When we finally understand the final part of Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, we say:
I cannot regard these two as being concealed in darkness or in something that transcends boundaries. And to seek and guess them purely outside my field of vision; I saw them right in front of me and connected them directly with a trace of my existence.
The former starts from my position in the external sensory world and extends the connection I am in to the infinite range of galaxies composed of world galaxies above the world. In addition, it also extends to their periodic motion and infinite time of onset and continuation.
This is why the starry sky above and the moral principles in my heart can both appear before my eyes at the same time. There are two reasons that come before my eyes at the same time. The first one is about the starry sky, which refers to something that starts from the position I occupy in my external sensory world and extends beyond it to infinite space.
So, this involves a relationship of how to extend from a finite existence to an infinite existence.
So, Kant's entire intention is to attempt to use the existence of infinite beings as a prerequisite for finite beings, and to understand finite beings based on infinite beings.
There is an infinite being, in addition to the infinite existence of nature, there is also an infinite existence of the human spirit. The infinite existence of human consciousness and the infinite existence of the human world is manifested in our infinite cognition of the world, and we can never achieve a complete understanding of the world. Therefore, for us, the world is always in an infinitely open state. We cannot grasp the world at once, nor can we grasp the unfolding of the infinite world through our limited human life.
So, in this sense, the understanding of infinity is grasped through the finite. However, limitation is precisely defined based on infinity. This is a dialectics of finite and infinite. If there is no infinity, then of course there is no such thing as finiteness. This is the idea I have always emphasized, which is that understanding tradition is definitely about the existence of others. Without others, there would be no tradition.
Because the emergence of any tradition is due to the existence of other cultures, making your own culture a tradition. So, in this sense, limited cognition is also regulated through infinity. However, limitation is precisely achieved through one's infinite efforts and infinite expansion, leading to an infinite state.
So, when this idea was expressed by Hegel, it became even more insightful. This is what we call infinity, which refers to the infinite extension of finiteness. By nominalizing infinity into an infinite extension, we can transform it into a state or a way.
If we understand Kant in this way, we will understand what Kant meant by the starry sky above his head, which makes it more specific and clear.
For the moral principles in my mind, what he is referring to here is precisely the continuation of time, that is, the periodic movement of these things and the infinite time they can start and continue. Therefore, the "starry sky above" can have a spatial concept, while the "morality in the heart" has a temporal regulation.
Therefore, 'morality in the heart' is not determined at once, nor can it be obtained permanently through a single determination, but it is determined once to obtain an infinite, or an infinite, temporal determination.
Because of such a regulation, it is precisely through what is called any finite time, the finite and infinite nature of time, which in Kant's critique of pure reason is seen as a antinomy.
Because whether time is finite or infinite, it can be established from any perspective, because we can define the finite nature of time, such as the finite existence of matter we see. However, we can also define the infinite nature of time, because we cannot make time the ultimate end.
So, both the finite and infinite nature of time are logically valid, but two propositions that can be simultaneously valid are logically contradictory. Therefore, in "Pure Practical Reason," such a paradox cannot be solved. However, in Kant's "Critique of Practical Reason," such a paradox can be explained. And the reason why this can be explained is that it can be accomplished through infinite constraints on finite time.
So, infinite time is not a concept of time that has the same status as finite time.
Infinite time should be beyond the scope of finite time. Therefore, can we make such a inference? Of course, this is just a simple inference, a simple analogy, that all discussions about infinite things themselves should transcend all discussions about finite things. It is not on the same plane, finite and infinite are not on the same plane, and the infinite level is higher than the finite level.
Or, if you don't say anything about high and low, we can simply make a metaphor and say that they are two completely different levels of concepts. In this sense, Kant's starry sky and moral laws have a specific meaning.
Later on, he also mentioned that we can also be invisible to ourselves, and my personality begins to manifest me in a world that is truly infinite, but only perceptible to the intellect, and recognizes that I am not in this world as in the former, but rather in a universal and inevitable connection.
At this point, infinity provides us with another space for explanation.
Infinity is not simply about the process of "extending from finite to infinite", or the process of infinitely extending from finite things, but emphasizes the contingency of finite and the inevitability of infinity. Finite is related to necessity, infinite is related to universality.
It approaches discussions about finite and infinite in this way, so when you read any paragraph of Kant's work and discuss any issue, you will find that the rigor of his ideas is very clear. This rigor makes it very logical for him to discuss any discussion about practice, reason, free will, or pure rational ability.
This leads us to understand Kant not simply literally, but to fully grasp his ideas.
In fact, after writing the Critique of Practical Reason and before its official publication, Kant suddenly realized a question that we have repeatedly mentioned before - what kind of question?
If the Critique of Pure Reason in Practical Reason is about questions about the natural world and the existence of objects, while the Critique of Practical Theory is about questions about freedom and the moral realm of human beings, how can a bridge be established between questions about nature and questions about freedom, and how are they connected?
How can you directly move from the issue of the existence of objects related to nature to a practical issue of morality and free will. In this sense, Kant realized that he should change his original writing plan, because the writing plan he pursued was three critiques, not the three critiques he sees now. His initial consideration was to start with the critique of pure ability, that is, the first critique, then enter the critique of practical reason, enter the second critique, and finally enter the critique of human religious consciousness.
That is to say, his third critique should be about discussing religious issues. This was considered based on its original design, and as a result, in 1789, after writing "Critique of Practical Reason" in 83-84, he suddenly realized that there was a problem in between. At this time, he put aside the original discussion on religious issues and reconsidered the new problem of how to build a bridge between nature and freedom.
So, in the preface of the third critique, which is the first edition of "Critique of Judgment," he first proposed a new division of our human cognitive ability. He stated that our entire cognitive ability has two domains, namely the domain of natural concepts and the domain of free concepts:
Because the ability to recognize is innate in legislation through these two factors. Philosophy is also divided into theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy according to this point. However, the field of philosophy, which is established on the basis of advocating and implementing philosophical legislation, is always only the sum of all possible experiential objects, as long as these objects are only regarded as pure manifestations: because if it were not for this, intellectual legislation in relation to these objects would be unimaginable.
In other words, reason legislates for nature, which is very clear. Kant established the fundamental principles of the Critique of Pure Reason by legislating nature through reason. And in the realm of freedom, he legislates for freedom through a regulation of free will.
Here we can read that Kant attempted to explain that if we want to legislate for nature, it is through intellect, that is, through the forms of judgment such as time and space, that we legislate for nature.
Therefore, intellect legislates for nature. For human reason, it concerns the ability of human freedom.
