Kant

Guy Elgat
{"title":"Kant","authors":"Guy Elgat","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197605561.003.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter’s argument is that for Immanuel Kant, empirical guilt requires determination of responsibility, where responsibility involves free agency. It argues that empirical guilt could only be justified for Kant in the final analysis if the agent is responsible and consequently guilty for his or her own “original sin” or radical evil (ontological guilt), where this responsibility and guilt imply an intelligible free deed, a position Kant defends in his Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. It is here that Kant can be seen to put forward a transcendental argument from (ontological) guilt to intelligible freedom. The chapter concludes by arguing that Kant, however, does not ultimately succeed in showing why guilt (empirical and ontological) is justified and that even though he can be seen to approach the idea of the subject as causa sui that later thinkers endorse, he does not embrace it fully.","PeriodicalId":149563,"journal":{"name":"Being Guilty","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Being Guilty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197605561.003.0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter’s argument is that for Immanuel Kant, empirical guilt requires determination of responsibility, where responsibility involves free agency. It argues that empirical guilt could only be justified for Kant in the final analysis if the agent is responsible and consequently guilty for his or her own “original sin” or radical evil (ontological guilt), where this responsibility and guilt imply an intelligible free deed, a position Kant defends in his Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. It is here that Kant can be seen to put forward a transcendental argument from (ontological) guilt to intelligible freedom. The chapter concludes by arguing that Kant, however, does not ultimately succeed in showing why guilt (empirical and ontological) is justified and that even though he can be seen to approach the idea of the subject as causa sui that later thinkers endorse, he does not embrace it fully.
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
康德
本章的论点是,对于伊曼努尔·康德来说,经验罪责要求确定责任,其中责任涉及自由代理。它认为,只有当行为人对他或她自己的“原罪”或根本的罪恶(本体论的罪恶)负有责任并因此有罪时,经验性的罪责才能在康德的最终分析中被证明是正当的,而这种责任和罪责意味着一种可理解的自由行为,康德在他的《纯粹理性边界内的宗教》中捍卫了这一立场。在这里,我们可以看到康德提出了一种先验的论证,即从(本体论的)罪恶到可理解的自由。这一章的结论是,康德并没有最终成功地证明为什么罪责(经验的和本体论的)是正当的,即使他可以被看作是将主体作为后来思想家认可的自因的想法,他并没有完全接受它。
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
Heidegger Nietzsche Kant Conclusion Rée
×
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