Appendix to the Pure Science of Nature
§39Of the System of the Categories.
There can be nothing more desirable to a philosopher, than to be able to derive the scattered multiplicity of the concepts or the principles, which had occurred to him in concrete use, from a principle a priori, and to unite everything in this way in one cognition. He formerly only believed that those things, which remained after a certain abstraction, and seemed by comparison among one another to constitute a particular kind of cognitions, were completely collected; but this was only an Aggregate. Now he knows, that just so many, neither more nor less, can constitute the mode of cognition, and perceives the necessity of his division, which constitutes comprehension; and now only he has attained a System.
To search in our daily cognition for the concepts, which do not rest upon particular experience, and yet occur in all cognition of experience, where they as it were constitute the mere form of connexion, presupposes neither greater reflexion nor deeper insight, than to detect in a language the rules of the actual use of words generally, and thus to collect elements for a grammar. In fact both researches are very nearly related, even though we are not able to give a reason why each language has just this and no other formal constitution, and still less why an exact number of such formal determinations in general are found in it.
Aristotle collected ten pure elementary concepts under the name of Categories.{23} To these, which are also called predicaments, he found himself obliged afterwards to add five post-predicaments,{24} some of which however (prius, simul, and motus) are contained in the former; but this random collection must be considered (and commended) as a mere hint for future inquirers, not as a regularly developed idea, and hence it has, in the present more advanced state of philosophy, been rejected as quite useless.
=================================== {23} 1. Substantia. 2. Qualitas. 3. Quantitas. 4. Relatio, 5. Actio. 6. Passio. 7. Quando, 8. Ubi. 9. Situs. 10. Habitus.
{24} Oppositum. Prius. Simul. Motus. Habere. ===================================
After long reflexion on the pure elements of human knowledge (those which contain nothing empirical), I at last succeeded in distinguishing with certainty and in separating the pure elementary notions of the Sensibility (space and time) from those of the Understanding. Thus the 7th, 8th, and 9th Categories had to be excluded from the old list. And the others were of no service to me; because there was no principle [in them], on which the understanding could be investigated, measured in its completion, and all the functions, whence its pure concepts arise, determined exhaustively and with precision.
But in order to discover such a principle, I looked about for an act of the understanding which comprises all the rest, and is distinguished only by various modifications or phases, in reducing the multiplicity of representation to the unity of thinking in general: I found this act of the understanding to consist in judging. Here then the labors of the logicians were ready at hand, though not yet quite free from defects, and with this help I was enabled to exhibit a complete table of the pure functions of the understanding, which are however undetermined in regard to any object. I finally referred these functions of judging to objects in general, or rather to the condition of determining judgments as objectively valid, and so there arose the pure concepts of the understanding, concerning which I could make certain, that these, and this exact number only, constitute our whole cognition of things from pure understanding. I was justified in calling them by their old name, Categories, while I reserved for myself the liberty of adding, under the title of "Predicables," a complete list of all the concepts deducible from them, by combinations whether among themselves, or with the pure form of the appearance, i.e., space or time, or with its matter, so far as it is not yet empirically determined (viz., the object of sensation in general), as soon as a system of transcendental philosophy should be completed with the construction of which I am engaged in the Critique of Pure Reason itself.
Now the essential point in this system of Categories, which distinguishes it from the old rhapsodical collection without any principle, and for which alone it deserves to be considered as philosophy, consists in this: that by means of it the true significance of the pure concepts of the understanding and the condition of their use could be precisely determined. For here it became obvious that they are themselves nothing but logical functions, and as such do not produce the least concept of an object, but require some sensuous intuition as a basis. They therefore only serve to determine empirical judgments, which are otherwise undetermined and indifferent as regards all functions of judging, relatively to these functions, thereby procuring them universal validity, and by means of them making judgments of experience in general possible.
