inside the way it generates formal schemata (Johnson, 1987). This indeterminate status for imagination showsFrontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.orgJune 2015 | Volume six | ArticleJohnsonEmbodied understandingup in the Critique of Pure Cause, exactly where Kant sometimes aligns imagination with sensing and our bodily formation of images and other times with understanding and its capacity for spontaneously producing synthesizing forms. I cannot discuss the intricacies and difficulties of Kant's schematism here. It is actually enough for our purposes to recognize that understanding (Verstand) has been defined as a faculty of ideas and conceptual unifying judgments, in contrast together with the contribution to understanding made by the bodily processes of sense perception and imagination. Ideas would be the merchandise with the synthesizing energy of your thoughts that enables us to grasp the type of objects of knowledge. Kant was not a Cartesian substance dualist (where "mind" and "body" are two various types of substance); rather, he features a [https://www.medchemexpress.com/X-396_hydrochloride.html Ensartinib Protein Tyrosine Kinase/RTK] dualism that aligns sensing and feeling with.

รุ่นแก้ไขเมื่อ 03:36, 20 กรกฎาคม 2564

D in this way the idea supposedly unifies a number of D in this way the concept supposedly unifies a number of sense impressions into an object of knowledge (e.g., a chair). More common concepts may also unify subsidiary ideas, like when the concept furniture contains within it concepts for chairs, tables, beds, sofas, and so on. Concepts, for Kant, are thus formal structures, insofar as they recognize the vital and adequate properties or characteristics a thing must have to become that specific sort of thing. Kant succinctly summarizes the relative contribution of both intuitions (as the product of the faculty of sensations) and concepts (as the solution in the faculty of understanding): "Our expertise springs from two basic sources with the thoughts; the first will be the capacity of getting representations (receptivity for impressions), the second could be the energy of realizing an object by way of these representations (spontaneity within the production of ideas).... Intuition and concepts constitute, for that reason, the components of all our knowledge, in order that neither ideas without having an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without having concepts, can yield knowledge" (Kant, 1781, A50/B74). Because the past two centuries of Kant-influenced philosophy and its critics have demonstrated, once you distinguish the matter of sensations from the formal structure of ideas, you cannot really explain how the two get combined in acts of judgment. As soon as Humpty-Dumpty is broken (i.e., as soon as form (the notion) and matter (the sensations) are separated), you can't place Humpty back with each other once more. In his well-known "Schematism with the Pure Ideas of Understanding" (Kant, 1781, A137/B176--A147/B186), Kant attempted to bridge the gap in between the material of sensations supplied by the physique plus the formal structuring supplied by the thoughts by obtaining a third capacity--imagination--that supposedly has 1 foot inside the material and one more inside the formal, and somehow unites them in one synthetic act. Nonetheless, as has been well documented in Kant scholarship, this unifying move leaves the faculty of imagination a bit out in no man's land. On the 1 hand, it appears bodily within the way it constitutes pictures out of sensations. However, it remains non-bodily inside the way it generates formal schemata (Johnson, 1987). This indeterminate status for imagination showsFrontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.orgJune 2015 | Volume six | ArticleJohnsonEmbodied understandingup in the Critique of Pure Cause, exactly where Kant sometimes aligns imagination with sensing and our bodily formation of images and other times with understanding and its capacity for spontaneously producing synthesizing forms. I cannot discuss the intricacies and difficulties of Kant's schematism here. It is actually enough for our purposes to recognize that understanding (Verstand) has been defined as a faculty of ideas and conceptual unifying judgments, in contrast together with the contribution to understanding made by the bodily processes of sense perception and imagination. Ideas would be the merchandise with the synthesizing energy of your thoughts that enables us to grasp the type of objects of knowledge. Kant was not a Cartesian substance dualist (where "mind" and "body" are two various types of substance); rather, he features a Ensartinib Protein Tyrosine Kinase/RTK dualism that aligns sensing and feeling with.