On part d’une difficulté d’interprétation qui a partagé les commentateurs concernant le statut transcendantal de la philosophie de Martin Heidegger. En effet, alors que beaucoup des concepts fondamentaux d’Être et temps (1927) semblent résister à une interprétation transcendantaliste (le Dasein, le « on », le comprendre, l’ustensilité, la tournure, l’angoisse, l’appel), au sens où il désignent la façon dont nous sommes immédiatement au monde, sans la médiation d’un sujet constituant, Heidegger désigne lui-même l’orientation générale de son traité comme une orientation transcendantale. En effet, la temporalité couronne l’édifice, et fonde même l’existence dans sa dimension la plus concrète. De quel transcendantal Heidegger fait alors usage, s’il refuse le sujet comme substance, et qu’il n’y a donc plus d’instance subjective constitutive de l’expérience ? On défend une interprétation pratique de ce transcendantal : le fondement est bien la quête de Heidegger, mais en tant qu’il est toujours à fonder par un Dasein libre et responsable de lui-même. Cette interprétation que nous appelons « praxiologico-transcendantale » permet d’inscrire Heidegger dans une tradition métaphysique bien déterminée, en montrant comment sa philosophie s’élabore contre les conceptions transcendantalistes des néokantiens, en montrant aussi comment Husserl et Scheler lui donnent les outils phénoménologiques pour associer pratique et transcendantal, et enfin en l’inscrivant dans une tradition dont Kant fut le précurseur dans quelques textes, et dont Fichte fut le vrai fondateur : un kantisme qui décrit un sujet pratique, au moyen de l’union des deux première Critiques. Ainsi, loin de rompre avec la métaphysique en 1927, Heidegger en régénère-t-il une figure fondamentale dont on essaie d’indiquer les concepts cruciaux. / This PhD work starts from a difficulty of interpretation that had divided commentators, concerning the transcendental status of the Martin Heidegger’s philosophy. Indeed, whereas many basic concepts in Sein und Zeit (1927) appear to resist a transcendentalist interpretation (« Dasein », « Man », « Verstehen », ustensility, « Angst », « Ruf »…), because they designate the way we are immediatly in the world without the mediation of a constituting subject, Heidegger indicates the treaty’s general direction as a transcendental direction. Indeed, the temporality crowns the building, and grounds existence in its most concrete dimension. What is the Heidegger’s transcendental, if he refuses the subject as substance, and if there is therefore no more constituting subject for experience ? We defend a practical interpretation of this transcendental : the ground is indeed the quest of Heidegger, but as it is always to be found by a free and responsible for himself Dasein. This interpretation, that we call « praxiologico-transcendental », allows to link Heidegger to a well determined metaphysical tradition, by showing how his philosophy confronts neokantian’s transcendentalist conceptions, by showing also how Edmund Husserl and Max Scheler provide phenomenological tools for joining praxis and transcendental, and finally by locating him within a tradition of which Kant was the precursor in some texts, and of which Fichte was the true founder : a kantism that describes a practical subject, by means of the union of the two first Critique. Thus, far from breaking with metaphysics in 1927, Heidegger regenerates one of its fundamental figure, of which we try to indicate crucial concepts.

Diss. Univ. Mainz, 2006.

Mémoire numérisé par la Direction des bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal.