Such an insight into the nature of the categories, which limits them at the same time to the mere use of experience, never occurred either to their first author, or to any of his successors; but without this insight (which immediately depends upon their derivation or deduction), they are quite useless and only a miserable list of names, without explanation or rule for their use. Had the ancients ever conceived such a notion, doubtless the whole study of the pure rational knowledge, which under the name of metaphysics has for centuries spoiled many a sound mind, would have reached us in quite another shape, and would have enlightened the human understanding, instead of actually exhausting it in obscure and vain speculations, thereby rendering it unfit for true science.
This system of categories makes all treatment of every object of pure reason itself systematic, and affords a direction or clue how and through what points of inquiry every metaphysical consideration must proceed, in order to be complete; for it exhausts all the possible movements (momenta) of the understanding, among which every concept must be classed. In like manner the table of Principles has been formulated, the completeness of which we can only vouch for by the system of the categories. Even in the division of the concepts,{25} which must go beyond the physical application of the understanding, it is always the very same clue, which, as it must always be determined a priori by the same fixed points of the human understanding, always forms a closed circle. There is no doubt that the object of a pure conception either of the understanding or of reason, so far as it is to be estimated philosophically and on a priori principles, can in this way be completely cognised. I could not therefore omit to make use of this clue with regard to one of the most abstract ontological divisions, viz., the various distinctions of "the notions of something and of nothing," and to construct accordingly (Critique, p. 207) a regular and necessary table of their divisions.{26}
=================================== {25} See the two tables in the chapters Von den Paralogismen der reinen Vernuuft and the first division of the Antinomy of Pure Reason, System der kosmologischen Ideen.
{26} On the table of the categories many neat observations may be made, for instance: (1) that the third arises from the first and the second joined in one concept; (2) that in those of Quantity and of Quality there is merely a progress from unity to totality or from something to nothing (for this purpose the categories of Quality must stand thus: reality, limitation, total negation), without correlata or opposita, whereas those of Relation and of Modality have them; (3) that, as in Logic categorical judgments are the basis of all others, so the category of Substance is the basis of all concepts of actual things; (4) that as Modality in the judgment is not a particular predicate, so by the modal concepts a determination is not superadded to things, etc., etc. Such observations are of great use. If we besides enumerate all the predicables, which we can find pretty completely in any good ontology (for example, Baumgarten's), and arrange them in classes under the categories, in which operation we must not neglect to add as complete a dissection of all these concepts as possible, there will then arise a merely analytical part of metaphysics, which does not contain a single synthetical proposition, which might precede the second (the synthetical), and would by its precision and completeness be not only useful, but, in virtue of its system, be even to some extent elegant. ===================================
And this system, like every other true one founded on a universal principle, shows its inestimable value in this, that it excludes all foreign concepts, which might otherwise intrude among the pure concepts of the understanding, and determines the place of every cognition. Those concepts, which under the name of "concepts of reflexion" have been likewise arranged in a table according to the clue of the categories, intrude, without having any privilege or title to be among the pure concepts of the understanding in Ontology. They are concepts of connexion, and thereby of the objects themselves, whereas the former are only concepts of a mere comparison of concepts already given, hence of quite another nature and use. By my systematic division{27} they are saved from this confusion. But the value of my special table of the categories will be still more obvious, when we separate the table of the transcendental concepts of Reason from the concepts of the understanding. The latter being of quite another nature and origin, they must have quite another form than the former. This so necessary separation has never yet been made in any system of metaphysics for, as a rule, these rational concepts all mixed up with the categories, like children of one family, which confusion was unavoidable in the absence of a definite system of categories.
§39=================================== {27} See Critique of Pure Reason, Von der Amphibolie der Reflexbegriffe. ===================================
Appendix to the Pure Science of Nature
Of the System of the Categories.
