Abstract
Bu çalışma, Yargı Gücünün Eleştirisi’nde estetik beğenide, hayalgücü (Einbildungskraft) ve “özgür
oyun” tanımı temelinde, hayalgücü ve anlama yetisi (Verstand) arasındaki ilişki sorununu ele
almaktadır. Kant transendental felsefeyle hayalgücüne kendinden önceki filozoflardan ayrı bir
saygınlık kazandırmış, bu yetiyi hem bilişin hem estetik deneyimin temel yetileri arasına
yerleştirmiştir. Saf Aklın Eleştirisi’nde (A basımı) duyusallık (Sinnlichkeit) ve anlama yetisiyle
transendental üç yetiden biri olan hayalgücü, üçüncü Kritik’te reflektif yargı ve estetik deneyimin
zeminini oluşturmada önemli bir konumdadır. Üçüncü Kritik’in hemen her bölümünde bir işlevi haiz
olan hayalgücü ile anlama yetisinin girdiği özgür ve kavramlara dayanmayan oyun transendental
felsefeye ilişkin pek çok meseleyi de açığa çıkaran özelliklere sahiptir. Bu oyunda, birinci Kritik’te
nesnenin kavramsal belirlenimine yönelik olan anlama yetisinin kavramlarıyla devrede olmaması
tartışmanın önemli ögelerinden biridir. Bu bakımdan özgür oyun tanımı, yetilerin konumlarına ilişkin
birinci Kritik’teki iddialara uzanan kapsam ve içeriktedir. Bu çalışmada bu iddialara açıklık
kazandırılarak, hayalgücü merkezinde yetiler ve yetilerle bağlantılı tartışmalara ışık tutulacaktır.
References
- Allison, H. (2001). Kant’s Theory of Taste. Cambridge: University Press.
- Arendt, H. (2019). Kant’ın Siyaset Felsefesi Üzerine Dersler. (D. Sezer ve İ. Ilgar Çev.). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
- Bell, D. (1987). “The Art of Judgement”. Mind. 96(382): 221-244
- Deleuze, G. (1995). Kant’ın Eleştirel Felsefesi: Yetiler Öğretisi. (T. Altuğ, Çev.). İstanbul: Payel Yayınevi.
- Deleuze, G., Guattari, F. (2020) Felsefe Nedir? Çev. Turhan Ilgaz, İstanbul: YKY
- Ginsborg, H. (1997). Lawfulness without a Law: Kant on Free Play of Imagination and Understanding. Philosophical Topics, 25(1): 37-81.
- Guyer, P. (1979). Kant and the Claims of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Guyer, P. (2005). Values of Beauty: Historical Essays in Aesthetics. Cambridge: University Press.
- Henrich, D. (1992). Aesthetic Judgment and the Moral Image of the World, Stanford: University Press.
- Heidemann, D.H. (2016). “Kant’s Aesthetic Nonconceptualism”. Kantian Nonconceptualism. Dennis Schulting (ed). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Horstmann, R.P. (2018). Kant’s Power of Imagination. Cambridge: University Press.
- Kant, I. (2007). Critique of the Power of Judgment. (P. Guyer ve E. Matthews, Çev.). Cambridge: University Press.
- Kant, I. (2009). Critique of Pure Reason. (P. Guyer ve A. Wood, Çev.). Cambridge: University Press.
- Kant, I. (2014). Anthropology, History, and Education. Cambridge: University Press.
- Kant, I. (1995). Prolegomena. Çev. İoanna Kuçuradi - Yusuf Örnek. Ankara: Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu Yayınları.
- Krämer S. (2018). Schematism, Imagination, and Pure Intuition. Image, Imagination, and Cognition, Eds. Christoph Lüthy, Claudia Swan, Paul Bakker, Claus Zittel, Leiden: Brill Publishing.
- Makkreel, R. (1994). Imagination and Interpretation in Kant. Chicago: University Press.
- McDowell, (1996). Mind and World. London: Harvard University Press.
