کانت

The aim of the current research is to critically investigate and compare Kant's philosophy with the fundamental issues of public rights in Kant's philosophy, including State and Freedom. The research method hired here is descriptive-analytical and the results finally have depicted that for Kant, the idea of law is a fundamental part of his political philosophy. Law was considered as a concept representing the principle of validity in his regards. Therefore, Law is preconceived as a concept of the human mind so that sucha concept cannot be inferred from any external experience. Instead, the human mind discovers it as a necessary condition without which nothing can be properly explainedor understood. Although, “Law” is known by different names and lexicon in different branches of philosophy. Regarding the foundations of State legitimacy from Kant's point of view, it can be elaborated that Kant's desired political system, as he referred it to a republic, as system that is based on the former principles of wisdom such as freedom, independence and equality, moreover, the laws and the issue of their legitimacy in this system are under a decisive position, which has a deep connection with the concept of right that arose from Kant's moral philosophy. The system of representation and the principle of separation of powers are two other basic components of Kant's republican system, which along with the constitution tries to keep the political society safe from tyranny and protect the principles of freedom, equality and independence. Thus, according to Kant’s idea, laws and principlesof public law are all a means guaranteeing the freedom and rights of individualsfrom the “State”. Laws aforementioned, are also effective in realizing a fair and complete administration within a state. In this context, Kant supports the form of the republic in the Constitution. In the context of securing freedom at the level of international relations,Kant assigns duties to the government and states so such type of freedom should be corresponded according to the political laws of a republic state based on crucial political elements. The freedom mentioned, outside the borders is called universal rights. In general, Kant's political philosophy is compatible with the acceptance of various types oflaws. Emerging from natural rights, moral, political, and international rights, including international rights, are holistically and theoretically related to each other.

One of the issues that has preoccupied the human mind from the beginning and has instinctively sought an answer to is the expression of the relationship between phenomena. Each philosopher, according to their own foundations, perspectives, and different theories, has discussed and attempted to answer it. These discussions are usually gathered under the topic of causality. In this article, the author has tried to use the library method to, after stating the general preliminary foundations, conduct a comparative study of the views of two of the world’s great philosophers, namely Immanuel Kant and Sadra al-Din Shirazi. Ultimately, the writer concludes that Kant, given his cognitive view and mental structure, speaks of causality as one of the categories of understanding and mind, and Mulla Sadra, given the realistic view that he has set as his intellectual background, presents causality as a real relationship between longitudinal levels in the form of hierarchical existence. 

The present analyzes Kant's subjectivist understanding of the concept of the event in the way aesthetic judgments are issued under the aesthetic experience. Heidegger returns to the original position of Ereignis or event in the way of finding the question about understanding the inner foundations of language. An event is a situation in which language reveals itself through speech and speaks about itself, and in this way, other beings also enter the field of presence. But in Kant, the subjectivist view of the event is revealed in the free play between imagination and understanding. Kant does not directly use the concept of event in explaining the beautiful thing. However, the examination of his view on the validity of aesthetic judgments indicates the cognitive interaction between understanding and imagination, which beyond epistemological rules and foundations is revealed in a general, necessary, and universal way in the situation of the event. From Kant's point of view, because the understanding is faced with difficulties in how to issue reflective judgments, and the understanding lacks prior categories that can formulate the sensory impressions contained in the imagination, therefore, the issuing of judgments outside of the cognitive rules is manifested in an event-like way. The subject goes beyond their subjectivity in relation to the object to beyond the object at the moment of encounter, they interact through the event of the game. It is the first interaction of the subject with the world and then the free play between imagination and understanding.

One of the most important answers to the problem of moral evil is the free will defense, which is subject to severe challenges. The lack of a necessary connection between free will and moral evils, as well as the injustice in granting human beings the mental capacity to use their freedom, are among these criticisms that have particularly challenged the free will defense in contemporary times. Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century German philosopher, depicts the role of free will in the occurrence of moral evils in a way that allows for responses to these objections to be extracted from his foundations in ethics, as well as from the works he has specifically done on this topic. The moral evolution of humanity throughout history is a significant good that, according to Kant, justifies the occurrence of moral evils that arise not from animalistic desires but solely from human free will. This article, with a descriptive-analytical approach and utilizing translations of the works of Kant and some contemporary Kantian scholars, presents a report on Kant's thoughts regarding the free will defense, clarifies its alignment with Islamic anthropology, and outlines the strengths and weaknesses of Kant's perspective.

Kant is known as the pioneer of artistic formalism. Art critics and commentators on Kant's works have also confirmed this claim. Kant discusses the form first in the critique of pure reason and then in the third moment of the critique of the power of judgment. According to Kant, what is universal in the judgment of the beauty and could be expected from all people is the form. Unlike the form, the sensory perception of an object varies depending on the perceptual ability of people. Roger Fry and Clive Bell, as formalist critics and artists, put forward Kant's concept of form in the 20th century, and by emphasizing it as the only act of beautifying works of art in the modern era, they played an irreplaceable role in the expansion and development of Kant's view on the concept of form in modern art. This article aims to investigate the relationship between this concept in the thought of formalists and in Kant's aesthetics. It was determined by the conducted investigations that, although formalists consider form to be a kind of temporal-spatial arrangement of the sensuous intuitive manifolds, in terms of their emphasis on the emotional expression of form in contrast to Kant's emphasis on the purposiveness without purpose of the form and the creation of the free harmony of imagination and understanding, there is a great difference between Kant's thought and Fry and Bell's formalist thought.

Metaphysics has a long-standing history in philosophy. Although it does not date back as far as philosophy itself, it has always been a fundamental part of philosophical systems and is regarded as "first philosophy", the highest domain of rational knowledge. At times, metaphysics has been considered synonymous with philosophy, addressing fundamental questions about the essence and reality of things, or pure being. However, as intellectual developments have progressed, metaphysics has faced serious criticism and even outright rejection. Immanuel Kant and Rudolf Carnap, two prominent philosophers from distinct philosophical traditions, adopted critical stances toward metaphysics, resulting in profound transformations within this field. Kant, through his Copernican Revolution and his distinction between analytic/synthetic propositions and a priori/a posteriori concepts, examined the conditions under which metaphysics could be considered possible. In contrast, Carnap, a leading figure of the Vienna Circle, developed theories on analytic/synthetic judgments and their relationship to experience, establishing an epistemological framework that dismissed metaphysical propositions as meaningless. This article seeks to address the following questions: Which aspects of Kant’s philosophy revitalized philosophical thought and influenced Carnap and the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle? How did Kant critique and redefine metaphysics? How did Kant’s rationalist philosophy shape the empiricism of the logical positivists? A comparison of these two philosophers’ perspectives reveals that Carnap drew significant inspiration from Kant’s philosophy. Nevertheless, a fundamental difference exists between them: Kant sought to liberate metaphysics from its traditional framework and redefine it in a scientific and rigorous manner. In contrast, Carnap, emphasizing empiricism and dismissing metaphysics as futile, aimed to abolish it entirely and pave the way for the scientific advancement of human knowledge.

One of the common criticisms of Kant's moral theory is the excessive attention to reason and its absoluteness in the moral law. In such a way that neglecting other elements involved in the moral judgment, including feelings, leads to the impossibility and emergence of the sadistic strain of Kant's moral foundations and provides a suitable ground for the emergence of evil. According to this view, evil is considered to be associated with good, because what is meant by moral good is an action that is in accordance with the absolute, regardless of its content. Aligned with the impossibility of the absolute, Sade moves Kant's moral foundations and considers the name of every absolute will to be evil according to the principle of non-contradiction. Therefore, any morally heinous act can be willed according to the moral law according to the inclusion in the maxim, without disturbing the foundations of the absolute. According to Lacan, loyalty to desire and its insatiability is a moral criterion that If morality is considered devoid of pathological elements, it will become its opposite, simple morality, and the morality of desire, instead of moving from one object to another object, will be caught in the bed of simple satisfaction, as a result, in the movement towards pleasure at the ultimate threshold. The truth remains. Kant uses the special concept of respect as a representative of the pathological element to avoid falling into the sadistic side of his ethics and to fix this gap for his ethics.