There can be nothing more desirable to a philosopher, than to be able to derive the scattered multiplicity of the concepts or the principles, which had occurred to him in concrete use, from a principle a priori, and to unite everything in this way in one cognition. He formerly only believed that those things, which remained after a certain abstraction, and seemed by comparison among one another to constitute a particular kind of cognitions, were completely collected; but this was only an Aggregate. Now he knows, that just so many, neither more nor less, can constitute the mode of cognition, and perceives the necessity of his division, which constitutes comprehension; and now only he has attained a System.
To search in our daily cognition for the concepts, which do not rest upon particular experience, and yet occur in all cognition of experience, where they as it were constitute the mere form of connexion, presupposes neither greater reflexion nor deeper insight, than to detect in a language the rules of the actual use of words generally, and thus to collect elements for a grammar. In fact both researches are very nearly related, even though we are not able to give a reason why each language has just this and no other formal constitution, and still less why an exact number of such formal determinations in general are found in it.
Aristotle collected ten pure elementary concepts under the name of Categories.{23} To these, which are also called predicaments, he found himself obliged afterwards to add five post-predicaments,{24} some of which however (prius, simul, and motus) are contained in the former; but this random collection must be considered (and commended) as a mere hint for future inquirers, not as a regularly developed idea, and hence it has, in the present more advanced state of philosophy, been rejected as quite useless.
=================================== {23} 1. Substantia. 2. Qualitas. 3. Quantitas. 4. Relatio, 5. Actio. 6. Passio. 7. Quando, 8. Ubi. 9. Situs. 10. Habitus.
{24} Oppositum. Prius. Simul. Motus. Habere. ===================================
After long reflexion on the pure elements of human knowledge (those which contain nothing empirical), I at last succeeded in distinguishing with certainty and in separating the pure elementary notions of the Sensibility (space and time) from those of the Understanding. Thus the 7th, 8th, and 9th Categories had to be excluded from the old list. And the others were of no service to me; because there was no principle [in them], on which the understanding could be investigated, measured in its completion, and all the functions, whence its pure concepts arise, determined exhaustively and with precision.
But in order to discover such a principle, I looked about for an act of the understanding which comprises all the rest, and is distinguished only by various modifications or phases, in reducing the multiplicity of representation to the unity of thinking in general: I found this act of the understanding to consist in judging. Here then the labors of the logicians were ready at hand, though not yet quite free from defects, and with this help I was enabled to exhibit a complete table of the pure functions of the understanding, which are however undetermined in regard to any object. I finally referred these functions of judging to objects in general, or rather to the condition of determining judgments as objectively valid, and so there arose the pure concepts of the understanding, concerning which I could make certain, that these, and this exact number only, constitute our whole cognition of things from pure understanding. I was justified in calling them by their old name, Categories, while I reserved for myself the liberty of adding, under the title of "Predicables," a complete list of all the concepts deducible from them, by combinations whether among themselves, or with the pure form of the appearance, i.e., space or time, or with its matter, so far as it is not yet empirically determined (viz., the object of sensation in general), as soon as a system of transcendental philosophy should be completed with the construction of which I am engaged in the Critique of Pure Reason itself.
Now the essential point in this system of Categories, which distinguishes it from the old rhapsodical collection without any principle, and for which alone it deserves to be considered as philosophy, consists in this: that by means of it the true significance of the pure concepts of the understanding and the condition of their use could be precisely determined. For here it became obvious that they are themselves nothing but logical functions, and as such do not produce the least concept of an object, but require some sensuous intuition as a basis. They therefore only serve to determine empirical judgments, which are otherwise undetermined and indifferent as regards all functions of judging, relatively to these functions, thereby procuring them universal validity, and by means of them making judgments of experience in general possible.
Such an insight into the nature of the categories, which limits them at the same time to the mere use of experience, never occurred either to their first author, or to any of his successors; but without this insight (which immediately depends upon their derivation or deduction), they are quite useless and only a miserable list of names, without explanation or rule for their use. Had the ancients ever conceived such a notion, doubtless the whole study of the pure rational knowledge, which under the name of metaphysics has for centuries spoiled many a sound mind, would have reached us in quite another shape, and would have enlightened the human understanding, instead of actually exhausting it in obscure and vain speculations, thereby rendering it unfit for true science.
