KANT ÜZERİNDE HUME’UN GÖZ ARDI EDİLEN BİR ETKİSİ:İMGELEM

İmgelem kavramı Hume felsefesinde olduğu gibi Kant felsefesinde de merkezi bir konumdadır ve Antik Yunan’dan beri kullanımda olan bu kavram iki düşünürde de klasik işlevinden başka işlevler yüklenmiş, daha önce görülmeyen bir biçimde önem taşımaya başlamıştır. Kant ve Hume arasında felsefi anlamda çok temel farklar bulunmasına rağmen söz konusu kavramı kullanma biçimleri ciddi benzerlikler göstermektedir. Bu benzerlikler özellikle çağrışım konusunda ve Hume’un ben, Kant’ın ise empirik tamalgı anlayışında ciddi bir süreklilik arz etmeye başlamaktadır. Bu makalede Hume’un İnsan Doğası Üzerine Bir İnceleme ve İnsanın Anlama Yetisi Üzerine Bir Soruşturma isimli eserleri ile Kant’ın Saf Aklın Eleştirisi isimli eserinin bilhassa “Saf Anlama Yetisi Kavramlarının Tümdengelimi Üzerine” başlıklı bölümü merkeze alınarak, iki düşünür arasındaki süreklilik imgelem kavramı üzerinden ortaya konmuştur. Bu yapılırken imgelemin felsefe tarihindeki kullanımları da ele alınmış ve Hume ile Kant’ın seleflerinden bu meselede hangi açılardan ayrıldıkları temellendirilmiş, ardından Kant’ın Hume’un görüşlerine hangi yollarla erişimi olduğu tartışılmıştır. Böylece Hume’un imgelem üzerinden Kant’a nasıl bir etkisinin olduğu ortaya konarak Kant’ın düşünsel kaynaklarından birine ışık tutulmuştur.

AN OVERLOOKED IMPACT OF HUME ON KANT: IMAGINATION

Imagination is one of the key concepts for Hume as well as for Kant. This concept which has been in use since Ancient Greece comes to undertake different functions in the hands of these two philosophers from its classical functions, and becomes important in a way that is unprecedented. Although there are many fundamental differences between Kant and Hume in terms of their systems, the way they use the concept in question shows significant similarities. These similarities become an obvious overlap especially in the issues like Hume’s understanding of “self”, Kant’s understanding of “empirical apperception” and the importance of “association”. In this article, the continuity between the two philosophers is discussed through imagination by taking into account Treatise, Enquiry and Critique of Pure Reason, especially its section known as Transcendental Deduction. While doing this, the usage of imagination in the history of philosophy is also briefly mentioned, and it is shown in what ways Hume and Kant differed from their predecessors in this respect, and then what ways Kant had access to Hume’s works is discussed. Thus, one of the intellectual sources of Kant is shed light on by clarifying the impact of Hume on Kant through imagination.

PDF

___

Aristotle; De Anima, Translated by Christopher Shields, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Aristotle; De Anima; “De Memoria”, Translated by J. A. Smith, In The Works of Aristotle Volume III, edited by W. D. Ross, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1931.
Aristotle; De Anima; “The Parva Naturalia-De Somniis”, Translated by J. A. Smith, In The Works of Aristotle Volume III, edited by W. D. Ross, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1931.
Barker, Michael; “The Proof Structure of Kant’s A-Deduction”, Kant-Studien 92 (2001): 259- 282.
Cocking, J. M.; Imgination: A Study in The History of Ideas, London and New York: Routledge, 1991.
Costelloe, Timothy M.; “Hume’s Phenomenology of the Imagination”, The Journal of Scottish Philosophy 5 (2007): 31-45.
Deleuze, Gilles; Empiricism and Subjectivity: An Essay on Hume’s Theory of Human Nature, Translated by Constantin V. Boundas, New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.
Descartes, René; “Meditations on First Philosophy”, In The Philosophical Writings of Descrates Volume 2, 9th edition, Translated by John Gottingham; Robert Stoothoff; Dugald Murdoch, USA: Camdridge University Press, 1995.
Fields, Keota; “Berkeley and Hume on the Imagination”, In The Bloomsbury Companion to Berkeley, edited by Bertil Belfrage; Richard Brook, London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016: 314-333.
Furlong, E. J.; “Imagination in Hume’s Treatise and Enquiry Concerning the Human Understanding”, Philosophy 36 (1961): 62-70.
Gibbons, Sarah L.; Kant’s Theory of Imagination, 2nd edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Hume, David; A Treatise of Human Nature, edited by D. F. Norton and M. J. Norton, Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press, 2007.
Hume, David; An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, edited by Peter Millican, New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Kant, Immanuel; “Welches sind die wirklichen Fortschritte, die die Metaphysik seit Leibnizens und Wolffs Zeiten in Deutschland gemacht hat?”, in Immanuel Kant Werke In Sechs Bänden (Band 3): Schriften zur Metaphysik und Logik, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966.
Kant, Immanuel; Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Kant, Immanuel; Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Translated by Gary Hatfield, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Kitcher, Patricia; “Kant’s Philosophy of the Cognitive Mind”, In The Cambridge Companion to Kant and Modern Philosophy, 2nd edition, edited by Paul Guyer, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007: 169-202
Leibniz, G. W.; New Essays on Human Understanding, 2nd edition. Translated by Peter Remnant and Jonathan Bennett, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Levi, Albert William; “The Two Imaginations”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 25 (1964): 188-200.
Nolan, Lawrence; “The Role of the Imagination in Rationalist Philosophies of Mathematics”, In A Companion to Rationalism, edited by Alan Nelson, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing, 2005: 224-249.
Rotenstreich, N.; “Kant’s Schematism in Its Context”, Dialectica 10 (1956): 9-30.
Sepper, Dennis L.; “Cartesian Imaginations: The Method and Passions of Imagining”, In A Companion to Rationalism, edited by Alan Nelson, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing, 2005: 156-176.
Smith, Norman Kemp; “Kant’s Relation to Hume and to Leibnitz”, The Philosophical Review 24 (1915): 288-296.
Spinoza, Benedict de; Ethics, Translated by Michael Silverthorne and Matthew J. Kisner, edited by Matthew J. Kisner, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Traiger, Saul; “Hume on Memory and Imagination”, In A Companion to Hume, ed. Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, Sinagapore: Blackwell Publishing, 2008: 58-71.
Wolff, Robert P.; “Kant’s Debt to Hume Via Beattie”, Journal of the History of Ideas 21 (1960): 117-123.
Woods, M.; “Kant’s Transcendental Schematism”, Dialectica 37 (1983): 201-219.