On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:24:45 +0100, Martin J. Walker <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
>are "transzendentale Ideen" that can be classified under unity of the
>thinking subject, unity of the conditions of phenomena & the unity of the
>condition of all objects of all thought, corresponding to psychology,
>cosmology & theology, as conditions of thinking in these 3 classes. But of
>course I'm open to persuasion if you can name chapter & verse of the
German
>edition, which I think you'll agree is the only acceptable one. Are you
>there? Right.
>Martin
Martin, sorry, the distinction is made on these usage of Traszendental as
a synonym of traszendent: the former being emploied by the ‘Scolastica’
(‘Trascendentia’) which as a term refers to those very generalized
concepts that transcend Aristotle’s categories, being as they are, co-
extended along with the being: ens, unum, verum, bonum...
Kant in fact, makes a cut distinction between traszendent and
traszendental: traszendent is what goes beyond any human experience, and
traszendental being, on the contrary, the knowledge not of the things but
of the conditions (natural conditions, as well) of the 'aprioristic'
knowledge of those objects: an idea which leads to aesthetical,
analytical and dialectical issues. A reflection that again penetrates the
limits of reasoning, intellect and sensibilities.
But traszendal is also what is the ‘a priori’ itself, say the conditions
that enters the constitution and structure of objective knowledge: say…a
thing that has not roots in experience but which is made possible by the
construction of the experience as such, or else of the conditions that
make experience possible. Traszendental is no snonim of ‘a priori’, yet
Kant uses these 2 terms (traszendent and traszendental ) as synonyms, at
times. The use of ‘traszendental’ as ‘excellent’ or ‘extraordinary’ is
just a modern usage and has nothing to do with the real meaning it had in
Kant’s convention.
Erminia
|