Le but de ce mémoire est d’effectuer une analyse détaillée de ce chapitre de la Critique de la raison pure de Kant à partir de l’idée qu’il présente les « résultats » de la démarche critique menée jusque-là concernant les limites de la connaissance. Le mémoire sera divisé en deux parties. Dans la première partie, nous montrerons que ce chapitre dresse un bilan provisoire et que pour cette raison il soulève deux enjeux : 1 – montrer que les concepts purs de l'entendement – en dépit de leur caractère a priori et de leur origine dans l'entendement pur – ne sont susceptibles d'un usage objectif qu'appliqués aux données de la sensibilité (A 246/B 303 : « L'Analytique transcendantale a donc cet important résultat... ») ; 2 – montrer que, à son tour, la sensibilité est elle-même limitée par l'entendement et qu'elle ne renferme pas la totalité des objets possibles (A 251 : « Tel a été le résultat de toute l'Esthétique transcendantale... »). Dans la seconde partie, nous analyserons les différences entre les deux éditions de la Critique de la raison pure concernant ce chapitre en insistant tout particulièrement sur la distinction faite dans la deuxième édition entre noumène au sens positif et noumène au sens négatif. / The purpose of this master thesis is to perform a detailed analysis of this chapter of the Critique of Pure Reason from the idea that it summaries the “results” of the critical approach did so far concerning the limits of the knowledge. The thesis is divided into two parts. In the first part, we show that this chapter provides preliminary assessment and that is why raises two issues: 1. Show that the pure concepts of the understanding – despite of their a priori character and their origin in the pure understanding – are likely to use objective data only applied to the sensitivity (A 246/B 303: “The transcendental analytic has this important result…”) 2. Show that the sensitivity itself is limited by the understanding and it does not contain all possible objects (A 251: “This was the result of all the Transcendental Aesthetic…”). In the second part, we will analyze the differences between the two editions of the Critique of Pure Reason regarding this chapter with particular emphasis on the distinction made in the second edition between noumenon in the positive and negative sense.

Le but de ce mémoire est d’effectuer une analyse détaillée de ce chapitre de la Critique de la raison pure de Kant à partir de l’idée qu’il présente les « résultats » de la démarche critique menée jusque-là concernant les limites de la connaissance. Le mémoire sera divisé en deux parties. Dans la première partie, nous montrerons que ce chapitre dresse un bilan provisoire et que pour cette raison il soulève deux enjeux : 1 – montrer que les concepts purs de l'entendement – en dépit de leur caractère a priori et de leur origine dans l'entendement pur – ne sont susceptibles d'un usage objectif qu'appliqués aux données de la sensibilité (A 246/B 303 : « L'Analytique transcendantale a donc cet important résultat... ») ; 2 – montrer que, à son tour, la sensibilité est elle-même limitée par l'entendement et qu'elle ne renferme pas la totalité des objets possibles (A 251 : « Tel a été le résultat de toute l'Esthétique transcendantale... »). Dans la seconde partie, nous analyserons les différences entre les deux éditions de la Critique de la raison pure concernant ce chapitre en insistant tout particulièrement sur la distinction faite dans la deuxième édition entre noumène au sens positif et noumène au sens négatif. / The purpose of this master thesis is to perform a detailed analysis of this chapter of the Critique of Pure Reason from the idea that it summaries the “results” of the critical approach did so far concerning the limits of the knowledge. The thesis is divided into two parts. In the first part, we show that this chapter provides preliminary assessment and that is why raises two issues: 1. Show that the pure concepts of the understanding – despite of their a priori character and their origin in the pure understanding – are likely to use objective data only applied to the sensitivity (A 246/B 303: “The transcendental analytic has this important result…”) 2. Show that the sensitivity itself is limited by the understanding and it does not contain all possible objects (A 251: “This was the result of all the Transcendental Aesthetic…”). In the second part, we will analyze the differences between the two editions of the Critique of Pure Reason regarding this chapter with particular emphasis on the distinction made in the second edition between noumenon in the positive and negative sense.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-06-02T20:13:08Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2055.pdf: 624273 bytes, checksum: e0adf063e039cd24fde9193455451d3a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-08-13 / The purpose of this work is to examine the problem of error and transcendental illusion in Kant s Critique of Pure Reason as two correlate, but sharply distinct aspects of his critique on dogmatic metaphysics. Following Kant s indications, we analyze his paradoxical doctrine that error is avoidable even if its positive source, transcendental illusion, is considered natural and inherent to human reason. Accordingly, we first analyze the status of error as a property of judgments in general Kant s thesis is that error can be explained in terms of a double influence that, if unnoticed, deviates the judgment from truth: imagination and sensibility. Under each of these influences, the human understanding helds merely subjective for objective principles of knowledge, thereby attaining error instead of true cognition. Secondly, applying this general analysis of error to one specific case, we focus our analyze on the issue of transcendental illusion involved in the transcendental idea of God In this particular case, we try to show how the legitimate demand of reason for a complete explanation (underlying the concept of God as an ens realissimum) allows room for a dialectic illusion, which holds that this concept of reason for a necessarily real and existing being. Finally, we try to point out the positive contribution to metaphysics which arises from Kant s distinction between judgmental error and transcendental illusion. / O propósito deste trabalho é examinar o problema do erro e da ilusão transcendental na Crítica da Razão Pura de Kant. Seguiremos as indicações do próprio Kant, que faz uma clara distinção entre erro e ilusão e o caráter próprio de cada um, em que o primeiro é corrigível enquanto o segundo é inevitável. Analisaremos em um primeiro momento o estatuto do erro, isto é, as fontes positivas do erro, em que o entendimento é desviado de seu reto agir por uma dupla influência despercebida: da imaginação e da sensibilidade. Tais influências conduzem o entendimento a confundir os princípios subjetivos e objetivos do conhecimento, ou seja, a tomar os primeiros como se fossem capazes de por si produzir conhecimento objetivo. No segundo momento analisamos a questão da ilusão transcendental, através da idéia de Deus, mostrando como se dá a passagem de uma busca natural da razão, a da totalidade de todo conhecimento (o incondicionado) para uma ilusão dialética: a certeza de que conhece o ens realissimum (Deus) como ser necessariamente real e existente. Por fim, tentamos demonstrar que contribuições à metafísica pode trazer essa discussão entre erro corrigível e ilusão inevitável, uma vez que a ilusão não configura nenhum erro, mas pode conduzir a ele.