English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88987/118697 (75%)
Visitors : 23576549      Online Users : 214
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 文學院 > 哲學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/37234
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/37234


    Title: 論康德《純粹理性批判》中的判斷表
    Authors: 陳鳴諍
    Contributors: 彭文林
    陳鳴諍
    Keywords: 先驗邏輯學
    判斷表
    判斷的邏輯形式
    下判斷的能力
    綜合判斷
    Date: 2008
    Issue Date: 2009-09-19 12:47:03 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 在《純粹理性批判》中,康德藉由幾行簡短的文字以及一種思想方法的操作—孤立法,便將判斷表放置在讀者面前。判斷表中有四大類的主要區分:量、質、關係與模態,每一類之下有三個環節,一共是十二個判斷的邏輯形式。康德不曾告訴他的讀者,他如何獲得判斷表,這問題至今仍困擾著我們。判斷表是康德論述的開始點,而且也是他的哲學體系的核心部份之一,康德從判斷表導出範疇表,而範疇是康德用以證明人類認知如何可能的重要理論。因此,判斷表內部的任何更動也將影響整個批判哲學體系的哲學證明與面貌。本篇碩士論文中提出一個問題:康德如何獲得判斷表?判斷表有哪些本質特性?這個問題將從兩個方面著手:一方面,筆者試圖從康德的其他相關邏輯學著作與文獻中尋找根據,以說明康德數行文字背後所預設的哲學主張與方法論,嘗試解釋康德如何獲得判斷表;另一方面,筆者試圖回溯判斷表的思想背景,將判斷表放置在邏輯學發展的脈絡之中,以期能釐清康德的判斷表可能受到哪些哲學家的影響。透過這兩方面的考慮,我們將可以把握到判斷表以及判斷的邏輯形式的本質特性。
    按照上述兩個進路,本研究可以分為以下五個主要章節:第一章做為導論,介紹本研究要處理的問題、問題之釐清與研究的進路;第二章則從康德的判斷理論做為本研究的開始點。所有判斷都由判斷的邏輯形式構成,所以本章先釐清康德的判斷理論的特殊性以及康德描述與界定判斷的各種面向。第三章則以前一章所分析的結果為基礎,進一步深入判斷的構成要素:判斷的邏輯形式。筆者試圖證明康德在方法論上預設了判斷的形式與質料之區分,如此就解釋了康德如何透過一種哲學證明的方式獲得判斷的邏輯形式。與此同時,這一預設也揭示了判斷的邏輯形式的本質特性。第四章則從思想背景的面向考慮康德的判斷表,雖然康德之前沒人提出任何類似的判斷表,但判斷表也並非康德憑空想像出來的結果。判斷表在某些面向下是建立在前人研究的成果,並進一步完善它。所以,透過思想背景的考查,我們可以在歷史之中發現判斷的邏輯形式之劃分的一些根據,以及康德和邏輯學家之間的差異。第五章是結論,筆者將對以上的研究做一個總結,並反省以上研究的局限同時指出一些仍遺留未決的問題。
    綜合這幾個方面的研究工作,筆者預期能更進一步了解判斷表的性質,也能幫助我們更了解判斷表在康德哲學體系中的位置。
    There is no doubt that the table of judgments in Critique of Pure Reason is the tenet of Kant’s philosophical system. For Kant derives the table of categories from the table of judgments, even an analysis of various kinds of judgment (like empirical, practical and aesthetical) was proceeded by according to this table. However, Kant’s establishing and derivation of this table always put into question. On the one hand, in Critique of Pure Reason, Kant puts forward the table of judgments with a method of isolation (by abstracting the form of thought from the contents). Without any further explanation, this table is showed up in front of us, as if it is evident to all of us. On the other hand, in Prolegomena to any Future of Metaphysics, Kant informs us that the establishment of the table of judgment was indebted to the achievements of the labor of logicians, as if this table entirely comes out from logical works. It is remains a question of how Kant constructs his table of judgment? What is the nature of these forms of judgment? Kant never tells us how he meets this problem (even to his servant, Lampe!). In this dissertation, I aim to expose some philosophical presuppositions which Kant never mentions in the above two works but indispensible for deriving this table of judgment. I try to argue that, once these presuppositions rise into our horizon, they will at the same time shed light on how Kant constructs his table of judgment and the nature of the forms of judgment.
