Kant believes that an act has a moral worth only if it is performed out of a sense of duty since his primary premise of his ethics is “what ought I do?” (pg.176). Kant basis his principles of moral ethics on rational procedures and distinguishes the concept of duty from the “self and others” (p. 177) asserting that all actions must be performed only out of a sense of duty to acquire some worth and appreciation from the moralistic point of view. Kant also asserts that duties can be “perfect and imperfect” (p.178). Kant asserts that in doing an action it is not important to consider the desires but rather the belief that the action is right and adheres to the moral law.
Thus, Kant implies that for an action to be affirmed moral, it is not sufficient for it to originate from noble inclination or disposition, only from the sense of duty or good will. Kant also argues that it is not important for the action to be accomplished in its purpose, the fact that it has been done with a true sense of duty and good will makes the action morally acceptable. Kant implies that the consequences of an action cannot judge the morality or motive of an action and that even actions which produce good results are not moral, if they have not been performed out of a sense of duty but with some underlying motives. According to Kant, duties which are perfect are “complete” and examples of such duties include “refraining from false promising, refraining from coercion and violence” since these duties “are obligations which can be met for others” (p. 178).
I disagree with Kant when he states that all moral actions stem from a sense of duty because Kant bases his premise on the fact that as humans we are “agents” “capable of self-determination, and specifically of determination in accordance with the principles of duty” (p. 178). Additionally, Kant identifies the importance of moral law and not of conformity since when humans do things because God wants them to do so, they are not acting morally in the literal sense but are only doing the right things because they fear hell or desire heaven. If this were to be the premise of his moral law then all religious humans who show respect for the Divine law and adhere to it would be erring and immoral in their acts.
Kant asserts that when humans act not out of a sense of duty but rather from the fear of God, it makes them do so due to their ulterior motives of pleasing God or from saving themselves from his fury and consequently being sent to hell. If this thesis of Kant is to be believed then God would not hold the Ulterior place in the life of believing humans and men and women would become their judges, affirming their action to be morally right because they performed them out of a sense of duty to do so. Thus, a man who feels he has to save his wife and has no money to buy her medicines would consider it morally right to steal and pay for her drugs to save her life. This presents the flaw in Kant’s thesis since “Kant is driven to a dual view of man” in which he believes humans to be both, “phenomenal” so that they are “natural and are casually determined” and “noumenal” in which humans are “non-natural and self-determining” (p. 178).
In philosophy, there is nothing as hard as trying to harmonize the differing views of philosophical theories brought forth for instance by foster fathers like Emanuel Kant and Milton Friedman.
For instance ‘Can Kant’s theory of universality be achieved by applying Friedman’s ideas of corporate social responsibilities?’ this question will demand that one critically evaluates the values of the two philosophers.
Kant was a German philosopher born in 1724 and died in 1804. He is remembered for his contribution in philosophy through categorical imperative derived from the concept of duty.
According to Kant those values which are essentially convincing and are ‘good in and of themselves’ are to be complied with fully and by all people to realize harmony with the general law of moral.
Milton Friedman lived between 1912 and 2006. He was an American economist as well as statistician of his time. He is remembered for his immense contribution in price theory, monetarism, applied microeconomics, floating exchange rates, volunteer military, permanent income hypothesis as well as Friedman test.
The paper argues that it is not possible for Kant’s theory of universality to be achieved by applying Friedman’s ideas of social cooperate responsibility.
Supporting arguments
Friedman argued that organization owes their responsibility to the proprietors as well as the relevant stakeholders. For that matter he believed that it is not right for organizations or businesses to engage in social corporate responsibilities (Friedman, 1970).
However, on the other hand, Kant advocated for a situation where there is greater benefit for the greatest number of people and this should be a universal law.
To Kant, organizations are obliged to invest some of their earning to improve the welfare of the majority in the society rather than solemnly making profits to benefit the few stakeholders provided the move is not for selfish gains.
Before continuing with this paper it would be rational to define corporate social responsibilities. The term has been defined as a firm’s sense of responsibility towards both the environment and the community in which it operates (Friedman, 1970).
It is no doubt that the link between businesses and the society has for a very long time been a source of intellectual interest to ethicists.
According to Friedman, 1970 he believed that when organization engage in social responsibility, a closer analysis will reveal that it aims to improve its image in the eye of the consumers, the government, the local community as well as the general public.
Friedman thus strongly denies the link that corporate organizations have any direct social responsibility to the society hence opposes calls that firms should contribute towards solving problems encountered by societies. In his view, he stated that this can be used as a means of reaping more profits by continuing to do business within its environments.
The increase in profit will definitely benefit a few individuals. For instance, shareholders will enjoy an increase in dividends, stock prices will rise and employees will get pay rise (Friedman, 1970). However, based on Kant’s view, majority should be the beneficiary of any act.