- Paton, H.J. (1936). Kant’s Metaphysics of Experience, Cilt I, Londra: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
- Rogerson, K.F. (2008) The Poblem of Free Harmony in Kant’s Aesthetics. New York:State University of New York Press.
The Problem of Imagination and Understanding in “Free Play” in the Critique of the Power of Judgment
Abstract
This article deals with the problem of relationship between faculties of imagination
(Einbildungskraft) and understanding (Verstand) based on the definition of “free play” that appears
in the judgments of taste in the Critique of the Power of Judgment. Unlike his predecessors, Kant
gives a respectful position to the faculty of imagination and utilizes this faculty both in cognitive and
aesthetic experiences. Being one of the three fundamental faculties besides sensibility (Sinnlichketi)
and understanding in (the first edition of) the Critique of Pure Reason, the faculty of imagination
covers an important position in terms of forming the ground of reflective judgments and aesthetic
experience in the third Critique. Free and non-conceptual play between imagination, which bears
important functions in almost every section of the third Critique, and understanding have features
that reveal many issues related to transcendental philosophy. One of the important elements of the
discussion constitutes that, in this play, faculty of understanding, which is the faculty of conceptual
determination of object in the first Critique, acts without concepts. In this respect, free play contains
scopes and contents regarding the roles of faculties that extend to the claims of the first Critique.
By clarifying claims concerning these issues, this article sheds light on the discussions related to
faculties and their relations on the basis of faculty of imagination.
References
- Allison, H. (2001). Kant’s Theory of Taste. Cambridge: University Press.
- Arendt, H. (2019). Kant’ın Siyaset Felsefesi Üzerine Dersler. (D. Sezer ve İ. Ilgar Çev.). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
- Bell, D. (1987). “The Art of Judgement”. Mind. 96(382): 221-244
- Deleuze, G. (1995). Kant’ın Eleştirel Felsefesi: Yetiler Öğretisi. (T. Altuğ, Çev.). İstanbul: Payel Yayınevi.
- Deleuze, G., Guattari, F. (2020) Felsefe Nedir? Çev. Turhan Ilgaz, İstanbul: YKY
- Ginsborg, H. (1997). Lawfulness without a Law: Kant on Free Play of Imagination and Understanding. Philosophical Topics, 25(1): 37-81.
- Guyer, P. (1979). Kant and the Claims of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Guyer, P. (2005). Values of Beauty: Historical Essays in Aesthetics. Cambridge: University Press.
- Henrich, D. (1992). Aesthetic Judgment and the Moral Image of the World, Stanford: University Press.
- Heidemann, D.H. (2016). “Kant’s Aesthetic Nonconceptualism”. Kantian Nonconceptualism. Dennis Schulting (ed). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Horstmann, R.P. (2018). Kant’s Power of Imagination. Cambridge: University Press.
- Kant, I. (2007). Critique of the Power of Judgment. (P. Guyer ve E. Matthews, Çev.). Cambridge: University Press.
- Kant, I. (2009). Critique of Pure Reason. (P. Guyer ve A. Wood, Çev.). Cambridge: University Press.
- Kant, I. (2014). Anthropology, History, and Education. Cambridge: University Press.
- Kant, I. (1995). Prolegomena. Çev. İoanna Kuçuradi - Yusuf Örnek. Ankara: Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu Yayınları.
- Krämer S. (2018). Schematism, Imagination, and Pure Intuition. Image, Imagination, and Cognition, Eds. Christoph Lüthy, Claudia Swan, Paul Bakker, Claus Zittel, Leiden: Brill Publishing.
- Makkreel, R. (1994). Imagination and Interpretation in Kant. Chicago: University Press.
- McDowell, (1996). Mind and World. London: Harvard University Press.
- Paton, H.J. (1936). Kant’s Metaphysics of Experience, Cilt I, Londra: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
- Rogerson, K.F. (2008) The Poblem of Free Harmony in Kant’s Aesthetics. New York:State University of New York Press.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | May 28, 2021 |
| Submission Date | January 24, 2021 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2021 Issue: 13 |
