Chapter III
The modern European critical tradition has its origin in the Enlightenment movement particularly in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, who attempted at a critique of reason. Kant during his philosophical inquiry of the revision of the liberal humanist tradition replaced metaphysics with critique. As far as Kant was concerned, critique involved the tracing of the origin of experience back to the human faculties of the mind. If science meant a passive description of the world before Kant, science became an active domain where the human categories were imposed. For Kant and his followers, science no longer created knowledge from things in themselves but produced it from the phenomena of the world (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason)
The
…show more content…
Kantian analysis of the human mind was intended to understand the cognitive faculties in order to determine the proper usages and limits of reason. So the Kantian critique of pure reason was an attempt to set the boundaries of the human faculty of reason. He developed an architectural condition for the human mind to answer three crucial questions: What can I know? How can we act morally? What can I hope for? Broadly speaking, Kant divided the mind into three components or faculties. First, the faculty of sensibility which organizes the raw and the chaotic manifold sense of materials in accordance with the forms of sensibility: space and time. These forms are an a priori possession of the mind rather than observed phenomena. Understanding, the second faculty of the mind, takes these appearances and files them under categories of unity, cause, etc. producing objects of cognition. Reason occurs when the understanding no longer applies itself to appearances or sensory objects. The result of reason is the production of ideas in the noumenal realm.
Because ideas cannot be experienced directly, they do not have causes and are positioned in the a-temporal or metaphysical dimension. As such, no one can properly know that ideas such as God, freedom, or immortality exist; they cannot be subject to understanding. Thus in the end, Kant’s critique of metaphysics does in fact rehabilitate a supersensible reality. Only now, universals exist within the interior of the human mind rather than in external, objective reality. These ideas are not simply flights of fancy or chimeras. Although we cannot experience them, they nevertheless follow logical rules of thought, and we can reasonably act as if they exist. For Kant, acting as if freedom were possible is not delusional. In fact, it makes us act morally to conceptualize and act upon the ideas of God or freedom. Kant’s humanistic side is most clearly articulated in his theory of freedom. For Kant, humans are not simply the aggregate of natural forces. Humans are distinctly unique because we freely give to ourselves an imperative to follow. To be moral is to act in accordance with a universal law. In Kant’s writings there are essentially two versions of this categorical imperative: act according to a maxim which can be a universal principle and act in
such a way that you treat humanity as an end not as a means. To be moral is to act beyond the contingency and particularity of everyday life and to act in unison with a transcendentally possible imperative. Society as a whole must be measured against this imperative to see if it is rationally and thus morally true. In the end, by using reason properly and not confusing the faculties of the mind, Kant believed that pre-enlightenment superstition, cruelty, and ignorance would be replaced by both individual liberty and universal peace. Thus as Kant writes in the influential essay ‘An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?’ enlightenment is the courage to use our individual understanding properly to critique the irrationality of the world. While Kant’s intentions were progressive for the time, the results of his liberal humanist tradition of critique are to be questioned. As liberal humanism became a dominant cultural logic of Western society, it became increasingly problematic. For many later critical theorists, liberal humanism led to elitist, colonialist, and patriarchal ideologies. Thus many of the European philosophers find problem with Kant’s universalizing position. They either attempt to reconstruct reason or reject it completely.
In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...
Philosophy is one’s oxygen. Its ubiquitous presence is continuously breathed in and vital to survival, yet its existence often goes unnoticed or is completely forgotten. Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant was one of the many trees depositing this indispensable system of beliefs into the air. Philosophy is present in all aspects of society, no matter how prominent it may be. As Kant was a product of the Scientific Revolution in Europe, the use of reason was an underlying component in the entirety of his ideas. One of his main principles was that most human knowledge is derived from experience, but one also may rely on instinct to know about something before experiencing it. He also stated that an action is considered moral based on the motive behind it, not the action itself. Kant strongly believed that reason should dictate goodness and badness (McKay, 537). His philosophies are just as present in works of fiction as they are in reality. This is exemplified by Lord of the Flies, a fiction novel written by William Golding. The novel strongly focuses on the origins of evil, as well as ethics, specifically man’s treatment of animals and those around him. Kant’s philosophy is embedded in the thoughts and actions of Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon throughout the novel. Kant’s beliefs also slither into “Snake,” a poem by D.H. Lawrence, focusing on the tainting of the pure human mind by societal pressures and injustices. Overall, both the poet in “Snake” and Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon in Lord of the Flies showcase Immanuel Kant’s theories on ethics, reasoning, and nature.
Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.
“[Kant] fails… to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.”
Immanuel Kant is one of the renowned representatives of German modern philosophy which was predominantly built on the philosophical concepts of human right, mind, morals and the importance of ownership. His central concept is reason and philosophical epistemology is based not only on theoretical, but also combined with the empirical aspects, which refers to the practical philosophy that covers from human behavior to human action. Generally speaking, the practical philosophy deals with the ground concept that relates to the human deliberative action. In the “Critique of Pure Reason” says that there is only congenital right, the independence which is the right to be detached from the other’s interest. Kant’s
Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.
Everyone on the planet does not experience the same things. They come from different countries, racial and ethnic groups, socio-economic statuses, environments, and many other factors that influence how a person is raised and grows throughout life. Therefore, everyone perceives reality in different ways. Our beliefs and expectations about reality the world can also influence how we experience reality. According to Psychology Today, there are many things that people do that distort reality. For example, the way that people focus their attention can alter their perceptions. When a person has a belief they often only look for evidence that supports their belief and disregard evidence that contradicts their belief. This is called conformation bias. People see things as they want to see them, even if there is evidence to discredit their beliefs. One way for a person to avoid conformation bias is to examine evidence that does not support their belief instead of just ignoring it. This can make a person view the world around them more objectively. Another thing that people do that distorts their reality is that they reconstruct their memories. People often cannot fully remember their memories. These
Immanuel Kant was German philosopher who was an influential figure in modern philosophy since he was one of the first to analyze the process of thinking. Kant was not only just a prominent figure in philosophy, but contributed greatly in metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics. Some of his major works were the Critique of Pure Reason, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Critique of Practical Reason, and Critique of Judgement. His form of ethics or philosophy is known as Kantian Ethics which are mostly based off of deontology, which is the ethical position that judges an action based on its morality and not the consequence. Like any philosophy on ethics, there are pros and cons to it and we will analyze them. I personally believe that
Philosophy is the study of knowledge, reality, existence and thought processes. Immanuel Kant from Prussia, (currently Russia) for whom was influential during the Enlightenment period; and John Stuart Mill from Great Britain whom was present during the Romantic era, explored ideas that they believed would create a more fair and just society, by trying to legislate morality. Morality cannot be legislated because it is a concept of right and wrong created by each different religion, region and culture; issues are not black and white.
However, Kant’s moral philosophy view is not without its problems. This is because the good will is not always inherently good without being qualified despite what Kant may claim. This can be seen as even if a person is an altruist who always tries to do their duty they can end up generating misery instead of pleasure. For example, say that you are going out and stealing from the rich to give to those less fortunate. In doing this you are only trying to help people and follow a duty to aid your fellow man, and it does not matter what consequences you may face due to your actions as you are supposed to have a good will even if it will get you into trouble. For a more extreme example say you are hiding Jews in your attic in Nazi Germany. The
For Kant and Luther, the question of human freedom and the amount individuals are at liberty of, if any, is determined in an effort to achieve high morality. However, it is precisely the outlook that Kant deems fatalist which Luther argues for, that is, freedom through faith. For Luther, we do not possess the liberty required to live a moral life without God’s guidance. On the other hand, for Kant, the predestination that Luther argues for places individuals in a state of “immaturity” and therefore unable to achieve freedom to be moral. In contrast to Luther’s argument, Kant’s self-determination, autonomy, and morality are closely related to his notion of human freedom.
Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills. Emmanuel Kant Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons, regardless of their individual desires or partial interests.
The Transcendental Deductions of the pure concept of the understanding in Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, in its most general sense, explains how concepts relate a priori to objects in virtue of the fact that the power of knowing an object through representations is known as understanding. According to Kant, the foundation of all knowledge is the self, our own consciousness because without the self, experience is not possible. The purpose of this essay is to lay out Kant’s deduction of the pure concept of understanding and show how our concepts are not just empirical, but concepts a priori. We will walk through Kant’s argument and reasoning as he uncovers each layer of understanding, eventually leading up to the conclusion mentioned above.
If we desire X, we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations: the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morality, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viability of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.
Finally, Kant saw the world as he wanted to see it, not the reality of it. In reality human beings are social animals that can be deceived, and can become irrational, this distinction is what makes us human, and it is that which makes us make mistakes. Kant states good arguments in his essay however his belief that people are enslaved and shackled by the “guardians” when he writes “shackles of a permanent immaturity” (Kant, 1) is sometimes absurd when the same guardians are the people that encourage our minds of thinking.