An Approach to Hermann Cohen’s Anti-Psychological Interpretation of Kant’s Synthetic a priori
Subject Areas : تعامل اندیشهها، اثرگذاری اندیشههای فلیسوفان بر جامعه و تفکر پس از خود
1 - Assistant Professor, Iranian Research Institute of Philosophy, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Synthetic a priori, Hermann Cohen, transcendental method, shared experience, natural science,
Abstract :
The most important issue in Immanuel Kant’s epistemological system is Synthetic a priori judgments. Some interpreters of Kant have criticized his philosophical system by presenting a psychological interpretation of Kant. Hermann Cohen, a German philosopher, is one of the interpreters of Kant’s epistemological system who, unlike this group, has strictly avoided Kant’s psychological interpretation and has criticized such interpretations by presenting a new and original interpretation of a priori authorship propositions. In his interpretation of Kant, he states three levels or degrees for a priori authorship propositions and refers the third degree to common experience. For this purpose, he starts from “place” and, by reflecting on the meaning of place, reaches three levels or degrees of a prioriity: 1) place as something that precedes every other sensory thing; 2) place as form; 3) place as a formal condition of the possibility of experience. By using the third-level a priori, Kuhn acquits Kant of the accusations of subjectivism. Kuhn considers the reference for third-order a priori propositions to be the principles of mathematics and the fundamental laws of pure natural science, namely mechanics. He believes that these principles and laws constitute the possibility of experience. This experience, unlike personal experiences, is general and common to all individuals. In his view, the task of philosophy is to arrive at third-order a priori principles by reflecting on this mathematical natural science.
اسماعیلی، محمدجواد؛ مشایخی، سینا (1394) «نظریه اتصال در طبیعیات رواقی»، مجله تاریخ فلسفه، شمارۀ 25، ص96ـ65.
برن، ژان (1362) فلسفه رواقی، ترجمۀ سیدابوالقاسم پورحسینی، تهران: امیرکبیر.
کامتکار، راچانا؛ گریور، مارگارت (1396) اورلیوس و اپیکتتوس از دانشنامۀ فلسفه استنفورد، ترجمۀ عفت جهانی، تهران: ققنوس.
Arenson, K. (2020). The stoic theory of soul. Routledge Handbook of Hellenistic philosophy. London: Routledge.
Aurelius (1890). the thought of the emperor Marcus Aurelius Antonius. Philadelphia: Henry Altemus duke-Libraries.
Aurelius (1925). the golden book of Marcus Aurelius. London: J. M. Dent.
Aurelius (2008). the essential Marcus Aurelius. Jeremy Tarcher Penguin.
Aurelius (n.d). Meditations Marcus Aurelius. translated by George Long. Standard EBook's CCo100 universal.
Boeri, M. (2010). The stoic psychological physicalism. The New Centennial Review, vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 105-132.
Bogomolov, A. S. (1995). History of Ancient philosophy Greece and Rome. translated by Vladimir Stankevich. Moscow: Progress publishers.
Brehier, E. (1908). La theorie des incorporels dans l'ancien stoicism (microform), Paris: A. Picard.
Brennan, T. (2009). Stoic souls in stoic corpsos. Cornall University.
Bronowski, A. (2019). The stoics on Lekta: All there is say. Oxford University press.
Dherbey, G. (2005). Le stoiciens. Voir Maximillian forschner, Le portique ET le concept de personne, dans, Paris/ VIN.
Gourinat, J. (2018). The ontology and syntax of stoic causes and Effects. Rhizomata, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 87-108.
Gruyter, W. (2013). Bodies and their Effects: The stoics on causation and incorporeal. Institute de humanidade, Universidad Diego Portales Ejercito.
Harven, V. (2012). The coherence of stoic Ontology. PhD thesis at University of California.
Heller, Robert (2018). Pneuma in Early stoicism. Doctoral Thesis in Royal Holloway university of London.
Kostara, S. (2021), The Potential of the Human Soul towards a Life in Harmony with Nature and Logos as Per the Stoic Psychology. Department of Pastoral Studies, Supreme Ecclesiastical Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Long, A. A. & Sedley, D. N. (1987). The Hellenistic philosophers. New York: Cambridge University press.
Long, A. A. (1982). Soul and body in stoicism. Phronesis. Vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 34-57.
Long, A. A. (2017). Seneca and Epictetus on body, mind and dualism. Plato or Platonism in Seneca and Epictetus. From stoicism to Platonism. ED. T. Engbery.
Norrlof, C. (2019). Hegemony. Oxford Bibliographies.
Quin. C. (1994). The soul and the pneuma in the function of the nervous system after Galen. Journal of the royal society of medicine. vol. 87, no. 7, pp. 393-395.
Robertson, P. (2014). De-spiritualizing pneuma, modernity, religion and anachronism in the study of Paul. Method and theory in the study of religion. Brill Department of religious studies, George Brown university.
Sambursky Samuel (1971). Physics of the stoics. London: Hutchinson.
Sellars, J. (2010). Stoic ontology and Plato's Sophist. Bulletin of the institute of classical studies. No. 107, Oxford University press.
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus (1917). Seneca. Cambridge: Harvard University press.
Stead, Christopher (1998). Pneuma. Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. London: Routledge.