Made available in DSpace on 2014-07-29T15:06:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Alice Catarina de Barros.pdf: 816669 bytes, checksum: c30a0f7e602a4c84dfb67897a7ffe2f3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-06-17 / In our text we present a discussion about the sense of Other to transcendental subjectivity, through a dialogue with husserlian phenomenology, aiming to evidence its elements and constituent aspects. Therefore, we begin with the approach and enlightenement of phenomenologic method, as a fundament of primary and rigorous philosophy. From its gradual briefing, we follow expliciting structures of pure consciousness, which led us to the disclosure, constitution and unity of the transcendental subject. Then we dedicated to the unveiling of the Self totality, through reducing sphere of ownness. An overriding moment of introducing the problem of the Other under primordiality, that passes through a tonic of constitution of world objectivity and taking consciousness of the self. Ultimately, we turn our attention to transcendental levels of constitution of the Other, describing the processes of capturing by analogy, pairing and imagination; concluding with a reflection concerning the unity of husserlian theory of transcendental intersubjectivity. / Em nosso texto apresentamos uma discussão acerca do sentido de Outro para a subjetividade transcendental, por meio de um diálogo com a fenomenologia husserliana, buscando demonstrar seus fundamentos e seus aspectos constitutivos. Para tanto, principiamos por uma abordagem e esclarecimento do método fenomenológico, enquanto fundamento de uma filosofia primeira e rigorosa. A partir de sua elucidação paulatina, seguimos explicitando as estruturas da consciência pura, as quais nos conduziram à evidenciação, à constituição e à unidade do Eu transcendental. Em seguida nos dedicamos ao desvelamento da totalidade do Eu, por meio da redução à esfera de pertença. Momento precípuo da introdução do problema do Outro no âmbito da primordialidade, que passa por uma tônica da constituição da objetividade do mundo e da tomada de consciência de si mesmo. Por fim, voltamos nossa atenção para os níveis transcendentais de constituição do Outro, descrevendo os processos da apreensão por analogia, do emparelhamento e da imaginação; concluindo com uma reflexão acerca da unidade da teoria husserliana da intersubjetividade transcendental.

This thesis contends that the discovery of transcendental intersubjectivity revealed the inadequacy of Husserl‟s Cartesian way to the reduction and precipitated the development of the ontological way. Through an analysis drawing primarily from Ideas I, Cartesian Meditations, and Crisis, this thesis will analyze the Cartesian way, intersubjectivity, and finally the ontological way. It will be argued that the Cartesian way focuses on the transcendental ego and ignores the natural world. With the discovery of transcendental intersubjectivity 1) a being beyond the transcendental ego has a role in constituting the world and 2) the objectivity of the world can no longer be reduced to the (individual) transcendental ego. The transition to the historical approach of Crisis is analyzed and we find that the Cartesian way cannot address the life-world and transcendental intersubjectivity in their new, central role. It is demonstrated how the ontological way fills this gap. / Graduate

This dissertation provides a systematic account of the metaphysics of transcendental idealism. According to the proposed theory, appearances are understood as intentional objects, while phenomena are considered as logical constructs that are grounded in noumena, whereby the grounding relation can be modelled by means of a coordinated multiple-domain supervenience relation. This framework is employed to provide a vindication of metaphysics, by giving dual-level explanations that explain how the world can have ontological structure, making intelligible the applicability of metaphysical concepts, such as unity, persistence, causation and mind-body interaction, to the empirical realm. The key claim that is advanced in the dissertation is that in order to be realists we have to be transcendental idealists. In particular, transcendental arguments are provided that establish that if realism about science, metaphysics and ethics is to be possible, then (i) the world must have a transcendental structure that integrates the fragmented perspective-dependent spatio-temporal frameworks into a unified perspective-independent space-time manifold, (ii) space and time must be forms of intuition that give rise to correspondences between appearances and phenomena, making it the case that we can have non-trivial scientific knowledge of the world, and (iii) we must have a priori concepts, namely the mathematical and dynamical categories, that allow us to cognise the empirical as well as ontological structure of the world. The ‘fact of experience’ as well as the ‘fact of reason’ are then brought in to strengthen the case for scientific, metaphysical and moral realism, thereby warding off the threat of nihilism. Moreover, a refutation of the more attractive versions of scepticism and idealism is provided, namely of those versions that claim that a subject’s representations or episodes of awareness can be temporally ordered even though they deny or doubt the existence of a law-governed external world. The conclusion then is that a realist stance is to be adopted and that we should consequently accept transcendental idealism and hold that the world has a transcendental structure.

