有关时间问题的探讨,构成了哲学史的重要组成部分。而时间在康德的《纯粹理性批判》中,首次出现便是作为人之认知能力之一的感性的形式而出场的,并且时间作为内感官形式,具有着较空间这一外感官形式更为根本的地位。此外,在面临如何沟...有关时间问题的探讨,构成了哲学史的重要组成部分。而时间在康德的《纯粹理性批判》中,首次出现便是作为人之认知能力之一的感性的形式而出场的,并且时间作为内感官形式,具有着较空间这一外感官形式更为根本的地位。此外,在面临如何沟通感性与知性这两种认知能力之时,康德再次让时间出场,以图型法的身份来充当这一桥梁。在海德格尔对康德进行的阐释中,他不同于正统康德学派地将“先验想象力”视作第三种、并且是更为本源的认识能力,以此为感性与知性提供一种本源的综合统一性。实际上,这种阐释背后所暗含的正是时间的本源性地位,以至于海德格尔无论在《康德与形而上学疑难》还是《康德〈纯粹理性批判〉的现象学阐释》中都将超越论想象力与时间等同起来。而这种解释,最终是服务于海德格尔对于重提存在论问题,最终通过解构(Destruktion)1以重建存在论的计划。而康德作为海德格尔进行阐释以阐发存在问题的重要思想来源,其时间观的内涵与在海德格尔那里作为存在论之原初境域的时间的紧密联系,毫无疑问地凸显了时间在存在问题中的根本性地位。The discussion of time plays an important role in the history of philosophy. In Kant’s work named “Critique of Pure Reason”, time first appeared as the perceptual form of one of the human cognitive abilities. Time, as the internal sensory form, has a more fundamental position than the space, which behaves as the external sensory form. In addition, in the face of how to communicate sensibility and intellectual, time appears again to act as a bridge. In Heidegger’s interpretation of Kant, he is different from the orthodox Kant school, while to regard the “transcendental imagination” as the third and more original cognitive ability, so as to provide a kind of original comprehensive unity for sensibility and intellectual. In fact, what implies is the original position of time, so that Heidegger equated imagination with time in “Kant and the problem of Metaphysics” and the “Phenomenological Interpretation of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason”. This explanation, ultimately, serves Heidegger’s plan to revisit ontology problems and finally reconstruct ontology by deconstructing (Destruktion). Kant acts as an important ideological source of Heidegger to elucidate the “Being” (Sein), whose the view of time is particularly related to the Heidegger’s, which can be considered as the original condition of ontology, definitely highlighting the fundamental position of time in Being.展开更多
文摘有关时间问题的探讨,构成了哲学史的重要组成部分。而时间在康德的《纯粹理性批判》中,首次出现便是作为人之认知能力之一的感性的形式而出场的,并且时间作为内感官形式,具有着较空间这一外感官形式更为根本的地位。此外,在面临如何沟通感性与知性这两种认知能力之时,康德再次让时间出场,以图型法的身份来充当这一桥梁。在海德格尔对康德进行的阐释中,他不同于正统康德学派地将“先验想象力”视作第三种、并且是更为本源的认识能力,以此为感性与知性提供一种本源的综合统一性。实际上,这种阐释背后所暗含的正是时间的本源性地位,以至于海德格尔无论在《康德与形而上学疑难》还是《康德〈纯粹理性批判〉的现象学阐释》中都将超越论想象力与时间等同起来。而这种解释,最终是服务于海德格尔对于重提存在论问题,最终通过解构(Destruktion)1以重建存在论的计划。而康德作为海德格尔进行阐释以阐发存在问题的重要思想来源,其时间观的内涵与在海德格尔那里作为存在论之原初境域的时间的紧密联系,毫无疑问地凸显了时间在存在问题中的根本性地位。The discussion of time plays an important role in the history of philosophy. In Kant’s work named “Critique of Pure Reason”, time first appeared as the perceptual form of one of the human cognitive abilities. Time, as the internal sensory form, has a more fundamental position than the space, which behaves as the external sensory form. In addition, in the face of how to communicate sensibility and intellectual, time appears again to act as a bridge. In Heidegger’s interpretation of Kant, he is different from the orthodox Kant school, while to regard the “transcendental imagination” as the third and more original cognitive ability, so as to provide a kind of original comprehensive unity for sensibility and intellectual. In fact, what implies is the original position of time, so that Heidegger equated imagination with time in “Kant and the problem of Metaphysics” and the “Phenomenological Interpretation of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason”. This explanation, ultimately, serves Heidegger’s plan to revisit ontology problems and finally reconstruct ontology by deconstructing (Destruktion). Kant acts as an important ideological source of Heidegger to elucidate the “Being” (Sein), whose the view of time is particularly related to the Heidegger’s, which can be considered as the original condition of ontology, definitely highlighting the fundamental position of time in Being.
