چکیده:
Schopenhauer, in his book 'The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason', criticizes Kant's interpretation of the principle of causality as presented in the section on pure understanding and in the second analogy. These criticisms are raised around three main axes. This article, by examining the aforementioned criticisms, seeks to defend the Kantian explanation and show that Schopenhauer did not reach a correct understanding of Kant's arguments. Although this article strengthens Kant's position against Schopenhauer's criticisms, the author intends to point out that Kant's view separates causality from its original meaning and assigns another meaning to it that is not consistent with the purpose that philosophers had in raising the discussion of causality, and therefore a critique from another horizon is directed at Kant's statement.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Since sensory perceptions merely follow one another and are determined in inner sense, they do not reveal any connection on their own and cannot bring the necessary connection of phenomena in time and space to cognition, therefore, any necessity of knowing objects must be sought in the transcendental conditions of the cognitive subject.
However, Schopenhauer does not consider causality to be the transcendental condition for determining objects within the sphere of validation of necessary relationships, but rather, by revising the foundations of Kant, he believes that we understand objects immediately and under the laws of causality.
Therefore, since firstly, objective change or the succession of states of things results from their transmission from their real and absolute place outside to the mind, and secondly, observing the series of impressions alone cannot lead to their objective order, Kant argues that the transcendental condition for any objective order in the series of impressions is the law of causality, which makes the occurrence of every change dependent on another change.
Schopenhauer considers the nature of the two examples to be the same, with the only difference being that in the first case, the change begins from the observer's own body, whose life is naturally the starting point of his perceptions, however, this body is also an object among objects and is therefore subject to the laws of this objective physical world...
Kant says that if the category of causality is not a transcendental condition of understanding, it is impossible to grasp the irreversibility of the successive series of impressions of the ship, meaning that the only reason for discovering this difference is the category of causality.
(
, 
, 
)
