Kant's Attack on the Amphiboly of the Concepts of Reflection

Kant's attack on the dihedron of concept of reflection: Inside "negligible" bilateral nature of reflection ", Kant introduced a new transcendental activity which is an a priori review (Kamps smith Reflection "). It is aimed to identify the teacher to which the expression belongs by examining the relationship with the expression.This company has created several powerful ideas (1) It is studied Some of the relationships, especially digital identity are of great interest.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect how the following thinkers are studying the concept of subjective cant in modules. I cover the following thinkers and topics in my reflection log: Arendt, Berlin, Fanon, Marcuse, Foucault, Habermas, Rawis, MacIntyre, Rorty and New Materialism. Hannah Arendt is certainly one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century and is one of the most influential people of political subjectivity. A German-born philosopher introduced the term "vita activa" to political subjectivity. She distinguishes three basic human activities, "labor, work, action" (Arendt, 2000 p: 167-181). These conditions are necessary for humans to live on the earth. Labor is defined as the biological practice of the body and an important need for life. Work maintains an "artificial" world (Arendt, 2000), which is very different from everyday environments.

Hannah Arendt uses Kant's sensor concept as an aesthetic judgment and imagines other people's judgment as related to political judgment. Therefore, she created the political philosophy of "cant style", and as she said, Kant did not write. In the real world she is often trivial about evil as in the case of people like Adolf Eichmann, and I believe that often includes a lack of consensus and discretion. Arendt and JürgenHabermas also took a similar position on Kant's Mandarin and criticized Lyot as using Kant's Mandarin as the basis for true political judgment. Lyotard also believes that Kant's agreement is an important concept to understand political judgment, not for reaching an agreement, but for the possibility of "pleasing" in "discomfort".