    Reference: 一、康德著作
    Kant, Immanuel. Gesammelte Schriften, hrsg. von der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1900ff.
    -------- Kritik der reinen Vernunft, hrsg. von Reimond Schidt, Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1956.
    -------- Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, trans. by Robert B. Louden, Cambridge: Cambridge, 2006.
    -------- Critique of Pure Reason, trans. by Allen Wood & Paul Guyer, Cambridge: Cambridge, 1992.
    -------- Critique of Pure Reason, trans. by Norman Kemp-Smith, London: Macmillan, 1933.
    -------- Lectures on Logic, trans. by J. Michael Young, Cambridge: Cambridge, 1992.
    -------- Theoretical Philosophy after 1781, ed. by Henry Allison & Gary Hatfield & Peter Heath, Cambridge: Cambridge, 2002.
    -------- Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770, ed. by, David Walford & Ralf Meerbote, Cambridge: Cambridge, 1992.
    二、工具書
    Caygill, Howard. A Kant Dictionary, Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
    Eisler, Rudolf. Kant-Lexikon, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2002.
    Hoffmeister, Johannes. Wörterbuch der Philosophischen Begriffe, 2. Aufl., Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1955.
    Ritter, Joachim ed. Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, Basel: Schwabe, 1989.
    三、專書
    Allison, Henry. Transcendental Idealism: an Interpretation and Defense, 2nd ed., New Haven: Yale University, 2004.
    Apuleius. Peri Hermeneias, in The Logic of Apuleius, tr. by David Londey, Carmen Johanson, Netherland: Brill Archive, 1987.
    Aristotle. The Complete Works of Aristotle (Vol.1), ed. by Jonathan Barnes, New Jersey: Princeton University, 1984.
    -------- Philosophische Schriften (Band 1), tr. by Eugen Rolfes, Hamburg: Meiner, 1995.
    -------- Aristotle in Twenty-three Volumes (Vol. 1), ed. & tr. by Hugh Tredennick, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996.
    Arnauld, Antoine & Nicole, Pierre. Logic, or, The Art of Thinking: containing, besides common rules, several new observations appropriate for forming judgment (1662), trans. by Jill Vance Buroker, Cambridge: Cambridge, 1996.
    Brandt, Reinhard. The Table of Judgments: Critique of Pure Reason A67-76; B92-101 (1991), tr. by Eric Watkins, California: Ridgeview, 1995.
    Heidegger, Martin. Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics (1929), 5th ed., tr. by Richard Taft, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1997.
    Hegel, G. W. F. Hegel’s Logic, tr. by J. N. Findlay, London: Oxford, 1975
    Meier, Georg. Auszug aus der Vernunftlehre (1752), in Kants Gesammelte Schriften: Band XVI, hrsg. von der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1900ff.
    Kapp, Ernst. Greek Foundations of Traditional Logic, New York: AMS Press, 1967.
    Lambert, Johann. Philosophische Schriften, hrsg. von Hans-Werner Arndt, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1965ff.
    Leibniz, G. W. Philosophical Essays, tr. by Roger Ariew & Daniel Garber, Indiana: Hackett, 1989.
    --------- Logical Papers, ed. & tr. by G. Parkinson, Oxford: Clarendon, 1966.
    Longuenesse, Béatrice. Kant and the Capacity to Judge (1993), tr. by Charles T. Wolfe, New Jersey: Princeton University, 1998.
    Paton, H. J. Kant’s Metaphysic of Experience: a Commentary of the First Half of the Kritik der reinen Vernunft (1936), London: Routledge, 2002.
