immanuel kant song

 

the transcendental deduction

of the pure concepts of understanding

 

<순수 지성 개념의 초월적 연역>

by immanuel kant

translation by roderick t. long

music and vocals by paul l. fine

© 1984, 1999 Paul L. Fine and Roderick T. Long




let us first divide cognition into rational analysis
and sensory perception (which descartes considered valueless).
now reason gives us concepts which are true but tautological;
sensation gives us images whose content is phenomenal.

자, 먼저 인식을이성적 분석과 (데카르트가 무가치한 것으로 보았던) 감각적 지각으로 나누어 봐요.그러면 이성은 우리에게 참이지만 동어반복적인 개념을 주고감각은 우리에게 현살적 내용을 갖는 심상(이미지)을 줘요.
Whatever greets our senses must exist in space and time
for else it would be nowhere and nowhen and therefore slime;
the space and time we presuppose before we sense reality
must have innate subjective transcendental ideality. 우리 감각이 만나는 것은 반드시 공간과 시간 안에 있어야 해요왜냐하면 그렇지 않다면 그것은 어떤 곳, 어떤 시간에도 있을 수 없고,따라서 점액처럼 되버릴 거예요.우리가 실재를 지각하기 전에 미리 전제하는 공간과 시간은반드시 본유적 주관적 초월적 관념성을 가지고 있어야 해요.
Thus space and time
are forms of our perception
whereby sensation’s synthesized in orderly array;
the same must hold
for rational conception:
in everything we think, the laws of logic must hold sway.그러니까 공간과 시간은 우리 지각의 형식들이고,감각은 질서정연한 방식으로 종합된 거예요.이건 이성적 개념에 대해서도 똑 같아요.우리가 생각하는 모든 것은 논리 법칙에 의해서 지배되어야 해요.
But a problem here arises with respect to natural science:
while empirical in method, on pure thought it lays reliance.
Although for Newton’s findings we to Newton give the glory
Newton never could have found them if they weren’t known a priori. 근데 여기서 자연 과학과 관련해서 문제가 하나 생겨나요.
We know that nature governed is by principles immutable
but how we come to know this is inherently inscrutable;
that thought requires logic is a standpoint unassailable
but for objects of our senses explanations aren’t available.

So let's attempt
to vivisect cognition
by critical analysis in hope that we may find
the link between
pure thought and intuition:
a deduction transcendental will shed light upon the mind.

You may recall that space and time are forms of apprehension
and therefore what we sense has spatiotemporal extension;
whatever is extended is composed of a plurality
but through an act of synthesis we form a commonality.

If we are to be conscious of a single concrete entity
each part of its extension must be given independently
combining in a transcendental apperceptive unity
to which I may ascribe the term “self-conscious” with impunity.

The order of
our various sensations
arises from connections not beheld in sense alone;
our self creates
the rules of their relations
and of this combination it is conscious as its own.

While these rules correspond to scientific causal laws
the question of their constancy remains to give us pause;
but once we recollect the source of our self-conscious mind,
to this perverse dilemma a solution we may find.

The self is nothing but its act of synthesis sublime;
this act must be the same to be self-conscious over time.
The rules for combination of its selfhood form the ground
so what we perceive tomorrow by today’s laws must be bound.

These constant laws
whereby we shape experience
are simply those which regulate our reason: that is plain.
So don’t ask why
the stars display invariance --
the Cosmos is produced by your disoriented brain! http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/philosophy/kant.htm