Critique of Kant's philosophical and epistemological plans for aesthetic judgments has taken an important step in his confrontation with the beautiful. Regardless of the aesthetic dimension of the beautiful, Kant has viewed the work of art as a value that can be combined with ethics, metaphysics, and rationalism. The formal and content effect of the critique of the power of judgment is not hidden from any philosophical attitude. But Gadamer, in Truth and Method , Criticizes Kant's aesthetic experiences. His critical reading of Kant and his ontological view of the beautiful have, in many respects, made the vast potential of Kant's concepts unnecessary. The essay shows that Gadamer's narrative of kant , before escaping a negative aspect of the cognitive pursuit of the beautiful, is very positively affected by it. Gadamer is considered a critic of Kant's work, but he has positively and negatively preserved Kant's aesthetics. The direct effects of Kant's concepts on Gadamer's aesthetic experience have unilaterally demonstrated many of his critiques of Kant. The essay in the first part, analyzes the beautiful from the perspective of Kant and Gadamer. In the second part, the epistemological foundations of Gadamer's concepts are introduced, and in the final section, in three independent critiques to Gadamer, a new version of Gadamer's reading of Kant is presented.

Lacan's article Kant with Sade and his seminar on psychoanalytic ethics represent a novel and innovative contribution to ethical debates. As acknowledged by most interpreters and commentators of Lacanian psychoanalysis, Kant with Sade is considered one of Lacan's most complex and challenging writings in his book Écrits. Despite the often incomprehensible complexity of Lacan's text, the author of this research argues that in this groundbreaking article, Lacan introduces the idea that the philosophy of Marquis de Sade, particularly in his book Philosophy in the Bedroom, not only extends Kant's ethical ideas in Critique of Practical Reason, but in fact complements them. In this article, Lacan claims that Kant represents the law, while Sade represents desire. Kant seeks to establish a pure moral law that restrains the pathological or disordered desires of the subject, whereas Sade pursues pure desire, one that transgresses all laws and is free. However, Lacan’s main thesis is that the law is dependent on desire for its existence, and desire, in turn, relies on the law for its existence. In other words, law and desire share a symbiotic and reciprocal relationship—a relationship that constitutes and grounds the psychic life of the human subject. The subject emerges from the dialectical relationship between law and desire.

Kant’s Dreams of a Spirit-Seer Explained by Dreams of Metaphysics is one of the significant works from Immanuel Kant’s so-called "pre-Critical" period, published in 1766, fifteen years before the Critique of Pure Reason. In this essay, Kant examines and critiques the claims of Emanuel Swedenborg, the Swedish scholar and mystic, regarding access to a transcendent, supersensible world. The question of this paper is whether Kant’s critique of Swedenborg’s claims was influenced by Hume. If so, which fundamental concepts in the essay Dreams reflect this influence? In the present paper, we read Dreams in light of Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, a work that Kant is believed to have studied before writing Dreams. Through an analysis of both works, we ultimately conclude that some of Kant’s most important positions in Dreams, including his critique of metaphysics, his empirical interpretation of causality, and his understanding of metaphysics as "the science of the limits of human reason," were directly influenced by Hume.

The issue of self-knowledge, while ancient, has always been both challenging and paradoxical. In this paper, considering that the "self" is the central axis of Kant’s thought in all three Critiques, we will attempt to analyze the mystery surrounding self-knowledge in Kant’s philosophy. To this end, we will briefly examine the following points: (1) What is the difference between self-consciousness and knowledge of the "self"? (2) Awareness of something without having knowledge of it is one of the dilemmas of Kantian philosophy, and this becomes more pronounced when it comes to the "self." However, this mystery cannot be seen as a flaw in Kant’s philosophy, as in the discourse on self-knowledge, the self is always a logical step behind itself. (3) Finally, despite Kant’s claim that the thing-in-itself has no relation to time, we will explore the connection between the "self" as a thing-in-itself and time, which contributes to the mystery of the "self."