This system of categories makes all treatment of every object of pure reason itself systematic, and affords a direction or clue how and through what points of inquiry every metaphysical consideration must proceed, in order to be complete; for it exhausts all the possible movements (momenta) of the understanding, among which every concept must be classed. In like manner the table of Principles has been formulated, the completeness of which we can only vouch for by the system of the categories. Even in the division of the concepts,{25} which must go beyond the physical application of the understanding, it is always the very same clue, which, as it must always be determined a priori by the same fixed points of the human understanding, always forms a closed circle. There is no doubt that the object of a pure conception either of the understanding or of reason, so far as it is to be estimated philosophically and on a priori principles, can in this way be completely cognised. I could not therefore omit to make use of this clue with regard to one of the most abstract ontological divisions, viz., the various distinctions of "the notions of something and of nothing," and to construct accordingly (Critique, p. 207) a regular and necessary table of their divisions.{26}
=================================== {25} See the two tables in the chapters Von den Paralogismen der reinen Vernuuft and the first division of the Antinomy of Pure Reason, System der kosmologischen Ideen.
{26} On the table of the categories many neat observations may be made, for instance: (1) that the third arises from the first and the second joined in one concept; (2) that in those of Quantity and of Quality there is merely a progress from unity to totality or from something to nothing (for this purpose the categories of Quality must stand thus: reality, limitation, total negation), without correlata or opposita, whereas those of Relation and of Modality have them; (3) that, as in Logic categorical judgments are the basis of all others, so the category of Substance is the basis of all concepts of actual things; (4) that as Modality in the judgment is not a particular predicate, so by the modal concepts a determination is not superadded to things, etc., etc. Such observations are of great use. If we besides enumerate all the predicables, which we can find pretty completely in any good ontology (for example, Baumgarten's), and arrange them in classes under the categories, in which operation we must not neglect to add as complete a dissection of all these concepts as possible, there will then arise a merely analytical part of metaphysics, which does not contain a single synthetical proposition, which might precede the second (the synthetical), and would by its precision and completeness be not only useful, but, in virtue of its system, be even to some extent elegant. ===================================
And this system, like every other true one founded on a universal principle, shows its inestimable value in this, that it excludes all foreign concepts, which might otherwise intrude among the pure concepts of the understanding, and determines the place of every cognition. Those concepts, which under the name of "concepts of reflexion" have been likewise arranged in a table according to the clue of the categories, intrude, without having any privilege or title to be among the pure concepts of the understanding in Ontology. They are concepts of connexion, and thereby of the objects themselves, whereas the former are only concepts of a mere comparison of concepts already given, hence of quite another nature and use. By my systematic division{27} they are saved from this confusion. But the value of my special table of the categories will be still more obvious, when we separate the table of the transcendental concepts of Reason from the concepts of the understanding. The latter being of quite another nature and origin, they must have quite another form than the former. This so necessary separation has never yet been made in any system of metaphysics for, as a rule, these rational concepts all mixed up with the categories, like children of one family, which confusion was unavoidable in the absence of a definite system of categories.
. Anhang zur reinen Naturwissenschaft.
Von dem System der Kategorien
Es kann einem Philosophen nichts erwünschter sein, als wenn er das Mannigfaltige der Begriffe oder Grundsätze, die sich ihm vorher durch den Gebrauch, den er von ihnen in concreto gemacht hatte, zerstreut dargestellt hatten, aus einem Prinzip a priori ableiten, und alles auf solche Weise in eine Erkenntnis vereinigen kann. Vorher glaubte er nur, daß, was ihm nach einer gewissen Abstraktion übrig blieb, und, durch Vergleichung unter einander, eine besondere Art von Erkenntnissen auszumachen schien, vollständig gesammlet sei, aber es war nur einAggregat; jetzt weiß er, daß gerade nur so viel, nicht mehr, nicht weniger, die Erkenntnisart ausmachen könne, und sahe die Notwendigkeit seiner Einteilung ein, welches ein Begreifen ist, und nun hat er allererst einSystem.
