目的的实在论:谢林与黑格尔论康德的目的判断批判

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Rivista di Estetica Pub Date : 2020-08-01 DOI:10.4000/ESTETICA.7080
Luca Illetterati, A. Gambarotto
{"title":"目的的实在论:谢林与黑格尔论康德的目的判断批判","authors":"Luca Illetterati, A. Gambarotto","doi":"10.4000/ESTETICA.7080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper addresses Schelling’s and Hegel’s interpretation of Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgement (1790), focusing especially on the so-called ‘problem of teleology.’ We reconstruct Schelling’s and Hegel’s reading of the second part of the Critique, dedicated to ‘teleological judgement’ and the question of natural purposiveness. We first propose a brief reconstruction of Kant’s argument about the possibility of using teleological judgment with reference to nature; we then show why Hegel and Schelling were unsatisfied with Kant’s argument; Finally, we argue that Schelling’s and Hegel’s dissatisfaction with the Kantian theory of teleological judgement led them to move beyond Kant, towards a different understanding of the relation between epistemology and ontology.","PeriodicalId":53954,"journal":{"name":"Rivista di Estetica","volume":"74 1","pages":"106-118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Realism of Purposes: Schelling and Hegel on Kant’s Critique of Teleological Judgement\",\"authors\":\"Luca Illetterati, A. Gambarotto\",\"doi\":\"10.4000/ESTETICA.7080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper addresses Schelling’s and Hegel’s interpretation of Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgement (1790), focusing especially on the so-called ‘problem of teleology.’ We reconstruct Schelling’s and Hegel’s reading of the second part of the Critique, dedicated to ‘teleological judgement’ and the question of natural purposiveness. We first propose a brief reconstruction of Kant’s argument about the possibility of using teleological judgment with reference to nature; we then show why Hegel and Schelling were unsatisfied with Kant’s argument; Finally, we argue that Schelling’s and Hegel’s dissatisfaction with the Kantian theory of teleological judgement led them to move beyond Kant, towards a different understanding of the relation between epistemology and ontology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rivista di Estetica\",\"volume\":\"74 1\",\"pages\":\"106-118\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rivista di Estetica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4000/ESTETICA.7080\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rivista di Estetica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/ESTETICA.7080","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了谢林和黑格尔对康德《判断力批判》(1790)的解释,特别关注所谓的“目的论问题”。我们重建谢林和黑格尔对《批判》第二部分的解读,致力于“目的论判断”和自然合意性的问题。我们首先对康德关于在自然中使用目的论判断的可能性的论证进行简要的重建;然后我们说明为什么黑格尔和谢林不满意康德的论点;最后,我们认为谢林和黑格尔对康德的目的论判断理论的不满导致他们超越康德,走向对认识论和本体论之间关系的不同理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Realism of Purposes: Schelling and Hegel on Kant’s Critique of Teleological Judgement
The paper addresses Schelling’s and Hegel’s interpretation of Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgement (1790), focusing especially on the so-called ‘problem of teleology.’ We reconstruct Schelling’s and Hegel’s reading of the second part of the Critique, dedicated to ‘teleological judgement’ and the question of natural purposiveness. We first propose a brief reconstruction of Kant’s argument about the possibility of using teleological judgment with reference to nature; we then show why Hegel and Schelling were unsatisfied with Kant’s argument; Finally, we argue that Schelling’s and Hegel’s dissatisfaction with the Kantian theory of teleological judgement led them to move beyond Kant, towards a different understanding of the relation between epistemology and ontology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Rivista di Estetica
Rivista di Estetica PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Origins Of Umberto Eco’s Semio-Philosophical Project Alive as You and Me Indexes: Cultural Nature and Natural Culture The Dog Schema The Notion of System in the Work of Umberto Eco: Summa, Structure, Code, Encyclopaedia and Rhizome
×
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