U članku se ispituje Kantova prosvjetiteljska koncepcija metafizike kao znanosti koju valja držati slobodnom od ideoloških predrasuda i izvanracionalnih kognitivnih resursa te je ustanoviti pod uvjetima javnog, intersubjektivno važećeg diskursa. Analiziram Kantovu vlastitu interpretaciju njegove transcendentalne filozofije kao “metafizike metafizike” i zastupam ekstenzionalni djelomični identitet kritike metafizike i metafizike koja je tako učinjena mogućom. Posebice identificiram “buduću metafiziku”, koju je Kant zamislio kao “metafiziku prirode općenito” ili “fiziologiju čistog uma”, koju je Kant bio zacrtao, ali je sam nikada nije proveo (...) i koju ne treba brkati s “metafizikom materijalne prirode” koju je Kant izložio u svojim Metafizičkim načelima prirodne znanosti . Nadalje pokazujem kako je kod Kanta “ograničenje” razuma i njegovih čistih pojmova na osjetilno zrenje kompenzirano “ograničavanjem” osjetilnosti i njenih formalnih uvjeta na pojave, uz isključenje “praznog prostora” onog neosjetilnog. Oslanjajući se na Kantovo razlikovanje “ograničenja” i “granice” , utvrđujem točnu poziciju kritičke metafizike “na granici” osjetilnog svijeta i razumskog svijeta. Zaključno tvrdim da je “buduća metafizika koja će biti moguća kao znanost” za Kanta ograničena na transcendentalnu filozofiju, uz isključenje teoretske spoznaje nadosjetilnoga, koja je time zauvijek predana predmetnom području praktički zasnovanoga racionalnog, ali ne-znanstvenog vjerovanja ili vjere .The essay examines Kant’s Enlightenment conception of metaphysics as a science to be kept free of ideological prejudice and extrarational cognitive resources and to be established under the conditions of public, intersubjectively valid discourse. I analyze Kant’s self-interpretation of his transcendental philosophy as “metaphysics of metaphysics” and argue for the extensional partial identity of the critique of metaphysics and the metaphysics so rendered possible. In particular, I identify the “future metaphysics” envisioned by Kant as the “metaphysics of nature in general” or the “physiology of pure reason,” which was projected by Kant but never carried out by himself and is not to be confused with the “metaphysics of material nature” presented by Kant in his Metaphysical Principles of Natural Science . I further show how in Kant the “restriction” of the understanding and its pure concepts to sensible intuition is counterbalanced by the “bounding” of sensibility and its formal conditions to the appearances, at the exclusion of the “empty space” of the non-sensory. In drawing on Kant’s distinction between “limit” and “boundary” , I establish the precise position of critical metaphysics “on the boundary” of the world of sense and the world of the understanding. In concluding, I argue that for Kant a “future metaphysics that will be possible as science” is restricted to transcendental philosophy, at the exclusion of the theoretical cognition of the supersensible, which is thereby delegated forever to the object domain of practically based rational but non-scientific belief or faith. (shrink)

Из прил.: Метафизическая концепция Ницше и ее роль в европейском мышлении: вечное возвращение равного : главы из лекций 1936-1940-х годов / М. Хайдеггер.

This paper argues that Marquis de Sade is a more original and relevant Enlightenment philosopher than it is commonly thought. We argue that de Sade is a notable author and a noteworthy naturalist thinker in contemporary times as well, concerning modern science, organized religion, (homo)sexuality, political violence and prevalent sociocultural norms. In order to demonstrate these claims, we thoroughly analyse de Sadeʼs philosophies of naturalism and materialism, i.e., his metaphysics and his radical ethics of “immorality”, based on viewing (human) Nature (...) as a sole organizing, creative and destructive principle. Furthermore, we detail his atheist and anti-theistic arguments, which he consistently uses to reject the possibility of a God and all supernatural beings, coupled with his social and political criticism of a faith-based society. Thus, we outline the philosophical arguments that made him a controversial, infamous and denounced thinker, and which socially distanced him from the prevailing philosophical milieu. We also argue for the possibility that he deserves a more prominent place in the history of philosophy which is not congruent with the various “rehabilitative” and “revisionist” narratives regarding de Sade as an early champion of the Counter-Enlightenment, anti-science and postmodernism. (shrink)

Данная книга предназначена для студентов художественных специальностей, преподавателей философско-культурологических и искусствоведческих дисциплин, а также для всех интересующих отечественной культурой.