In Islamic tradition, man is defined as an intermediary and liminal being, situated between the animal and the angel, with the constant potential for ascent or descent to either of these ontological spheres. This paper endeavors to provide a philosophical interpretation of this intermediary and liminal position of man based on the concept of the imaginative faculty in the philosophies of Al-Farabi and Kant. The central question of this essay is to examine how, in the works of these two philosophers, epistemology serves as a platform for offering an ontological interpretation of man's liminal position. This paper represents an initial exploration of this topic. Given the prominence of the imaginative faculty in Kant's philosophy, particularly in his discussion of transcendental deduction, this paper will begin by tracing the trajectory of transcendental deduction, highlighting the role of the imaginative faculty and its two levels of productive and reproductive imagination. It will then proceed to examine these two levels of imagination (productive and reproductive) in Al-Farabi's thought, without resorting to simplistic comparisons or equating the two philosophers' perspectives. Employing an analytical approach, the paper will seek to establish an anthropological foundation for the imaginative faculty in the philosophies of both thinkers. The intermediary role of imagination in the realization of knowledge in the works of these two philosophers provides the basis for such an endeavor.

Nietzsche's philosophy is considered a fundamental criticism of the tradition of Modern philosophy in general and specifically in opposition to Kant's project. For Nietzsche, the ironic and paradoxical aspect of Kant's critical philosophy is that it takes the form of legislation (viz. categorical imperative). Kant's critique confined itself to delimiting the laws governing knowledge and the claims to morality but, in so doing, failed to challenge the value of knowledge and moral ideas per se. Nietzsche considers Kant's philosophy a clear manifestation of Enlightenment appearance/reality and subject/object distinctions, which are challenged through genealogical inquiry in the first and second essays of On the Genealogy of Morality respectively. This paper will examine Nietzschean genealogy. In addition, it will discuss the nature and value of Nietzschean genealogy as a critique. In the end, it is concluded that "Nietzsche's genealogy project" can be considered the first postmodern confrontation against Kant's Enlightenment project and modernity thinking, in which the radicalism viewpoints of genealogy are hidden.

Kant considers pure aesthetic judgment to be disinterested and in the minute of quality and interest is a pleasure (delight) that results from the representation of the existence. In a footnote (§3), Kant declares that beauty is neither based on an interest nor establishes an interest. In explaining the concept of interest, Kant acts negatively and only by distinguishing between the agreeable and the good, depicting the disinterestedness of an aesthetic experience. In the first critique, Kant does not consider existence to be a real predicate; therefore, it is necessary to refer to his other works to find the clear and correct meaning of interest. By referring to moral works, we realize that interest is a kind of inclination towards something based on a rational rule. In this article, an attempt has been made to provide a clear concept of interest by considering the whole of Kant's aesthetic thought, to deal with the connection of interest with existence, and to answer the question of how interest is connected with the representation of existence.

One of the issues that has always been the subject of controversy between Islamic and Western theologians and philosophers is the issue of the relationship between faith and action. In all religions, their followers are asked to adhere to religion in addition to faith in action. Meanwhile, in his works, Kant considers human reason capable of drawing a comprehensive plan for his happiness and believes in a moral ritual itself. Relying on the power of reason to recognize principles and generalities, Motahari believes that human reason is not capable of drawing such a comprehensive road map and has criticized Kant's views on this matter. This article tries to express the damage caused to Kant's foundations regarding faith and religious practice. Among the harms that can be considered from the perspective of Kant to this idea are: reducing religious concepts to rational perceptions, not paying attention to the difference between Actual good and good actor, humanizing divine laws, wandering, being caught in the contradiction of idea and action, neglecting The root and origin of religious and moral actions, lack of separation between purpose and means and lack of separation between types of relationships.

