1,721,031 research outputs found

    La teoria kantiana dei concetti e il problema dei nomi propri

    Full text link
    Per Kant i concetti empirici sono rappresentazioni generali e le intuizioni sono rappresentazioni singolari. I nomi propri stanno per intuizioni? No, perché Kant associa i nomi propri ai 'concetti singolari'. Questa associazione non contraddice l’affermazione che i concetti empirici sono generali, perché i concetti singolari differiscono dalle intuizioni. Infatti, le intuizioni sono date prima di ogni pensiero, mentre concetti singolari no, ed è per questo che possono trovare un’espressione linguistica. Inoltre, è proprio perché un nome proprio non sta per un’intuizione che, quando è in gioco la conoscenza, dobbiamo verificare se c'è un'intuizione corrispondente ad esso. For Kant empirical concepts are general representations and intuitions are singular representations. Do proper names stand for intuitions? No, because Kant associates proper names to ‘singular concepts’. This association doesn’t contradict his claim that empirical concepts are general because singular concepts differ from intuitions. For, intuitions are given before all thought, while singular concepts are not, and this is why they can be designated by linguistic expressions like proper names. Moreover, it is exactly because a proper names doesn’t stand for an intuition that, when knowledge is at stake, we have to check whether there an intuition corresponding to it.For Kant empirical concepts are general representations and intuitions are singular representations. Do proper names stand for intuitions? No, because Kant associates proper names to ‘singular concepts’. This association doesn’t contradict his claim that empirical concepts are general because singular concepts differ from intuitions. For, intuitions are given before all thought, while singular concepts are not, and this is why they can be designated by linguistic expressions like proper names. Moreover, it is exactly because a proper names doesn’t stand for an intuition that, when knowledge is at stake, we have to check whether there an intuition corresponding to it

    Kant, Soemmerring and the Importance of the Sense of Hearing

    No full text
    Il seguente saggio prende spunto dall'importanza che Soemmerring attribuisce al senso dell’udito in Über das Organ der Seele (1796), un testo che contiene in appendice un commento di Kant. In primo luogo, si fa notare che le idee circa il primato del senso dell'udito sono condivise da Soemmerring con Heinse, un famoso scrittore del tempo (e sono condivise da Heinse con Herder). In secondo luogo, si pongono a paragone queste idee con il crescente interesse di Kant per la stretta connessione fra il senso dell’udito, il linguaggio e il pensiero, dando la dovuta attenzione alle sue tesi sulla sordità. Infine, si propone l’ipotesi che non un tardo e tacito accordo con Herder, ma l'affermazione di Soemmerring che l'udito è il più importante dei nostri sensi sia la ragione del rafforzamento della convinzione di Kant che “pensare è parlare e quest’ultimo è un udire”, testimoniato nell’Opus Postumum.The following essay takes its cue from the importance that Soemmerring attributes to the sense of hearing in the Über das Organ der Seele (1796), a text published with a comment by Kant. First, I point out that the idea of a primacy of the sense of hearing is shared by Soemmerring with Heinse, a famous writer of the time (and by Heinse with Herder). Second, I compare these ideas with Kant’s growing interest for the close connection between the sense of hearing, language and thought, giving due attention to his theses on deafness. Finally, I propose the hypothesis that not a late and tacit agreement with Herder, but Soemmerring’s statement that hearing is the most important of our senses, might be the reason for the strengthening of Kant’s conviction that “thinking is speaking and the latter is hearing”, testified by the Opus Postumum

    J. Hintikka e il metodo della matematica in Kant

    No full text
    In this paper I try to show that Hintikka's interpretation of Kant's doctrine of the method of mathematics is defective, at least so far as it concerns the contention that, in a preliminary phase of his philosophy, Kant did not intend his refence to the connection between mathematics and intuitions to involve a connection between mathematics and sensibility because, at that stage, he simply meant intuitions as singular terms. I argue, on the contrary, that Kant began his philosophical career by assuming a strong connection between mathematics and the evidence of a posteriori sensibility, and only in the context of his mature critical philosophy he transformed that connection into one that did not involve a posteriori sensibility but only the latter's priori form
    corecore