本論文旨在闡釋費希特之超驗哲學的知識論面向。處理這問題的過程除了闡釋部份外還會涉及兩個觀點。第一個觀點是透過歷史的角度來揭露費氏的早期知識學(Wissenschaftslehre)所處置的理論哲學脈絡，而第二個觀點則是從一個當代角度去考察費氏的早期知識學作為一知識論策略的本質並檢討當代對其哲學以基礎論(foundationalism)及反基礎論(anti-foundationalism)作評斷的考察方式。對費氏理論集中闡釋的部份則成為樞紐把兩觀點貫穿起來。第一個觀點的作用在於透過把費氏的理論放置於其獨特的、特殊的背景下理解來防止時代錯置的判斷(anachronism)，而這樣也為我們提供理解費氏哲學的恰當途徑。這對闡釋費氏的理論有關鍵的理解作用而不只具有歷史意義。而第二個觀點雖然較易傾向時代錯置，但可以透過當代的資源和方法來為問題作翻新的處理。這做法有助突顯闡釋中隱藏的、未被充份處理的問題，而透過處理這些問題可側面地補充闡釋。因此本論文主要有三大部份。第一部份著重解釋在甚麼意義下費氏知識學趨生於三個哲學家雅各比（而從他關聯到斯賓洛沙）、康德 和 萊茵霍爾德(K. L. Reinhold)的理論脈絡並試圖作出回應。明白這點則不難理解第二部份之主張費氏所提出的三個基本原則其用意其實是要把人類知識基礎建於人類自發性之上。第三部份（即上述所指的對當代觀點的處理）則會指出把費氏理論詮釋成反基礎論是不準確和誤導的，他的理論反而指向一抗拒這種二分法的統一性。 / This thesis aims at explicating the epistemological aspects of Fichte's transcendental philosophy from a historical perspective that exposes the theoretical philosophical context in which Fichte's early philosophical project Wissenschaftslehre is embedded, as well as from a contemporary perspective that examines the nature of Fichte’s epistemological strategy and reviews the examination of it in foundationalist and anti-foundationalist terms. The first perspective prevents anachronism by situating the theory within the unique particular background, which also gives us a proper access to the philosophy of Fichte. The latter perspective, though could be prone to anachronism, gives the problematic a refreshment by bringing in contemporary resources and devices to review the theory. An explication of Fichte's three fundamental principles and an analysis of the third as the culmination of foundation make up the hinge that connects both perspectives. The first perspective is an essential prologue to the explication, its significance lies not in merely giving out information of the historical development, but in making the theory itself intelligible; the second perspective considers an issue that is hidden in the explication but not yet sufficiently addressed, and in addressing this perspective I provide a review of the review, through which the explication can be supplemented. / Hence it should be obvious that the thesis consists of three parts and how they are connected. The first part sets up the historical background through which the epistemological relevance of Fichte is to be appreciated. Three philosophers are given extra weight for this purpose Jacobi (and through him Spinoza as well), Kant, and Reinhold. It is in the face of a particular set of issues resulting from their interaction that Fichte's theory of knowledge emerges to resolve. With this in mind, we will find that Fichte's proposal of the fundamental principles is a strategy to ground the foundation of knowledge on human spontaneity, as spontaneity is found to be the necessary condition for the third principle and the third principle the necessary condition for the coordination of the first two principles which Fichte takes as hardly disputable. Based on this understanding, we shall see that Rockmore’s suggestion to understand Fichte's theory of knowledge as a kind of anti-foundationalism is inaccurate and misleading, instead it rather points to a theoretical tendency that resists such dichotomy. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Tse, Chiu Yui Plato. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2013. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 108-112). / Abstracts also in Chinese. / Acknowledgement --- p.1 / Introduction --- p.2 / Chapter One: --- p.6 / The Relevance of the Absolute to the Foundation of Knowledge / The Epistemological Relevance of the Absolute --- p.7 / Jacobi’s Spinozakritik: The Skeptic Consequence of “Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit“ --- p.12 / Jacobi’s Kantkritik --- p.16 / Reinhold’s Principle of Consciousness and Beyond --- p.29 / Chapter Two: --- p.35 / Part I / The Three Fundamental Principles: With an Explanation of a Common Phenomenon of Consciousness / The I-Talk --- p.38 / The First Principle --- p.42 / The Second Principle --- p.44 / The Third Principle --- p.46 / The Absolute I and the Forgotten --- p.49 / Part II / An Analysis through a Dialectics of Contradictions --- p.52 / Step A --- p.53 / Step B --- p.55 / Step C --- p.58 / Step D --- p.60 / Step E --- p.65 / Chapter Three: --- p.74 / The Conflict between Foundationalist and Anti-foundationalist Interpretation / The Problem --- p.75 / Tom Rockmore’s Anti-foundationalist Interpretation --- p.79 / Problem of Daniel Breazeale’s Response --- p.87 / Klaus Hammacher a Leap towards Certainty --- p.92 / Conclusion --- p.101 / Bibliography --- p.108

Texte remanié de: Mémoire de DEA--Philosophie. / Bibliogr. p. 139-143.

Habilitationsschrift--Fachbereich 9 - Kulturwissenschaften--Universität Bremen, 2002. / Bibliogr. p. 388-406.

Magisterarbeit--Institut für Allgemeine und Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft--Mainz--Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, 2005. / Bibliogr. p. 137-150.

Zugl.: Mainz, Univ., Magisterarbeit, 2005

Zugl.: Göttingen, Univ., Diss., 2007

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Duquesne University, 2009. / Title from document title page. Abstract included in electronic submission form. Includes bibliographical references (p. 129-136) and index.