Durkheim has considered crime as a "social reality". In Durkheim's thought, crime is a matter arising from the collective conscience changing with the passage of time and space with a special mechanism. Therefore, in his view, changing the realm of criminal behavior is a "normal" issue, and not their inherent characteristic. Simultaneously, in this approach, crime is an independent entity beyond the individual wills in case of members of the society that finds meaning under "social categories". This view guarantees the determination and stability of social reality that however, has some characteristics in terms of moral content and investigation method deeply rooted in Kant in the approach of Durkheim. Therefore, the lack of attention toward such foundations has provided the case for misinterpretations of sociologist's ideas, accordingly, incorrect analysis of his opinions,has necessitated a reconsideration in this regard. This research, in order to investigate Durkheim's special perception, as a neo-Kantian sociologist regarding social realities, especially crime, with the analytical method, is presenting the most relevant manifestations of Kant's thought in Durkheim's and the way of evolution and manifestation of his thought in Durkheim's views has been investigated. The outcome indicated that Durkheim, inspired by Kant's, tried to propose a new model for the study of ethics in modern societies by applying some reforms. Contrary to Kant, Durkheim never considers issues to be part of the structure of human nature as fixed and unchanging, but considered in the form and structure of people's thoughts arising from the content by the spirit of society. Considering the issues as social in Durkheim's thought, on the one hand, guarantees the stability of morality and the preservation of its totality, on the other hand, justifies the moral differences of societies throughout history and in all over the world. Therefore, in Durkheim's view, morality emerges from the collective conscience of society, which really exists, but may undergo alterations in the collective conscience. The condition of morality in Kant's thought, which was the existence of the absolute ideas of God and the immortality of the soul, was reduced to more abstract matters such as the collective will in Durkheim's regards, as the rule of recognition of the state. According to Durkheim, by identifying the social and moral realities, the state presents a single narrative of acceptable behaviors and considers them contrary to the cases as crimes. Philosophically speaking, this approach is encountered with the challenge not providing a criterion for judging the behavior of citizens and considering them as crimes. Consequent theories of criminology, on one side, doubt the function of the state in identifying collective realities due to the existence of different moral and behavioral attitudes in society, on the other side accept Durkheim's social reality approach as a basis for marginalizing different tendencies as criminals which are contrary to the social reality determined by the state.

This study aimed to clarify the aspects of human epistemology and its educational implications within Immanuel Kant's philosophical framework. The researchers utilized descriptive qualitative content analysis, specifically employing MAYRING's inductive model to collect information. After analyzing the data, the obtained findings revealed that regarding human epistemology and its educational implications, Kant emphasizes the role of consciousness, senses, experience, and reason as sources of knowledge. The research highlights the recognition of human beings' capacity for change, aiming to improve individuals within the process of societal transformation. It underscores the role of experience as a source of knowledge and the contribution of successive generations' experiences in human upbringing, gradual habit formation instead of abrupt elimination, the elimination of rewards and punishments in education, skepticism towards them, equality and sameness of human freedom and nature, resistance against elitism and human exploitation, and the non-influence of values in education. It emphasizes the responsibility of individuals in their educational journey. Kant's perspective on the philosophy of education is based on fulfilling one's duty, which essentially stems from the practical reason and pure conscience of every human being. Regarding education, Kant believes in the elevated position of education and the potential and educability of human beings. It is important to note that Kant's perspective on human beings is humanistic and non-religious. He does not consider humans as inherently valuable or religious beings. Therefore, his educational orientation cannot be interpreted solely through ethical approaches.

