Epistemic Confidence – Kant’s Rationalization of the Principles of Seeking and Finding

P. Ziche
{"title":"Epistemic Confidence – Kant’s Rationalization of the Principles of Seeking and Finding","authors":"P. Ziche","doi":"10.1515/9783110651546-008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is essential for the Kantian programme that it can develop principles for the seeking and finding of knowledge. This requires Kant to combine the openness that is required for discovering genuinely novel knowledge with the necessity provided by principles. This combination of extreme methodological openness with strong principles should add to our understanding of Kant’s position vis-a-vis empiricism and rationalism. It will be shown that Kant indeed develops an open methodology that is intended to give direction to our cognitive practices without determining their results. This implies a revision of the standard understanding of ideas of reason in their regulative use: Kant’s imagery of “horizons” and “mirrors” suggests that, in principle, all concepts can function as regulative ideas. In the absence of clear ways of categorizing philosophers as either ‘empiricists’ or ‘rationalists’ in Kant’s period, these methodological issues help consolidate our picture of how Kant positions himself within the field of options that became labelled by these terms.","PeriodicalId":338638,"journal":{"name":"Der deutsche Idealismus und die Rationalisten / German Idealism and the Rationalists","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Der deutsche Idealismus und die Rationalisten / German Idealism and the Rationalists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110651546-008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

It is essential for the Kantian programme that it can develop principles for the seeking and finding of knowledge. This requires Kant to combine the openness that is required for discovering genuinely novel knowledge with the necessity provided by principles. This combination of extreme methodological openness with strong principles should add to our understanding of Kant’s position vis-a-vis empiricism and rationalism. It will be shown that Kant indeed develops an open methodology that is intended to give direction to our cognitive practices without determining their results. This implies a revision of the standard understanding of ideas of reason in their regulative use: Kant’s imagery of “horizons” and “mirrors” suggests that, in principle, all concepts can function as regulative ideas. In the absence of clear ways of categorizing philosophers as either ‘empiricists’ or ‘rationalists’ in Kant’s period, these methodological issues help consolidate our picture of how Kant positions himself within the field of options that became labelled by these terms.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认识的自信——康德对寻找和发现原则的理性化
康德的纲领至关重要的是,它能够发展出寻求和发现知识的原则。这就要求康德将发现真正新颖知识所需的开放性与原则所提供的必要性结合起来。这种极端的方法论开放性与强烈的原则相结合,应该有助于我们理解康德相对于经验主义和理性主义的立场。康德确实发展了一种开放的方法论,旨在为我们的认知实践提供方向,而不决定其结果。这意味着对理性观念的规范性使用的标准理解的修正:康德的“视界”和“镜子”的意象表明,原则上,所有概念都可以作为规范性观念发挥作用。在康德时期,由于缺乏明确的方法将哲学家划分为“经验主义者”或“理性主义者”,这些方法论问题有助于巩固我们对康德如何在这些术语所标记的选择领域中定位自己的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Die praktische Konstitution des „Setzens“ nach der Wissenschaftslehre Fichte Force, Existence, and the Transcendence of the Good in Schelling’s Weltalter (1815) Inhalt James Kreines: Reason in the World: Hegel’s Metaphysics and Its Philosophical Appeal Hegel, Spinoza, and McTaggart on the Reality of Time
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1