Aus dem gemeinen Erkenntnisse die Begriffe heraussuchen, welche gar keine besondere Erfahrung zum Grunde liegen haben, und gleichwohl in aller Erfahrungserkenntnis vorkommen, von der sie gleichsam die bloße Form der Verknüpfung ausmachen, setzte kein größeres Nachdenken, oder mehr Einsicht voraus, als aus einer Sprache Regeln des wirklichen Gebrauchs der Wörter überhaupt heraussuchen, und so Elemente zu einer Grammatik zusammentragen (in der Tat sind beide Untersuchungen einander auch sehr nahe verwandt), ohne doch eben Grund angeben zu können, warum eine jede Sprache gerade diese und keine andere formale Beschaffenheit habe, noch weniger aber, daß gerade so viel, nicht mehr noch weniger, solcher formalen Bestimmungen derselben überhaupt angetroffen werden können.
Aristoteles hatte zehn solcher reinen Elementarbegriffe unter dem Namen der Kategorien13 zusammengetragen. Diesen, welche auch Prädikamente genennt wurden, sahe er sich hernach genötigt, noch fünf Post prädikamente beizufügen,14 die doch zum Teil schon in jenen liegen (als prius, simul, motus); allein diese Rhapsodie konnte mehr vor einen Wink vor den künftigen Nachforscher, als vor eine regelmäßig ausgeführte Idee gelten, und Beifall verdienen, daher sie auch, bei mehrerer Aufklärung der Philosophie, als ganz unnütz verworfen worden.
Bei einer Untersuchung der reinen (nichts Empirisches enthaltenden) Elemente der menschlichen Erkenntnis gelang es mir allererst nach langem Nachdenken, die reinen Elementarbegriffe der Sinnlichkeit (Raum und Zeit) von denen des Verstandes mit Zuverlässigkeit zu unterscheiden und abzusondern. Dadurch wurden nun aus jenem Register die 7te, 8te, 9te Kategorie ausgeschlossen. Die übrigen konnten mir zu nichts nutzen, weil kein Prinzip vorhanden war, nach welchem der Verstand völlig ausgemessen und alle Funktionen desselben, daraus seine reine Begriffe entspringen, vollzählig und mit Präzision bestimmt werden könnten.
Um aber ein solches Prinzip auszufinden, sahe ich mich nach einer Verstandeshandlung um, die alle übrige enthält, und sich nur durch verschiedene Modifikationen oder Momente unterscheidet, das Mannigfaltige der Vorstellung unter die Einheit des Denkens überhaupt zu bringen, und da fand ich, diese Verstandeshandlung bestehe im Urteilen. Hier lag nun schon fertige, obgleich noch nicht ganz von Mängeln freie Arbeit der Logiker vor mir, dadurch ich in den Stand gesetzt wurde, eine vollständige Tafel reiner Verstandesfunktionen, die aber in Ansehung alles Objekts unbestimmt waren, darzustellen. Ich bezog endlich diese Funktionen zu urteilen auf Objekte überhaupt, oder vielmehr auf die Bedingung, Urteile als objektiv-gültig zu bestimmen, und es entsprangen reine Verstandesbegriffe, bei denen ich außer Zweifel sein konnte, daß gerade nur diese, und ihrer nur so viel, nicht mehr noch weniger, unser ganzes Erkenntnis der Dinge aus bloßem Verstande ausmachen können. Ich nannte sie, wie billig, nach ihrem alten NamenKategorien; wobei ich mir vorbehielt, alle von diesen abzuleitende Begriffe, es sei durch Verknüpfung unter einander, oder mit der reinen Form der Erscheinung (Raum und Zeit) oder mit ihrer Materie, so fern sie noch nicht empirisch bestimmt ist (Gegenstand der Empfindung überhaupt), unter der Benennung derPrädikabilien, vollständig hinzuzufügen, so bald ein System der transzendentalen Philosophie, zu deren Behuf ich es jetzt nur mit der Kritik der Vernunft selbst zu tun hatte, zu Stande kommen sollte.
