Kant and Heidegger: The Place of Truth and the Shrinking Back of the Noumena
Tóm tắt
There is much debate on how to understand Kant’s transcendental idealism in the context of the Critique of Pure Reason. Heidegger’s Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics offers an innovative reading of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, but is often overlooked due to the violence it allegedly does in its interpretation. This paper offers a Heideggerian-inspired phenomenological or ontological interpretation of transcendental idealism by drawing on Heidegger’s interpretation of the Critique. First, I draw a connection between the two uses of noumena in the Critique (boundary-concepts and regulative ideas) and, in doing so, draw attention to how the noumena relies on a concept of the proper which gains its meaning from outside the system. I then bring together Kant and Heidegger on the question of the place of truth and the role of the noumena. I claim not only that the ‘noumena’ reveals a ‘shrinking back’ from the ontological (onto-ethical) release of aletheia; but also, and as a consequence, that the ‘noumena’ does not represent ‘another world,’ but rather is the grounds of the constitution of the phenomenal world itself. Thus, I argue that the noumena is the being of the phenomena, and I do so through looking at objects, faculties, and ethics in the Critique. Finally, I claim that the understanding and reason must both be receptive: even the self-given is ultimately being given.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Allais, L. (2004). Kant’s one world: Interpreting ‘transcendental idealism’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 12(4), 655–684.
Allison, H. (1983). Kant’s transcendental idealism. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Angelova, E. (2009). A continuity between the A and B Deductions of the Critique: Revisiting Heidegger’s reading of Kant. Idealistic Studies, 39.1–3(Spring-Summer-Fall), 53–69. https://www.pdcnet.org/idstudies/content/idstudies_2009_0039_40181_0053_0069.
Angelova, E. (2010). “Desubjectivation of time and self-affection: Kant in Heidegger.” In Kant und die Philosophie in weltbürgerlicher Absicht, Akten des XI. Kant-Kongresses, Proceedings of the XI International Kant Congress, edited by Stefano Bacin, Alfredo Ferrarin, Claudio La Rocca, and Margit Ruffing (pp. 653–664). Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013.
Carman, T. (2010). Heidegger’s Anti-Neo-Kantianism. The Philosophical Forum, Inc., 41.1–2, 131–142.
Dahlstrom, D. (2010). The Critique of Pure Reason and continental philosophy: Heidegger’s interpretation of transcendental imagination. In D. Dahlstrom (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (pp. 380–400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Boer, K., & Howard, S. (2018). A ground completely overgrown: Heidegger, Kant and the problem of metaphysics. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 27(2), 358–377.
Derrida, J. (1997). Of grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Derrida, J. (2005). “Structure, sign, and play in the discourse of the human sciences.” In Writing and difference, translated by Alan Bass (pp. 351–370). London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Heidegger, M. (1995). The fundamental concepts of metaphysics: World, finitude, solitude. Translated by William McNeill and Nicholas Walker. Bloomington, Indiana University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and time. Translated by Joan Stambaugh. Albany: State University of New York.
Heidegger, M. (1997). Kant and the problem of metaphysics. Translated by Richard Taft. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1998). “Letter on ‘humanism’.” In Pathmarks, translated by Frank A. Capuzzi, edited by William McNeill (pp. 239–276). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Heidegger, M. (2008). Being and time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: HarperPerennial.
Heidegger, M. (2009). “On the essence of truth.” In Pathmarks, translated by John Sallis, edited by William McNeill (pp. 136–154). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hogan, D. (2009). Noumenal affection. The Philosophical Review, 118(4), 501–532.
Kant, I. (2009). Critique of pure reason. Edited and translated by Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Käufer, S. (2011). Heidegger’s interpretation of Kant. In D. Dahlstrom (Ed.), Interpreting Heidegger: Critical essays (pp. 174–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langton, R. (1998). Kantian humility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langton, R. (2006). Kant’s phenomena: Extrinsic or relational properties? A reply to Allais. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73(1), 170–185.
Schulting, D. (2011). Kant’s idealism: The current debate. An introductory essay. In D. Schulting & J. Verburgt (Eds.), Kant’s idealism: New interpretations of a controversial doctrine (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Springer.
Stang, N. F. (2013). Freedom, knowledge and affection: Reply to Hogan. Kantian Review, 18(1), 99–106.
Stang, N. F. (2014). The non-identity of appearances and things in themselves. Nous, 48(1), 106–136.
Stang, N. F. (2018). Kant’s transcendental idealism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/. Accessed 7 Sept 2020