تبریز: دانشگاه تبریز، دانشکده ادبیات فارسی و زبانهای خارجی، گروه فلسفه
۱۲۲ص
چاپی
فاقد اطلاعات کامل
کارشناسی ارشد
ادبیات فارسی و زبانهای خارجی، گروه فلسفه
۱۳۹۰/۰۶/۳۱
تبریز: دانشگاه تبریز، دانشکده ادبیات فارسی و زبانهای خارجی، گروه فلسفه
teaching sبviews and thought.- Constant alternation between subjectivism and phenomenalism.- The absence of enough proof and explanation for some problems and views of Critique of Pure Reason.۵- To reach the dissatifactive and unjustifiable conclusions ۶- Perverse interpretation of Berkeley sبoriented approach as well.mith has some criticisms of Aesthetic as follows: - The absence of carefulness in using technical terms.- Contradiction and inconsistency in some of Kant ت research on Critique of Pure Reason is not an interpretation but a commentary . ۲- In this commentary , Smith plans to omit nothing. He is not inclined to criticize Critique of Pure Reason fundamentally as well. He does not attempt to investigate Critique of Pure eason in accordance with a theory. In other words, his work is basically text-oriented.۳- In dealing with Critique of Pure Reason , Smith is not the follower of any school or theory.His theoretical independence in his approach to critical philosophy is quite obvious. His pproach to Critique of Pure Reason is not based on Analytical Philosophy nor ranscendental Idealism. He is not interested in Existantialism sبstatement. After studying and investigating his commentary to Aesthetic, we achieved some features and advantages of his commentary in comparison with the other commentaries and interpretations as follow:۱- It should be mentioned that Smith sبCritique of Pure Reason. Then he examines space and time as pure forms of sensible intuition in detail. In the process of explicating the arguments on space and time , he tries to eliminate some ambiguities and complexities of Kant sبNorman Kemp Smith investigates, analyzes and sometimes criticizes the key words and their definition in the beginning of the section of Transcendental Aesthetic in his work by the name ofA Commentary to Kant