With the help of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason this paper aims to investigate the very possibility of philosophical reflection. Starting from a reading of two Eugen Fink texts, a phenomenologically discovered question is posed and a critical response attempted. It will be shown how, by orienting itself upon the subjective feeling of reason’s demand for the unconditioned, critical thought is then able to restrict itself to a valid use of reason, thus securing its own possibility. The transcendental methodology employed by Kant and the concept of pure apperception will also be discussed as key components in the facilitation of philosophical reflection. The Kantian response offered here is largely centred around the concept of transcendental illusion as discussed in the ‘Transcendental Dialectic’ and by taking related concepts such as transcendental reflection into consideration it is subsequently shown that, despite being raised here phenomenologically, the question of philosophical reflection is very much of interest to critical thought.

Thesis (M.A.)--Boston University / PLEASE NOTE: Boston University Libraries did not receive an Authorization To Manage form for this thesis or dissertation. It is therefore not openly accessible, though it may be available by request. If you are the author or principal advisor of this work and would like to request open access for it, please contact us at open-help@bu.edu. Thank you. / The purpose of this thesis is to present Ernst Cassirer's philosophy of science and to show its relation to Kantian philosophy. In the first chapter, the basic theme of transcendental philosophy, the concept of unity, is developed. Then, finally, the se of "transcendental" and "empirical" is explained with respect to Kant's theory of experience. Here it is pointed out that the experience is an immanent mixture of transcendental and empirical elements. Experience and self-consciousness are systematically interconnected. The transcendental concepts serving as the ground of empirical determination merely represent the inherent unity of consciousness [TRUNCATED] / 2031-01-01

No description available.

No description available.

No abstract available. / Thesis (M.A.)-University of Natal, Durban, 1978.

Como entender a afirmação de Kant de que os conceitos puros do entendimento são derivados do entendimento puro? Este problema se impõe na medida em que as categorias são conceitos e os conceitos são cognições cuja forma é a mesma para todos e cuja matéria é sempre oriunda da sensibilidade. Por sua vez, tal dificuldade nos deixa outro problema: compreender como podemos distinguir duas categorias puras, sendo que elas não possuem matéria e têm a mesma forma comum. Ora, se os únicos modos de distinguirmos entre diferentes conceitos é com base em sua matéria ou sua forma, então parece que duas categorias puras – como as categorias de substância e causa - não são, em princípio, conceitos distintos. Testaremos a alternativa de buscar um modo de distinção entre conceitos que não passe nem pela sua matéria, nem pela sua forma entendida como mera universalidade. Investiguemos se é possível termos conceitos empíricos que quanto à matéria e quanto à forma são iguais, mas que, no entanto, são – ainda assim - distintos. Pensemos no exemplo dos conceitos de “árvore”, “passarinho” e “arvorinho”. Se tomarmos os dois primeiros conceitos, vemos que eles exprimem uma realidade na medida em que correspondem a certa apreensão dos objetos na intuição empírica, do mesmo modo que o conceito de “arvorinho”. Assim, ao perguntarmos pelo fundamento empírico desses conceitos, vemos que eles são “formados” a partir de uma mesma matéria sensível. Por outro lado, sabemos que estes conceitos também são idênticos no que diz respeito à sua forma. Entretanto, mesmo tendo a mesma matéria e a mesma forma, são conceitos distintos. O que este exemplo chama atenção é uma diferença na síntese que nem sempre pode ser explicada pela matéria sintetizada. Por sua vez, tal síntese pode ser dita uma síntese empírica na medida em que sua regra refletida no conceito do objeto é determinada com recurso à experiência. Assim, se pudermos encontrar algo análogo a esta regra de síntese no caso dos conceitos puros do entendimento, poderemos chegar a um fundamento de distinção entre os conceitos que não repousa nem na sua matéria nem na sua forma como mera universalidade. Modos distintos de fazer uma síntese pura, permitiriam distinguir uma categoria pura de outra, por exemplo, que nos permitiriam distinguir a categoria de “substância” da categoria de “causa”. E, com isso, podemos tentar resolver o problema da derivação das categorias do entendimento ao atentar para uma regra de síntese pura refletida nas categorias, regra essa que poderia ser derivada das formas do juízo. A tarefa desta dissertação será elucidar os elementos do problema aqui exposto e apresentar a solução aqui indicada. / How to understand Kant’s claim that the pure concepts of understanding are derived from the pure understanding? This problem arises because the categories are concepts, and the concepts are cognitions whose form is the same and whose matter is always derived from sensibility. This difficulty leads us to another problem: how to distinguish between two pure categories, once they don’t have matter, but they still do have the same common form. If the only way to distinguish concepts is with respect to their matter, then it seems that two pure categories – like the categories of substance and cause – are not, in principle, two distinct concepts. We shall test the alternative of finding a way of distinguishing between concepts neither from their matter, nor from their form understood as a mere universality. We shall investigate if it is possible to have empirical concepts which are the same in regard to their matter and form, but are, nevertheless, distinct concepts. Think about the example of the concepts “tree”, “bird” and “treebird”. If we take the two first concepts, we see that they express a reality because they correspond to the apprehension of objects in the empirical intuition, like the concept of “tree-bird”. So, if we ask for the empirical ground of their concepts, we shall find that they are “formed” from the same sensible matter. On the other hand, we know that these concepts are also the same in regard the common form. However, even though they have the same matter and the same form, they are distinct concepts. What this example shows is a difference in the synthesis, that can not always be explained by the synthesized matter. This synthesis can be called an empirical synthesis, since it’s rule reflected in the concept of the object is determined by means of experience. Therefore, if we can find something analogous to this rule of synthesis in the case of the pure concepts of the understanding, we can find a ground for distinguishing between the concepts that do not rest neither in their matter, nor in their form as a mere universality. Distinct ways of making a pure synthesis would permit to distinguish one pure category from another, for example, they would permit to distinguish the category of “substance” from the category of “cause”. And, then, we can try to solve the problem of the derivation of the categories of pure understanding when we pay attention to the rule of pure synthesis reflected in the categories, a rule that can be derived from the judgment forms. The task of this dissertation is to elucidate the elements of the problem here exposed and to present the solution here indicated.

