kant's transcendental freedom a thesis submitted to the graduate school of social sciences of ...

145 Pages·2015·0.94 MB·Turkish

KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL FREEDOM

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

BURCU BAŞARAN

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY

MARCH 2015
Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences

Prof. Dr. Meliha Altunışık
Director

I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of
Master of Arts.

Prof. Dr. Ş. Halil Turan
Head of Department

This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Barış Parkan
Supervisor

Examining Committee Members
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Elif Çırakman (METU, PHIL)
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Barış Parkan (METU, PHIL)
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ertuğrul R. Turan (A.U., PHIL)
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced
all material and results that are not original to this work.

Name, Last name: Burcu BAŞARAN

Signature :

iii
ABSTRACT

KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL FREEDOM

Başaran, Burcu
M.A., Department of Philosophy
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Barış Parkan

March 2015, 133 pages

The aim of this study is to initiate a discussion on the reconciliation of freedom and
natural causality in Immanuel Kant’s major work Critique of Pure Reason. In the
Third Antinomy, Kant problematizes transcendental freedom as the reason of the
conflict between causality of freedom and of nature. While the thesis of the Third
Antinomy claims that transcendental freedom does not contradict natural causality,
the antithesis of the Third Antinomy claims that it contradicts natural causality in the
field of appearances.
Kant’s solution to the Third Antinomy is transcendental idealism, which makes a
division between appearances as the settlement of natural causality, and things in
themselves as the settlement of freedom. However, transcendental idealism cannot
solve the conflict in the cosmological context of the Third Antinomy. It merely
shows that though transcendental freedom is not causally possible in the field of
appearances, it is logically possible to think transcendental freedom as a regulative
idea of reason outside the field of appearances.

iv
Transcendental freedom as a regulative idea makes it possible to conceive practical
freedom. Therefore, Kant makes a further division between empirical and intelligible
characters in order to solve the problem in the practical context through a theory of
rational agency. This study constitutes an attempt to consider the role of
transcendental freedom in uniting empirical and intelligible characters in one and the
same self to show whether freedom and natural causality are compatible or not.

Keywords: Transcendental Freedom, Natural Causality, Third Antinomy, Empirical
Character/Intelligible Character, Transcendental Idealism

v
ÖZ

KANT’IN AŞKINSAL ÖZGÜRLÜĞÜ

Başaran, Burcu
Yüksek Lisans, Felsefe Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Barış Parkan

Mart 2015, 133 sayfa

Bu çalışma, Immanuel Kant’ın başlıca eseri olan Saf Aklın Eleştirisi’nde ortaya
koyduğu özgürlük ve doğa yasası arasındaki bağdaşabilirlik problemini incelemeyi
amaçlamaktadır. Üçüncü Antinomi’de Kant, aşkınsal özgürlüğü, doğa nedenselliği
ve özgür nedensellik arasındaki çatışmanın sebebi olarak sorunsallaştırır. Bu
antinominin tezi, aşkınsal özgürlüğün doğa yasası ile çelişkili olmadığını iddia
ederken, antitezi aşkınsal özgürlüğün görüngüler alanında doğa yasası ile çelişkili
olduğunu iddia eder.

Kant, Üçüncü Antinomi’yi, doğa yasasını içinde bulunduran görüngüler alanı ile
özgürlüğü içinde bulunduran kendinde şeyler arasında ayrım yapan aşkınsal idealizm
ile çözer. Ancak aşkınsal idealizm, aşkınsal özgürlük ve doğa yasası tartışmasına
Üçüncü Antinomi’nin teorik bağlamında çözüm sunamaz. Bu teorik bağlamda
aşkınsal idealizm sadece aşkınsal özgürlüğün görüngüler alanında bir nedensellik
olarak mümkün olmadığını, ancak yine de onu görüngüler alanının dışında, aklın
düzenleyici bir idesi olarak düşünmenin mantıksal olarak mümkün olduğunu
gösterir.

vi
Düzenleyici bir ide olarak aşkınsal özgürlük, pratik özgürlüğün düşünülebilmesini
mümkün kılar. Bu nedenle Kant, özgürlük ve doğa yasası tartışmasını pratik
bağlamda rasyonel faillik teorisiyle çözebilmek amacıyla ampirik karakter ve
düşünülür karakter arasında bir ayrım yapar. Bu çalışma, özgürlük ve doğa yasasının
uzlaşabilir olup olmadığını göstermek adına ampirik karakter ve düşünülür karakterin
bir ve aynı kendilikte birleştirilmesinde aşkınsal özgürlüğün rolünü değerlendirmeyi
amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Aşkınsal Özgürlük, Doğa Nedenselliği, Üçüncü Antinomi,
Ampirik Karakter/Düşünülür Karakter, Aşkınsal İdealizm

vii
To Emel and Burak Başaran

viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Barış Parkan for her excellent guidance, advice, encouragement,
patience, caring and valuable insight. Without her support, I would never have been
able to complete this thesis. I would also like to express my gratitude to Assoc. Prof.
Dr. Elif Çırakman for her help, advice, comments and criticism during this study and
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ertuğrul R. Turan for his encouragement, advice and criticism. I am
grateful to my beloved family Emel Başaran, Burak Başaran, Emine Denizaltı,
Emine Şimşek, Şule Gül and my lifetime friends Gül Nalıncı, Leyla Mirjam Erol and
Esin Koç for supporting me throughout my life. I am thankful to Recep Cemal
Akgün for his valuable advice, criticism and help. I would also like express my
sincere gratitude to my dearest friends Tuğba Özcan, Deniz Vidinli and Efe Can
Göksaran, who wrote their theses in the same semester by chance, for their
continuous encouragement and endless tolerance throughout sleepless nights. It
would not have been possible for me to complete my thesis without their motivation.
I especially thank my beloved friends Müge Atala, Özlem Ünlü and Barış Yıldırım
for their encouragement at critical moments, their support in reading my thesis, and
efforts in helping me improve my English grammar. Last but not least, my sincere
thanks goes to my intimate friend Tuğçe Kancı for her endless patience, valuable
insight and continuous motivation throughout the whole process but most of all for
her priceless efforts in helping me develop an awareness of a new way of life.

ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLAGIARISM ............................................................................................................ iii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ iv
ÖZ ............................................................................................................................... vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................ ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. x
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
2. OVERVIEW OF THE FIRST CRITIQUE .............................................................. 6
2.1. Transcendental Aesthetic: The Faculty of Sensibility ................................. 9
2.2. Transcendental Analytic: The Faculty of Understanding .......................... 11
2.2.1 Transcendental Deduction ............................................................. 12
2.3. The Principles of Pure Understanding ....................................................... 16
2.4. The Objective Validity of Knowledge ....................................................... 17
2.5. The Second Analogy.................................................................................. 20
3. THE THIRD ANTINOMY .................................................................................... 29
3.1. Transcendental Dialectic ........................................................................... 29
3.2. Transcendental Illusion .............................................................................. 30
3.2.1. The Faculty of Reason .................................................................. 31
3.2.2. The Antinomy of Pure Reason ..................................................... 34
3.2.2.1. The Idea of the Unconditioned ......................................... 38
3.2.2.2. Mathematical/Dynamical Antinomies .............................. 43
x