What is Kant s concept of man in the human legislation for nature

That's a really good question. In Kant's view, the reason why we can understand the world is because we have a priori cognitive conditions, that is, "categories" such as time, space, cause and effect. So our perception of the world is not from the outside in, but the opposite.

So the world as we know it, the knowledge we have is nothing but a product of these inner structures. This is what Kant proposed in the Critique of Pure Reason, the "Copernican Revolution".

But I think that by Man, Kant should be more accurate than human reason. Note that it is reason, not reason. Reason corresponds to science, to the knowledge of the world; Rationality corresponds to morality, judgment about the world.

Kant's legislating for the natural world does not mean that man can create laws for the world by virtue of reason. The laws of nature are objective existence external to man, and man can only understand but cannot change it, let alone "stand". On the contrary, in the field of values, people can rely on their own rationality to regulate their own behavior and bring the world into this system.

That is, to legislate for the world. The "law" here is not an objective law, but a moral law preached by Kant.

So, Kant said, the only thing that scares me is the starry sky above my head and the moral law in my heart.

Upstairs is not very exact.

Kant's so-called "nature" refers to the "nature" that is known by man's cognitive faculties. In other words, the world is the world that man knows according to his own cognitive conditions. And these tools for knowing, as mentioned above, such as the categories of time and space, belong to what Kant called "intellect" (also translated as reason).

So, to be precise, it is man's intellect that legislates for nature, in other words, it is man who knows the world according to his intellect. In other words, everything is within the law of cause and effect, there is no cause and no cause, and the cause belongs to the category of reason. Reason, on the other hand, deals primarily with the realm of morality, which does not belong to the realm of what Kant called "nature".

Kant's so-called nature is a mechanical world.

This has to be seen from the comparison between Kant and traditional metaphysics, some people say that Kant made a "Copernican revolution" is to compare the old philosophy, if you are afraid of trouble, just look at the second part.

1.To put it crudely, ancient Greek metaphysics held that the idea behind the individual was the real and higher.

For example, if you say cats, there are black cats, white cats, and yellow cats, but they are all cats, which means that there is a cat concept behind it, you can be black or white, but you must be a cat (within the scope of the concept of cats), and you can call yourself a black cat or a white cat.

This cat idea is eternal, it doesn't matter if the white cat dies or the black cat dies, but the cat idea is always there.

So the table has the idea of the table, the clothes have the idea of the clothes, and everything has an idea behind it, so the world is divided into two types: the idea world and the real world (there is also an art world that will not be discussed), the real world is full of birth, old age, sickness and death, and the material state is constantly changing, but the concept world is eternal, so it is more real.

2, and for Kant, instead of establishing metaphysics, he proposes a critique of past metaphysics and the possibility of future metaphysics.

Roughly speaking, Kant thinks that it is "man-made legislation for nature", that is, people originally felt that the natural world was objective, and every flower and grass was true, so the concept of flowers and plants was also true, but Kant felt that it was not necessarily, it was man's various senses and reason that led people to make this judgment.

If all people were blind, would we still be able to get the judgment that "the flower is red"? If we were all deaf, would we know what "sound" was?

For example, if we have a sixth sense that transcends the five senses, then the world we see is definitely not as simple as it is now.

Therefore, the reason why we have such an understanding of the world is because of our physiological and rational structure, but the object itself behind the surface world we see is unknowable.

So, it is "man-made legislation for nature", why is nature like this? Because this is how man sees the world, but why does man see the world this way and not the other way? This is a priori (more complicated here, so I won't explain it in detail).

Therefore, the previous metaphysics thought that the world of ideas was real and eternal, but in fact it was only recognized by human reason, and I don't know how to explain it clearly?

First of all, everything that people know is a phenomenon, what is a phenomenon? The phenomenon is the phenomenon of people, in other words, since everything that has passed through the human brain and then appeared in our consciousness after processing, the so-called things you see are no longer the thing itself, it has been processed by the human brain, no matter how you restore it, you can't restore the appearance of the thing itself, not to mention, only if people know things, things can become the object of your knowledge, you don't know it, it doesn't matter what it is.

So how do people process things? Kant believed that people process the miscellaneous impressions in time and space through a priori concepts, that is, categories, that are already in the mind, so as to form phenomena, and the phenomena at this time are the natural world we see, and the natural world we see is processed according to the categories, that is, the laws in our human brain. In other words, man has legislated for nature.

To put it simply, the presentation of the natural world is understood by human beings according to their own laws of cognition.

I won't say much about how to legislate and how to make miscellaneous an experience.

The exact words of the God-man Kang Da were: "Human reason legislates for nature." (The landlord is strongly advised to refer to the preface to the Critique of Pure Reason).

I don't have the ability to be a teacher, I can't explain it further The following is the original text, I hope it will be helpful to you:

Because Kant is the theoretical representative of the rising stage of the bourgeoisie.