The first chapter explores an anachronistic Kantian critique of Plotinus wherein Plotinus' notion of the One and the soul's ascent to the One is discussed. In the second part of the chapter it will be argued that despite Plotinus' via negativa approach to the One, he commits what Kant calls a transcendental illusion. At this time, Kant's conditions of experience and knowledge are discussed, to show what constitutes as experience. Then, Kant's notion of transcendental illusion is discussed, specifically in its paralogistic and ideal forms. From this discussion, it is evident that Plotinus' idea of the soul is a paralogistic error and his idea of the One becomes the Ideal of pure reason, thereby mistaking the Ideal of the One as constituting ultimate existence. Following this Kantian critique, the second chapter discusses Úankara's view of Âtman. The exposition demonstrates that Úankara's approach is essentially via negativa, that while it is the most humble approach to Brahman, yet it is unable to account for the absolute reality that is essentially ineffable. This discussion focuses on Úankara's belief that people falsely attribute or superimpose qualities to the true Self, because of Avidyâ and that only true knowledge transforms Avidyâ into vidyâ or discriminating knowledge. After this discussion, some criticisms are discussed to show some apparent problems with Úankara's view. At which time, it will be argued that despite Úankara's use of via negativa he commits what Kant calls a "transcendental illusion." We do not have an empirical intuition of the concept of Brahman; therefore, we have neither access to the mystical reality of Brahman as a thing in itself, nor to true knowledge about ultimate reality. Thus, Úankara's view engenders transcendental illusion. The final chapter addresses Schelling's idealism and in particular the view of the potencies at work in God, before God was God. Due to creation, an inversion of the potencies occurs and the outer gains control over the inner. Next, elements of Habermas' view are discussed, wherein he holds a materialistic-interactive-idealist position, as indicated in his ideal speech situation. At this time, it will be argued that Habermas' "ideal speech situation" is idealistic like Schelling's position. Consequently, both Schelling and Habermas' reaction respectively make the Primordial Will and the Ideal Speech Situation into an Ideal and in so doing commits a transcendental illusion.