AGREEMENTS AND DISAGREEMENTS BY THE INTERNAL DYNAMIC OF A FACULTY: THE "URTEILSKRAFT" IN THE THIRD KANT'S CRITIQUE

The discussion about the reflexive Faculty of Judgment and the transcendental principle of purposiveness of nature as its a priori legislative principle has generated, and still continues to generate, multiple and diverse interpretations. The decision about the unity or disunity of the third Critique also depends on this question. Some of these interpretations are based on the Appendix to the Transcendental Dialectic of the Critique of Pure Reason and they think from there, with a variety of shades, the claim presented by Kant in the third Critique. It will not be the intention of this study to question this way of research highlighted by solvent commentators of Kant's work, but rather to confront it with the statement that Kant makes in (sic)23 -and in other sections of this work-about the unity of the faculty of judgment and its legislative principle. If we consider this signal a way may open complementary to the above mentioned, it gives us access to another double constitution of the faculty of judgment, which is twofold double: as aesthetic and teleological; as reflective and determinative. In this paper we will only focus on to the relationship between the first two properties and the mode of their belonging to the same faculty.