Desafios na interpretação sobre a natureza da Faculdade da Imaginação em Immanuel Kant

Abstract

This study investigates the interpretative challenges concerning the nature of the faculty of imagination in Immanuel Kant’s philosophy. The objective is not to provide a definitive solution to the question of its nature, but rather to understand why it emerges as a problem and what obstacles make its resolution difficult. To this end, an analysis is first carried out of three very different interpretations: the assimilation of imagination to the understanding, proposed by Caimi; Heidegger’s interpretation of imagination as the common root of sensibility and understanding; and Calábria’s defense of imagination as a sensible faculty. The research then turns to an analytical reading of both editions of the Critique of Pure Reason (1781, 1787) and the Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View (1798), identifying passages that reinforce or contradict the different positions. The methodology combines a bibliographic review of relevant commentators with a direct textual analysis of Kant’s works, aiming to remain faithful to the philosopher’s writings while highlighting passages that exhibit the greatest contradictions. The results show that, although each strand offers partial solutions, all face significant impasses: Caimi’s proposal preserves the receptivity of sensibility but conflicts with explicit passages that assign imagination to sensibility; Heidegger offers a radical interpretation, but highly speculative when compared to other commentators; Calábria, in turn, consistently supports the sensible status of imagination, although the difficulty remains of reconciling its active character with Kant’s description of sensibility as purely receptive. The conclusion indicates that the problem of the nature of imagination in Kant remains open to further investigations, proving central to Kantian epistemology and to a broader understanding of human imagination. The study thus contributes to expanding academic debate, offering insights both for the interpretation of Kant’s work and for future philosophical and interdisciplinary research on the role of imagination in knowledge.