![]() There are certainly many good reasons to preserve an old building but a clear and compelling strategy can ensure a rational decision-making process once the strategy has been determined. I have therefore had plenty of opportunities to think about the architect’s and client’s respective roles in deciding whether to design a new building or rehabilitate an existing one. Many of my projects in New York comprise interventions on existing buildings, erally conservative aesthetic-especially within the wealthy substrate of the architect’s client population. For new buildings, these intangible motivations vary radically from those stimulating our approach on existing structures. We can simultaneously engage in conversation and debate regarding the direction the design should take. However, we cannot see, hear or tangibly feel the ideals, spiritual inclinations, and creative sparks that rattle invisibly in our brains and power the process that makes architectural solutions possible. We can plainly see a designer pounding on a keyboard and, in the process, witness her design slowly emerge as a visible form on her computer monitor. The relationship between the two is an interesting study in the marriage of intangible motivation with pragmatic exploration. For example, we don’t see electricity flowing through a wire, but we infer it exists when we observe a light bulb glow after throwing a switch.Īre these words related to architecture? Well, the process of designing buildings comprises both visible and invisible forces. By contrast, a noumenon, (my new favorite word) is a non-observable reality whose existence is indirectly confirmed. Phenomena are “things that appear,” as the philosophers like to say. Finally, the implications of the failure of solution for the critical system will be discussed.A phenomenon is a fact or situation whose existence is established via observation. Through an immanent critique, the solution will be presented as one that transgresses the boundaries of critical philosophy. After an analysis of the debates surrounding Kant’s solution to the antinomy, his solution will be identified as one that applies the concept of an intuitive understanding. Then, the antinomy between the mechanical and teleological conceptions of nature, namely the antinomy of teleological judgment will be presented. The idea of the human standpoint will be characterized as both the core and the outcome of Kant’s critical philosophy. The source of antinomies will be found in the duality of cognitive powers, and the standpoint that arises from this heterogeneity will be presented as the human standpoint. the conflict between mechanism of nature and human freedom, will be discussed as a case. After discussing the regulative status of the principle of causality (the Second Analogy of Experience) and delineating nature as an a priori concept, the question why pure reason inevitably falls into contradiction with itself will be our central concern. First of all, a presentation of the active contribution of the subject to the experience of nature, within the context of Critique of Pure Reason, will be offered. This study aims to explicate what “nature” means after Kant’s Copernican Revolution. PHENOMENA AND NOUMENA HOW TOI explain how this provides Kant with a powerful motivation and reason for denying the so-called ‘neglected alternative’, and conclude by suggesting that the nature of any theological response to Kant will depend upon some fundamental options about how to conceive of the relationship between the creator and creation. I show that Kant has significant theological difficulties ascribing such transcendental freedom to creatures in relation to God, and that he intends transcendental idealism to be a solution to these difficulties. Kant makes this shift in order to protect the possibility of transcedental freedom. Creative tasks carried out by the divine mind in the pre-critical works become assigned to the human noumenal mind, which is conceived of as the (created) source of space, time and causation. Without denying the importance of a range of independent epistemic and metaphysical considerations, I argue that there is an irreducibly theological dimension to the emergence of Kant’s transcendental idealism. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |