You are here

İdealizm ve Kant’ın Uzam Görüşü

İdealism and Kant’s Conception of Space

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
One of the basic deadlocks of modern philosophy emerges during the attempt of the knowing subject who tries to justify an objective world which is independent of him. Starting with Descartes, modern philosophy which moves from the content of subject’s consciousness finds itself generally, as shown by Berkeley and Hume, stuck “in the marsh” of solipsism and idealism. With the distinction between the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself, Kant claims to produce a solution for the deadlock of modern philosophy. But, Kant’s theory which fundamentally can not escape the conjectures of modern philosophy, for this reason finds itself encountering with the danger of solipsism and idealism. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate Kant’s position against idealism, by means of his conception of space.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Modern felsefenin temel çıkmazlarından bir tanesi, bilen öznenin kendisinden bağımsız nesnel bir dünyayı haklılandırma çabası sürecinde ortaya çıkar. Descartes’tan başlayarak öznenin bilinç içeriğinden hareket eden modern felsefe kendisini çoğunlukla, Hume ve Berkeley’in de göstermiş olduğu gibi, idealizm ve solipsizm “batağına” saplanmış bulur. Kant, ortaya koymuş olduğu fenomen ve kendinde-şey arasındaki ayrım ile modern felsefenin çıkmazına bir çözüm üretme iddiasındadır. Ne var ki, temelde modern felsefenin varsayımlarından kurtulamayan Kant’ın kuramı da bu sebeple idealizm ve solipsizm tehlikesiyle karşı karşıya kalmaktadır. Bu makalenin amacı Kant’ın uzam görüşünden hareketle, onun idealizm karşısındaki konumunu değerlendirmektir.
150-162

REFERENCES

References: 

BURNHAM, D. and YOUNG, H. (2007) Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
HATFIELD, G. (2006) “Kant on The Perception of Space (and time)” The Cambridge
Companion to Kant and Modern Philosophy, ed. Paul Guyer, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
HEIMSOETH, H. (2007) Kant’ın Felsefesi, çev. Takiyettin Mengüşoğlu, Ankara: Doğu
Batı Yayınları.
JANIAK, A. (2009) “Kant’s View On Space and Time”, Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/
KANT, I. (1992a) Critique of Pure Reason, trans. by Norman Kemp Smith, London:
MacMillan Press.
KANT, I. (1992b) “On The Form and Principles of The Sensible and The Intelligible
World (Inaugural Dissertation)”, Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770, trans. and edited by David
Walford and Ralf Meerbote, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
KANT, I. (1995) Gelecekte Bilim Olarak Ortaya Çıkabilecek Her Metafiziğe
Prolegomena, çev. İonna Kuçuradi-Yusuf Örnek, Ankara: Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu.
SCHOPENHAUER, A. (1969) The World as Will and Representation, Volume I-II, trans.
by E.F.J. Payne, New York: Dover Publication.
SCHOPENHAUER, A. (2000) Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume I-II, trans. by E.F.J.
Payne, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
TURBAYNE, C. M. (1955) “Kant’s Refutation of Dogmatic Idealism”, The Philosophical
Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 20, pp. 225-244. Blackwell Publishing.
WICKS, R. (2007) “Arthur Schopenhauer”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/#3

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com