    Patzig, Günther. Aristotle’s Theory of the Syllogism (1963), 2nd ed., tr. by Jonathan Barnes, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1968.
    Reich, Klaus. The Completeness of Kant’s Table of Judgments (1932), tr. by Jane Kneller and Michael Losonsky, California: Stanford University, 1992.
    Rotenstreich, Nathan. Experience and its systematization: studies in Kant, 2nd ed., Netherland: Martinus Nijhoff, 1972.
    Schopenhauer, Arthur. Appendix: ‘Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy’, in The World as Will and Representation (1818), tr. by E. F. J. Payne, Netherland: Dover, 1966.
    Stuhlmann-Laeisz, Reiner. Kants Logik: eine Interpretation auf der Grundlage von Vorlesungen, veröffentlichten Werken und Nachlaß, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1976.
    Wolff, Christian. Logic, or Rational Thoughts on the Powers of the Human Understanding: with their use and application in the knowledge and search of truth (1712), London: printed for L. Hawes, W. Clarke, and R. Collins, 1770.
    四、專文
    Hauck, P. ‘Die Entstehung der Kantischen Urteilstafel’, in Kant-Studien 11, 1906, pp. 196-208.
    Krüger, Lorenz. ‘Did Kant Want To Prove the Completeness of His Table of Judgments? ’, in Why does History matter to Philosophy and the Science?, ed. by Thomas Sturm, Wolfgang Carl & Lorraine Doston, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005, pp. 21-44.
    Longuenesse, Béatrice. ‘The Divisions of the Transcendental Logic and the Leading Thread (A50/B74-A8/B109; B109-116)’, in Immauel Kant: Kritik der reinen Vernunft, hrsg. von Georg Mohr und Marcus Willaschek, Berlin: Akademie, 1998, pp. 131-158.
    -------- ‘Kant on a priori concepts: The metaphysical deduction of the Categories’, in Kant and Modern Philosophy, ed. by Pual Guyer, Cambridge: Cambridge, 2006, pp. 129-168.
    Lovejoy, Arthur. ‘Kant’s Classification of the Forms of Judgment’, in The Philosophical Review 16, 1907, pp. 588-603.
    Menne, Albert. ‘Die Kantische Urteilstafel im Lichte der Logikgeschichte und der modernen Logik’, in Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie XX:2, 1989, pp. 317-324.
    Paton, H. J. ‘Formal and Transcendental Logic’, in Kant-Studien 49, 1957/58, pp. 245-263.
    Riccardo Pozzo, ‘Prejudices and Horizons: G. F. Meier’s Vernunftlehre and its Relation to Kant’, in Journal of the History of Philosophy 43:2, 2005, pp. 181-195.
    -------- ‘Kant within the Tradition of Modern Logic: the Role of the “Introduction: Idea of a Transcendental Logic”’, The Review of Metaphysics 52:2, 1998, pp. 295-310.
    Tonelli, Giorgio. ‘Die Voraussetzungen zur Kantischen Urteilstafel in der Logik des 18. Jahrhunderts’, in Kritik und Metaphysik: Festschrift für H. Heimsoeth, ed. by F. Kaulbach u. J. Ritter, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1966, pp. 134-158.
    -------- ‘Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason Within the Tradition of Modern Logic’, in Akten des 4. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses (vol.III), ed. by Gerhard Funke, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975, pp. 185-191.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    哲學研究所
    94154001
    97
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094154001
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[哲學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    400101.pdf91KbAdobe PDF755View/Open
    400102.pdf113KbAdobe PDF852View/Open
    400103.pdf149KbAdobe PDF929View/Open
    400104.pdf244KbAdobe PDF862View/Open
    400105.pdf276KbAdobe PDF914View/Open
    400106.pdf380KbAdobe PDF1311View/Open
    400107.pdf298KbAdobe PDF924View/Open
    400108.pdf324KbAdobe PDF1257View/Open
    400109.pdf152KbAdobe PDF936View/Open
    400110.pdf111KbAdobe PDF1184View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback