However, if we follow the beliefs established by the Copernican Revolution as it is now, such a problem would not arise.
Firstly, a priori concept does not deny that things are real. You need to ask whether phenomena exist or not, of course they are real, of course they are real, of course they exist. They are phenomena, but phenomena do not mean they are unreal. Phenomena are also real phenomena, but in other words, they are real phenomena. They exist in the reality of phenomena because they have a basic assumption that objects in space are, after all, outside of us. So, of course, the phenomenon is, and how can we have a phenomenon? We don't know in what way external objects act, and ideas arise. Our subjective ideas cannot produce phenomena. He said, 'Without experience, ideas are blind, ideas have no experience.' To make sense, there always needs to be an external thing, but we all know what effect it has. Otherwise, why do we sometimes see things in front of us, and sometimes we can't see things? If there is nothing, then there will be no effect on us.
However, he doesn't know how to make it work, and we can't recognize what he thinks is affecting us. Since we don't know or recognize anything, we will face it from the perspective. But it can be confirmed that the phenomenon is real, so we will come to understand the image.
Secondly, the reality in space. Speaking of reality, the fact that the consciousness of reality corresponds to the universally necessary form of our consciousness proves that they are not illusions. If they are illusions, they should be different from what you saw just now. The apples seen by Zhang San and Li Si are the same, indicating that the phenomenon of apples has a conceptual form towards Zhang San and Li Si, or towards us all.
In conceptual form, all of us have it. Zhang San and Li Si, or in other words, people who saw an apple 500 years before and after Zhang San and Li Si, were the same as him. Otherwise, if it is an illusion, if the phenomenon is true or false, then it is certain that Zhang San saw an apple. It cannot be said that Li Si's apple is a watermelon, then there can be no consistency.
Our feeling, that is why there is rational consistency, is because they contain our common and inevitable forms or concepts.
Kant believed that if skepticism could not arise, because the emergence of skepticism, on the one hand, acknowledges that it belongs to itself, and on the other hand, feels that we cannot step out of our own experience, cannot detach ourselves from experience, and cannot accept things as pure experience, then we are sorry, and doubt will arise.
The first question is whether things can exist, and the second question is whether our knowledge of things we know is reliable. If our knowledge of things cannot be relied upon, these two fundamental questions of skepticism will inevitably arise.
Kant believed that by adopting his dualistic transcendental philosophy, the problem would be explained. On the other hand, we also need to deal with natural laws. Kant believed in distinguishing between phenomena and matter, and this binary approach also ensured naturalism. Kant insisted on a universal natural situation, and everything that happens in nature must obey universal laws.
But doesn't that mean Kant is materialistic?
Because he said, I limit nature only to the realm of phenomena, and I do not believe that natural laws can be applied to things themselves. Natural laws are effective for phenomena, and whether they are effective for nature itself or not, I do not know because there is no way to know, and I cannot understand nature as a whole.
So, in this regard, he is fundamentally different from materialism, and as a result, he completely destroys a fundamental viewpoint of materialism that everything that exists must exist in nature, while Kant believed that ideas do not exist, and therefore do not exist in nature.
Therefore, Kant believed that the materialist viewpoint holds that everything that exists must exist in nature. However, this concept avoids phenomena and things themselves, assuming that various objects are true to phenomena and things themselves. However, of course, it is absolutely wrong because phenomena and entities are completely different, even our own and how they are different. However, we do not know where they are different, and why we cannot grasp the things themselves.
How can you say that the phenomenon itself is also true, which is certainly impossible. Kant believed that naturalism persisted, but naturalism would not slide towards a crude materialism. Kant faced one of the major theoretical problems at that time, which was the mutual excavation between rational criticism and nature. He believed that the problem of distinguishing phenomena and things themselves should also be solved.
Firstly, criticism does not weaken the natural body, but rather supports naturalism, because reason indicates that the fundamental principles of natural science apply to all phenomena without exception, to any object of experience. It is actually consolidating nature, rather than disintegrating and weakening the natural body.
Conversely, naturalism does not weaken the foundation of criticism. Because the theory of prior ideas suggests that naturalism only operates in the realm of phenomena and cannot be extended to various fields, and whether the free soul is immortal or whether God exists is a problem of the thing itself, not the phenomenon, and it is beyond its control. Therefore, the principle of naturalism does not erase the fundamental principle of free reason.
And in the past, because it was not a phenomenon or material itself, since everything in the world is not necessarily in accordance with laws, people who have or do not have it also have to obey objective laws. Now, freedom belongs to the domain, and inevitable laws belong to the domain. Therefore, in the domain, we can sacrifice our lives for righteousness, prioritize others over ourselves, and do many things that ordinary people find difficult to understand, because others may think we all have a desire. However, in reality, why we have freedom is because we have broken through this objective and inevitable law.
This binary division leaves space for freedom. This binary prior reductionism, also known as first use idealism, actually guarantees the status of reason.
People die for wealth and birds die for food, which is in line with the laws of materialism. However, there are also people like Yan Hui or Zhuangzi who completely believe that another way of life is a more rational way for them.
I'm not like you think, you seem to have a little bit of a small profit, and then I'll change. So, reason has been preserved, ensuring the freedom of human history and not being determined by so-called objective natural laws and experiences, because in Kant's view, there is no standard for our human activities.
Why do we humans live? Why do we live like this? Why do we act like this?
Standards do not exist. Before Kant, French materialists believed that humans live to satisfy their desires, because we humans are fundamentally animals of desire. Of course, all human behavior can be inferred from this point, which is a very convincing conclusion. It is a viewpoint that permeates the entire society from the East to the West, from the South to the North, and the whole world. Treating people as someone who can be completely calculated by computers is what you will do next.
Because he never imagined that in history, there was no era like today where freedom is spoken of, and there is no era like today where freedom is least respected. He combined freedom with desire, making it subservient to desire, and turning freedom into something or a low-quality cosmetic.
Everyone who claims to have received modern education or modern art would think that this is a very tragic thing, while Kant believes that this is two different things. We humans have a natural side and a free side.
So, he has always said that he is a citizen of two worlds, as a material person, of course, he must obey the laws of matter, that is, he has birth, aging, sickness, and death. But as another member of the Free Kingdom, he can think far ahead. He can think high and adopt a different attitude and approach to life. So, he kept saying that I am a citizen of two worlds. So, Kant's dualism is not just a technical method in a narrow sense of methodology, but also contains some of his ideals.
I think it's not purely a method, it's a technical approach. I solved the previous problems. Naturalism and rationality are not mutually exclusive. I have overcome skepticism, and I have preserved naturalism for him, but I will not let him become materialism. He is not just his method.
Just like the rationalist philosopher Xu, he naturally believed that he was working under the tradition of Plato. He believed that the problems he faced, the problems he opposed, and how to solve them all came down from tradition.
So, according to Kant's Copernican revolution, we first need to consider a tradition that assumes we now have an intuitive judgment and method. I see a triangle, and according to Plato, who was present, he would say that if we can make judgments about a triangle, there are two conditions. First, I am indeed facing a triangle underneath, which is a prerequisite. I cannot face such a cylinder. I say that the triangle itself is wrong. We have two conditions for saying that the triangle is right.
Firstly, we are indeed facing a perceptual object of a triangle. This triangle.
Secondly, Plato said that we also need an abstract form of a triangle. Without the form of a triangle, we cannot recognize it. This is because in China, we generally have not received education, and we always believe that the nature of things is deduced from our thinking, without considering that the form of things is the fundamental basis for their existence.
Assuming we don't have a concept, Latour would think, where was the first table in the world? Whether there was a table or the concept of a table first, the first carpenter must have had the concept of a table first. Then, according to the so-called abstract operation form, I took down the wood, whether the purpose was wood, birch wood, or other wood, and made it according to my mind's design. The form must be an abstract form, and I calculated it.
