Epistemic Function of Imagination in Avicenna and Kant
Imagination and its functions are one of the important issues that should be emphasized in the context of the processes of obtaining knowledge. In the course of history, one of the names that made significant contributions to the discussions in this context is Avicenna who one of the distinguished figures of the classical period and the other is Kant who the peak name of the modern period. A comparison of the imagination theories of these two thinkers on the one hand will help us better understand the subject and on the other hand it will help us determine to what extent the views of Avicenna and Kant on the subject contain similarities and differences. In this context, the main thesis of the study is that Kant's theory of imagination in terms of its nature and the problems it addresses is significantly different from the Avicenna approach. This basically stems from the fact that, while Kant considers the synthesis function of the faculty of imagination in its relationship with the unity of consciousness as an a priori act that makes experience possible, Avicenna examines the functions of this faculty in the context of explaining the process of abstraction. Depending on this, Kant treats the functions of the imagination as at the level of conscious and as a comprehensive act.
- Back, A. (2005). Imagination in Avicenna and Kant. Topicos, 29, 101-130.
- Beck, L. W. (1978). Essays on Kant and Hume. Yale University Press.
- Bennett, J. (1975). Kant’s Analytic. Cambridge University Press.
- Çıvgın, A. Descartes, Hume ve Kant Örnekleri Üzerinden Bilginin Tesisinde Hayal Gücünün İşlevi: Bir Eleştiri Denemesi [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Uludağ Üniversitesi.
- Durusoy, A. (1993). İbn Sînâ Felsefesinde İnsan ve Âlemdeki Yeri. İFAV Yayınları.
- Ewing, A. C. (1938). A Short Commantary on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. The University of Chicago Press.
- Guyer, P. (2009). Editorial Notes. Critique of Pure Reason. (Paul G. And Allen W, Çev.). Cambridge University Press.
- Guyer, P. (2010). The Deduction of the Categories: The Metapysical and Transcendental Deductions. Paul G. (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason içinde (s. 118-150). Cambridge University Press.
- Hartnack, J. (2001). Kant’s Theory of Knowledge An Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason. Hackett Publishing Company.
- İbn-i Sînâ. (2005). İşaretler ve Tenbihler. (Ali D. & Muhittin M. & Ekrem D. Çev.). Litera Yayıncılık.
- İbn-i Sînâ. (2014). En-Necat Felsefenin Temel Konuları. (Kübra Ş. Çev.). Kabalcı Yayınları.
- İbn-i Sînâ. (2021). Kitâbü’ş-Şifa: Nefs. (Mehmet Z. T. Çev.). Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi.
- Kalın. İ. (2014). Akıl ve Erdem. Küre Yayınları.
- Kant, I. (1996). Critique of Pure Reason. (Werner S. P. Çev.). Hackett Publishing.
- Kant, I. (2007). Antropology, History and Education. (Mary G. Çev.). Günter, Z. and Robert B. L. (Ed). Cambridge University Press.
- Kant, I. (2009). Critique of Pure Reason. (Paul G. And Allen W. Çev.). Cambridge University Press.
- Küçükparmak, A. (2017). Kant’a Göre Bilgi ve Metafiziğin İmkânı. İz Yayıncılık.
- Makreel, R. A. (1990). Imagination and Interpretation in Kant: The Hermeneutical Import of the Critique of Judgement. The University of Chicago Press.
- Rahman, F. (1981). Avicenna’s Psychology. Oxford University Press.
- Rundell, J. and Robinson, G. (1994). Tahayyül Gücünü Yeniden Düşünmek. (Ertuğrul, B. Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
- Paton, H. J. (1936). Kant’s Metaphysic of Experience Volume I. Unwin Ltd.
- Tiryaki, M. Z. (2015). İbn-i Sînâ Felsefesinde Mütehayyile/Müfekkire ve Vahim [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Marmara Üniversitesi.
- Wolfson, H. A. (1973). The Internal Senses in Latin, Arabic and Hebrew Philosophic Texts. Isadore, T. And George, W. (Ed.), Studies in The History of Philosophy and Religion içinde (s.69-133). Harvard University Press.