Epistemic Function of Imagination in Avicenna and Kant

被引:0
作者
Kucukparmak, Aykut [1 ]
机构
[1] Gaziantep Islam Bilim Teknol Univ, Islami Ilimler Fak, Felsefe Din Bilimleri Bolumu, TR-27010 Gaziantep, Turkiye
来源
BEYTULHIKME-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY | 2024年 / 14卷 / 02期
关键词
Imagination; Kant; Avicenna; synthesis; epistemology;
D O I
10.29228/beytulhikme.76320
中图分类号
B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ;
摘要
Imagination and its functions are one of the important issues that should be emphasized in the context of the processes of obtaining knowledge. In the course of history, one of the names that made significant contributions to the discussions in this context is Avicenna who one of the distinguished figures of the classical period and the other is Kant who the peak name of the modern period. A comparison of the imagination theories of these two thinkers on the one hand will help us better understand the subject and on the other hand it will help us determine to what extent the views of Avicenna and Kant on the subject contain similarities and differences. In this context, the main thesis of the study is that Kant's theory of imagination in terms of its nature and the problems it addresses is significantly different from the Avicenna approach. This basically stems from the fact that, while Kant considers the synthesis function of the faculty of imagination in its relationship with the unity of consciousness as an a priori act that makes experience possible, Avicenna examines the functions of this faculty in the context of explaining the process of abstraction. Depending on this, Kant treats the functions of the imagination as at the level of conscious and as a comprehensive act.
引用
收藏
页数:20
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1993, IBN SINA FELSEFESIND
[2]  
Bäck A, 2005, TOPICOS-MEXICO, P101, DOI 10.21555/top.v29i1.214
[3]  
Beck LewisWhite., 1978, ESSAYS KANT HUME
[4]  
Bennett J., 1975, Kant's Analytic
[5]  
Civgin A., Yayimlanmamis Doktora Tezi
[6]  
Ewing A. C., 1938, A Short Commantary on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
[7]  
Guyer P., 2009, Editorial Notes. Critique of Pure Reason
[8]  
Guyer Paul., 2010, CAMBRIDGE COMPANION, P118, DOI DOI 10.1017/CCOL9780521883863.006
[9]  
Hartnack Justus., 2001, KANTS THEORY KNOWLED
[10]  
Kalin I., 2014, Akil ve Erdem