Das Wesentliche aber in diesem System der Kategorien, dadurch es sich von jener alten Rhapsodie, die ohne alles Prinzip fortging, unterscheidet, und warum es auch allein zur Philosophie gezählt zu werden verdient, besteht darin: daß vermittelst derselben die wahre Bedeutung der reinen Verstandesbegriffe und die Bedingung ihres Gebrauchs genau bestimmt werden konnte. Denn da zeigte sich, daß sie vor sich selbst nichts als logische Funktionen sind, als solche aber nicht den mindesten Begriff von einem Objekte an sich selbst ausmachen, sondern es bedürfen, daß sinnliche Anschauung zum Grunde liege, und alsdenn nur dazu dienen, empirische Urteile, die sonst in Ansehung aller Funktionen zu urteilen unbestimmt und gleichgültig sind, in Ansehung derselben zu bestimmen, ihnen dadurch Allgemeingültigkeit zu verschaffen, und vermittelst ihrerErfahrungsurteileüberhaupt möglich zu machen.
Von einer solchen Einsicht in die Natur der Kategorien, die sie zugleich auf den bloßen Erfahrungsgebrauch einschränkte, ließ sich weder ihr erster Urheber, noch irgend einer nach ihm etwas einfallen; aber ohne diese Einsicht (die ganz genau von der Ableitung oder Deduktion derselben abhängt) sind sie gänzlich unnütz und ein elendes Namenregister, ohne Erklärung und Regel ihres Gebrauchs. Wäre dergleichen jemals den Alten in den Sinn gekommen, ohne Zweifel das ganze Studium der reinen Vernunfterkenntnis, welches unter dem Namen Metaphysik viele Jahrhunderte hindurch so manchen guten Kopf verdorben hat, wäre in ganz anderer Gestalt zu uns gekommen, und hätte den Verstand der Menschen aufgeklärt, anstatt ihn, wie wirklich geschehen ist, in düstern und vergeblichen Grübeleien zu erschöpfen, und vor wahre Wissenschaft unbrauchbar zu machen.
Dieses System der Kategorien macht nun alle Behandlung eines jeden Gegenstandes der reinen Vernunft selbst wiederum systematisch, und gibt eine ungezweifelte Anweisung oder Leitfaden ab, wie und durch welche Punkte der Untersuchung jede metaphysische Betrachtung, wenn sie vollständig werden soll, müsse geführt werden: denn es erschöpft alle Momente des Verstandes, unter welche jeder andere Begriff gebracht werden muß. So ist auch die Tafel der Grundsätze entstanden, von deren Vollständigkeit man nur durch das System der Kategorien gewiß sein kann, und selbst in der Einteilung der Begriffe, welche über den physiologischen Verstandesgebrauch hinausgehen sollen (Kritik, S. 344, imgleichen S. 415), ist es immer derselbe Leitfaden, der, weil er immer durch dieselbe feste, im menschlichen Verstande a priori bestimmte Punkte geführt werden muß, jederzeit einen geschlossenen Kreis bildet, der keinen Zweifel übrig läßt, daß der Gegenstand eines reinen Verstandes- oder Vernunftbegriffs, so fern er philosophisch und nach Grundsätzen a priori erwogen werden soll, auf solche Weise vollständig erkannt werden könne. Ich habe sogar nicht unterlassen können, von dieser Leitung in Ansehung einer der abstraktesten ontologischen Einteilungen, nämlich der mannigfaltigen Unterscheidung derBegriffe von Etwas und NichtsGebrauch zu machen, und darnach eine regelmäßige und notwendige Tafel (Kritik, S. 292) zu Stande zu bringen.15
Eben dieses System zeigt seinen nicht gnug anzupreisenden Gebrauch, so wie jedes auf ein allgemeines Prinzip gegründetes wahres System, auch darin, daß es alle fremdartige Begriffe, die sich sonst zwischen jene reine Verstandesbegriffe einschleichen möchten, ausstößt, und jedem Erkenntnis seine Stelle bestimmt. Diejenige Begriffe, welche ich unter dem Namen derReflexionsbegriffegleichfalls nach dem Leitfaden der Kategorien in eine Tafel gebracht hatte, mengen sich in der Ontologie, ohne Vergünstigung und rechtmäßige Ansprüche, unter die reinen Verstandesbegriffe, obgleich diese Begriffe der Verknüpfung, und dadurch des Objekts selbst, jene aber nur der bloßen Vergleichung schon gegebener Begriffe sind, und daher eine ganz andere Natur und Gebrauch haben; durch meine gesetzmäßige Einteilung (Kritik, S. 260) werden sie aus diesem Gemenge geschieden. Noch viel heller aber leuchtet der Nutzen jener abgesonderten Tafel der Kategorien in die Augen, wenn wir, wie es gleich jetzt geschehen wird, die Tafel transzendentaler Vernunftbegriffe, die von ganz anderer Natur und Ursprung sind, als jene Verstandesbegriffe, (daher auch eine andre Form haben muß) von jenen trennen, welche so notwendige Absonderung doch niemals in irgend einem System der Metaphysik geschehen ist, jene Vernunftideen mit Verstandesbegriffen, als gehöreten sie, wie Geschwister, zu einer Familie, ohne Unterschied durch einander laufen, welche Vermengung, in Ermangelung eines besondern Systems der Kategorien, auch niemals vermieden werden konnte.
Buchempfehlung
Lohenstein, Daniel Casper von
Agrippina. Trauerspiel
Im Kampf um die Macht in Rom ist jedes Mittel recht: Intrige, Betrug und Inzest. Schließlich läßt Nero seine Mutter Agrippina erschlagen und ihren zuckenden Körper mit Messern durchbohren. Neben Epicharis ist Agrippina das zweite Nero-Drama Daniel Casper von Lohensteins.
142 Seiten, 7.80 Euro
Im Buch blättern
Ansehen bei Amazon
Buchempfehlung
Romantische Geschichten II. Zehn Erzählungen
Romantik! Das ist auch aber eben nicht nur eine Epoche. Wenn wir heute etwas romantisch finden oder nennen, schwingt darin die Sehnsucht und die Leidenschaft der jungen Autoren, die seit dem Ausklang des 18. Jahrhundert ihre Gefühlswelt gegen die von der Aufklärung geforderte Vernunft verteidigt haben. So sind vor 200 Jahren wundervolle Erzählungen entstanden. Sie handeln von der Suche nach einer verlorengegangenen Welt des Wunderbaren, sind melancholisch oder mythisch oder märchenhaft, jedenfalls aber romantisch - damals wie heute. Michael Holzinger hat für den zweiten Band eine weitere Sammlung von zehn romantischen Meistererzählungen zusammengestellt.
428 Seiten, 16.80 Euro
Ansehen bei Amazon
Online-Bibliothek
Der transzendentalen Hauptfrage dritter Teil.
Wie ist Metaphysik überhaupt möglich?
=================================== {27} See Critique of Pure Reason, Von der Amphibolie der Reflexbegriffe. ===================================
Page 15 of 27 · Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Immanuel Kant , tr. Paul Carus · Project Gutenberg