According to Kant, Synthesis is temporally structured. However, the "transcendental I" which serves as the foundation for temporal Synthesis, is out of time. In the analogies of experience, the "transcendental I" does not put into any moods of time (persistence, succession, and simultaneity). This may seem contradictory, as it raises the question of how the timeless "transcendental I" can form the basis of a synthetic judgment while also being out of time. This article aims to show that, based on the discussion on synthesis and the analogies of experience, the timelessness of the transcendental self does not entail a disconnection from time. Because the disconnection with time will render the transcendence of the self meaningless in Kant's philosophy. Although the "transcendental I" is not "in" time, it is always "with" time. Being "with" time means that the subject, as pure spontaneity, constitutes objectivity through time. This is because the existence of phenomena and their objective knowledge is only possible through objectivity as a determination in time. By giving time to itself a priori, the transcendental self affects itself and thus guarantees its transcendence through its finitude which is the constant companionship to time.IntroductionKant's philosophy posits that every synthesis, such as apprehension, reproduction, or recognition, is temporally structured. However, the unity of these combinations requires the existence of the transcendental self as their a priori ground for knowledge. According to Kant, the transcendental self, as the ground of the temporality of combinations, exists outside of time. In the analogies of experience, Kant goes beyond this and claims that the transcendental self is even outside of any of the modes of time (persistence, succession, and simultaneity). This raises a problem: if the transcendental I is outside of time, then its transcendence would be meaningless in Kant's philosophy. We will show that the synthetic unity of knowledge occurs in all its stages in connection with time. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the possibility of a priori synthetic knowledge depends on the relationship between time and the transcendental self. This article has tried to show with the phenomenological approach and by examining the discussion of synthesis and analogies of experience that the temporality of the transcendental self does not mean its "being in time" but rather, it means the constant companionship of the transcendental self and time itself.The relationship between time and SynthesisAccording to Kant, multiplicity needs synthesis to be known. The multiplicity of time cannot be understood unless the unity of time is assumed beforehand. The unity of time is the formal and a priori condition of the intuition of all phenomena. The synthesis of apprehension is related to the present. The synthesis of reproduction that is related to the past is the synthesis of the current moments with the previous moments. This is the responsibility of the transcendental imagination. The synthesis of recognition is related to the future because the a priori identity of the two moments will be the end based on which the imagination can order the multiplicity of intuitions (moments).The combination of recognition or the identification of understanding itself requires a fundamental identity that unites all three combinations. This second identity is called “Transcendental Apperception” which according to Kant is outside of time. How can the timeless transcendental self be the ground of the temporal combination? If the transcendental self is outside of time, it is no longer transcendental, and if it is in time, like other phenomena, it becomes an object of knowledge. How can this conflict be resolved in Kant? The answer to this question can be found in the section on analogies of experience.Analogies of experience: relation of time with the transcendentalself-consciousnessIn the analogies of experience, In analogies of experience, Kant talks about the moods of time. The moods of time are persistence, succession, and simultaneity. Even in analogies of experience, although Kant proposes these three modes of time, the above conflict is not resolved. Therefore, not only is the transcendental self not placed in any of the divisions of time, but also according to the analogies of experience, it is not placed in any moods of time.The conflict is resolved only when we note that all three analogies are related to the categories of relation. In addition to being related to the categories of relation, analogies reveal the meaning of "relation"; The "relation" between the subject and the predicate of the sentence and the relationship between the subject and the object in general. The pure unity of time - which is assumed by the transcendental subject - is the necessity that makes possible not only the knowledge of objects but also the realization of objectivity. Therefore, transcendental self-consciousness, as the necessary condition for knowing objects, must always consider its connection with the pure unity of time. If these rules - the analogies of experience - do not exist as transcendental time- determinations, the unity of nature and the temporality of phenomena will be lost. As a result, experience in the sense of a priori synthesis of phenomena also becomes meaningless.Therefore, even though nothing has been directly said about the relationship between time and transcendental self-consciousness in analogies, there is a fundamental connection between transcendental self-consciousness and time. The objectivity of synthetic judgments depends on time; Although, time is neither something outside the transcendental subject nor inside the subject. Rather, time is the way by which the subject affects itself. According to Heidegger, time is the continuous self-affecting of the subject.ConclusionAccording to what has been said, in the discussion of the analogies, it becomes clear how the transcendental subject, though it is not "in" time, makes it possible to be "in" time, And this is the same constant companionship of the transcendental self with time itself. Time and transcendental self are two sides of a pure combination. The transcendental self makes possible one side of knowledge - that is, subjectivity - and time - the other side - that is, objectivity. Neither time nor the transcendent self is "in" time. At the same time, both of them are a priori to all of the intra-temporal objects.Moreover, the transcendent self is not "in" time but "with" time. And in being with time, The transcendent self can make all the moods of time possible. This companionship means the persistence of the relationship.Finally, only being "with" time can justify the paradox of receptivity of self in intuition and spontaneity of understanding. The transcendental self as pure spontaneity accompanied with time can pose the receptive self in front of itself as objectivity and it guarantees the transcendence of the subject.

Kant's theory of hope focuses on the hope of the perfect good of man, which includes both his virtue and his happiness. According to Kant, individuals have a duty to strive for virtue and happiness, and they must achieve the highest good, in accordance with the morality and justice that lies within it. But is there any hope for highest good? In a theological approach, Kant promises that the human being will achieve highest good in another world with God's help. And in a secular approach he expresses the hope that mankind is moving towards highest good and will eventually achieve it in its gradual movement throughout history. The article claims that the secular approach was not proposed to compensate for the incompleteness of the theological approach - which some have stated - but rather it is in harmony with the theological approach and in accordance with Kant's philosophical system. However, it is criticized that in the secular approach, the human person has been neglected in favor of the human species. This critique can be described as the Gap of Justice.