DVA ASPEKTA“ ILI „DVA SVETA“: INTERPRETACIJE KANTOVOG REŠENJA TREĆEG SUKOBA U ANTINOMIJI
“TWO ASPECTS” OR “TWO WORLDS”: INTERPRETATIONS OF KANT’S RESOLUTION OF THIRD CONFLICT IN ANTINOMY

Summary/Abstract: In literature, there are two interpretations of Kant’s resolution of third conflict in antinomy – “two words” and “two aspects“. I will attempt to show that it is not possible to decide which interpretation is correct solely by referring to Kant’s “letter” (although referring to “letter” is a necessary condition). Afterwards I will offer argument that goes in favor to Allison’s “two-aspect” interpretation. With this argument I will attempt to demonstrate 1) that Kohl’s version of interpretation of “two worlds” (which I will show it represents the strongest version of the interpretation) is contradictory to Kant’s intention of validity of both determinism and freedom in his theory and 2) that the intention is coherent to Allison’s “two-aspect” interpretation. The proof for 1) will be based upon a fact that determinism cannot be considered irrelevant to any of the contexts, which will take the interpretation of “two worlds” to the absurd. On the other hand, “two-aspect” interpretation allows context in which determinism is irrelevant and that will be the base of the proof for 2). Finally, I will attempt to show that the chapter which refers to resolution of third conflict in antinomy is coherent to the chapter named Canon of pure understanding. “Patchwork” thesis is against this thinking and I will, as well as interpreters Kohl and Esteves have, dismiss it, but I will assert that Esteves’s defense of this coherence is more successful than Kohl’s because he presupposes interpretation of “two worlds”, while Esteves implicitly presupposes “two-aspect” interpretation.

• Details
• Contents