On the question of the Kant teacher, why read Kant

Empirical judgment is always a comprehensive judgment.

Mathematical judgments are all comprehensive judgments.

True metaphysical judgments are synthetic judgments.

To put it simply: the philosophical knowledge here, such as the "definition of beauty" and "the definition of happiness", Kant believes that these are rational knowledge that we derive from making a fuss about the concept of things. Moreover, philosophical knowledge often has a different view because of a special case, so it is said that "philosophical knowledge is only looking at the individual in the general".

In Kant's view, mathematical knowledge is mainly derived from the construction of concepts rather than the concepts themselves. For example, "Pythagorean is called the "Pythagorean theorem", although the concept and name are different, but the substantive structure and the revealed things are the same. Moreover, mathematics has universal applicability, so it is possible to " look at the general in the individual ".

To learn Kant for the first time, of course, is to read his masterpiece Critique Series "Critique of Pure Reason", "Critique of Practical Reason" and "Critique of Judgment".

Then for a deeper understanding, you can read his other works.

These two sentences are also a headache.

It is recommended not to read the original or the original translated Chinese right away.

You can see Deng Xiaomang's "Lectures on Kant's Philosophy".

Beginners look at the introduction to metaphysics first.

Three batches, his highest achievement.

Philosophy and mathematics are two very different concepts. And they also have intersections.

We cannot explain philosophy in terms of mathematical rationality. Mathematics is just a kind of thing that we get by our subjective reason.

Philosophically speaking. Here's an example. We can't explain why 5+3 = 8.

Let's start with some of Kant's famous sayings, timeless words. Take it easy.

I can't make the first sentence clear, let's talk about the second one, philosophy studies the universal law of development of things, and summarizes things from a macroscopic point of view, so it has universal applicability to things, because individual things are only one of the universals, and mathematics is the study of the laws that exist between things, and the internal relationship between things is studied from individual cases, and this law is universal, so understanding one is equal to all.

It can be said that it is the pioneer of German philosophy, and it was only after Kant that German philosophy stood on the stage of world philosophy, and a series of famous philosophers such as Nietzsche, Hei Huishanger, and Schopenhauer appeared one after another.

Some people say that he is the ancestor of otaku, Kant stayed in the place where he lived all his life, and philosophers at that time often traveled the world and communicated and collided with various cultures, trends of thought, and other philosophers to promote development. But Kant no, not only does he not go out, but he doesn't communicate much with his peers, and he is meditating in his own auspicious stove world every day, which is really similar to the current otaku.

Kant had extreme self-discipline, and I heard that he was very precise in his daily routes, when he appeared in the place, and what he should do, all on time, which made me think of mechanism, and human life is like a machine.

But I also heard that Kant still had humor, the humor of a philosopher, and when he was a professor, there was always humor in the class that filled the class with laughter, and he himself spoke seriously.

His writings, I heard were quite obscure at the time, and very few people could read them, because the sentences were difficult and long, and they were in English, and the tenses, modifiers, and adjectives of the sentences, you can imagine that the whole article was in English, just two sentences, which should be a little difficult to understand.

But in general, Kant's transcendental philosophy, the critique of pure rationalism, explained the world from a different perspective, opening a completely different window into the philosophical world of the time, glimpsing a completely different era.

Which Kant, you ask?

Immanuel Kant, the founder of classical German philosophy, was offered the position of professor of logic and metaphysics at the University of Königsberg in 1770 with the title "The Form and Basis of the Sensuous and Intellectual Worlds". After becoming a professor, Kant did not publish an article for ten years, but devoted himself to the study of his critical philosophy. Taking 1770 as the boundary, its ideas can be divided into the "pre-critical period" and the "critical period".

In the pre-critical period, the study of natural sciences was the mainstay, and philosophy was carried out. His main works include: "Critique of Pure Reason", "Critique of Practical Reason", "Critique of Judgment", "Introduction to Future Metaphysics", "Foundations of Moral Metaphysics", etc.

In 1781, he published the Critique of Pure Reason, and with this work alone, Kant could establish his immortal place in the history of philosophy.

I am afraid that there are very few people who read Kant today. Because, Kant is too difficult to read.

First of all, Kant had a complex system of nouns, which was very difficult. Second, Kant's way of thinking is completely different from that of the Chinese, he focuses on reason and logic, while we tend to stay in experience and application. Third, there are too many works by Kant, and none of them are well translated, and they are more oriented to professionals and rarely consider ordinary people.

In fact, Kant is profound, but it is by no means uncannibalistic, and his books can be understood by ordinary people abroad.

Immanuel Kant, the greatest modern philosopher, lived in a time when the system of theological interpretation was completely collapsing, and people were becoming more and more convinced of science and obsessed with experience, which brought about a spiritual crisis: if there is no afterlife, why should we be good in this life?Why should I be submissive?

Do I still need morality?

Kant felt that without a higher than life to supervise life, life would go corrupt and humanity would lose its freedom. Suspicious, he built a rationalist edifice and found a new imitation sock mark for ethics and metaphysics. But the question is, will rationalism, without constraints, become the new tyrant?

Kant was aware of the problem, but there was no solution, and behind him, reason really became the God who ruled everything, and mankind suffered a great catastrophe because of it, which led to the decline of continental philosophy once and for all.

It is difficult for anyone who has read Kant not to be fascinated by Kant's complete, beautiful, speculative system, in which everything has a perfect explanation and everything finds its place. However, it also embodies a terrible universality and compatibility, which carries with it the risk of stifling freedom.

Contemporary people are more inclined to maritime philosophy and move away from Kant, but Kant's question remains: does freedom really not lead to self-corruption?Will we lose our freedom because of this?

This book is a biography of Kant, and a person as monotonous as Kant's life can hardly write a good book, so the author adds a lot of speculation to it, so it is basically a Kant primer.

We should firmly believe that as long as there is the other side in our hearts and the ultimate ideal in life, then Kant will never go out of style.

Reader: Tangshan.

Biography: Kant's World

Price: 48 yuan.

Rating: Publisher: Compiled by Publishing House.

To put it simply, the inner senses are a priori intuition, as opposed to the experiential conditioned intuition of the outer senses. Time, then, as a priori intuitive form, is the possibility of the inner senses. Inner Sensory Objects:

For example, the concepts of points, lines, and surfaces in mathematics. There are also intuitive perceptual schemas, such as the concept of dogs, which does not refer to a specific dog, whether white or black, but a schema that has a priori synthesis and unifies all possible experiences produced by human beings through the analogy of imagination and experience. These are the intuitive objects of the inner senses of the person.

And as an intuitive object, only existence can produce representation in intuition, which requires the perceptual intuitive form of time as a possibility. For example, on the first day, a dog is intuitively perceived, and on the second day, through the form of time, the dog is still there, because it is continuous in time, and it cannot be assumed that it does not exist because it is not seen. Because it is on the premise of time that we can form the idea of simultaneity and succession, which makes the inner senses possible.

It is rather verbose and incorrect, but the general ideological content does not contradict the original work. Hope it helps.