Additionally in situation where a firm acts on free will and its acts are in accordance with set principles then there is no problem. Nonetheless, if the firm makes the decision to engage in social responsibilities with the aim of benefiting itself then this can be viewed as a means only but not as an end in itself.
Considering that only a few individuals will benefit from a firm engaging in a corporate social responsibility, then there is no chance that universality will be realized.
On the same line of thinking, Kant held that a rational will must be autonomous and free. Hence in case an organization resolve to engage in social responsibility with the aim of swaying the views of the public and other stakeholders, then it fails to conform with universality.
With the assumptions that corporate social responsibility more often than not is instigated by self interest, self-preservation, sympathy and happiness, any dutiful action in corporate social responsibility however praiseful it may be does not in anyway express a god will.
According to Johnson, 2008 Kant and his theory of categorical imperative means that organizations ought to be responsible to the society and should engage in activities that will make the majority of the society happier. For instance, based on his arguments, a business organization that seeks to maximize profit by not investing on proper sewage system, this is morally wrong.
However based on the views held by Friedman that organizations should maximize profits and satisfy their stakeholders’ needs it would not be possible to realize the law of universality.
When Friedman states that corporate executive have the primary responsibilities to his or her employer to carryout business in a way they deem fit and manage business to create maximum profit while following the basic rule, it is evident that the executive will try to come up with strategies that will only create happiness to a few group of individuals (Friedman, 1970).
This is in contradiction with the views of Kant who believed that every one has a moral obligation to oneself then to the others. Concerning corporate social responsibility Kant was of the view that the whole idea is not a positive externality and should be undertaken only for genuine reasons and altruistic ones rather than merely a cynical guised up bid for a business entity to gain favor.
In line with the arguments brought forth by Friedman businesses usually act on their self interest. This will thus contradict the achievements desired by the Kantian ethics. Similarly according to Kant there are certain obligations which are universal for instance keeping a promise, saying the truth among others.
It thus follows that it is the obligation of any organization’s management to utilize funds of investors to create profit. On the other hand the manager’s obligations to the public and the local community are universalistic.
For this reason firms should engage in activities that will improve the wellbeing of the relevant stakeholders and the local community.
Kantian ethics hold that in a situation where one conceives a world in which every organization by nature must not indulge in any sort of social responsibility so that it maximizes profits as proposed by Friedman I am conceiving of a world in which there is no practice of firms acting responsibly towards the environment, consumers, the local community among other relevant stakeholders (Johnson, 2008).
The maxim will thus be to hold back finances and other contributions that could be used to enhance social wellbeing to maximize profit to suit the interest of a few individuals at the expense of the majority.
Indeed it would not be possible to realize universality as proposed by Kant when Friedman believed that when firms spend funds to solve social problem it infringes on the prerogative and obligations of government which collects taxes. This act of social responsibility amounts to double taxation (Friedman, 1970).
Conclusion
From the review of whether one can realize Kant’s theory of universality by applying Friedman’s ideas of corporate social responsibilities it is apparent that it is not possible.
While Friedman was of the view that managers do have a primary obligation to maximize profit, Kant on the other hand was of the view that individuals should act in a way that is in accordance to will and duty.
To Kant corporate social responsibility should be viewed from what he said “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Johnson, 2008).
This thus meant that the maxim that underlies any action ought to be rationalized as a universal moral law for it to have moral value. Additionally he held that if social corporate responsibility is initiated for self interest or self protection then it is immoral.
While Friedman completely and strongly opposes the concept of corporate social responsibility he said that if a firm will engage in such activity and yield more profit, then it would be fine.
This is in contradiction with Kant who said people should not be treated as a means to an end but an end in themselves. Kant saw enforcing the concept of corporate social responsibility as being a violation of personal freedom.
References
Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. Web.
Augustine and Kant provided revolutionary ideas on the problem of evil. They provided a means with which humanity could understand why they are so imperfect and thus paved the way for correcting those imperfections. The paper shall argue that the Augustinian view of sin excuses man from accountability and that the best way for solving such a problem is through adoption of Kant’s categorical imperative.
Augustine’s views on the origin of wrongdoing
The three assumptions upon which Augustine bases his ‘ origin of sin’ concept is that man was created pure and he/she has a tendency to do good. The second is that evil results from the absence of good thus making evil an undesirable thing. Lastly, man cannot change the inclination to commit a wrongdoing doing by altering his social environment or anything else around him. In essence, Augustine was arguing that human beings are naturally good, however, they were distorted by the original sin and this causes them to be evil. (Outler, p. 40) In this school of thought, he affirms that there was a monumental fall from grace during humanity’s inception. Consequently, man lost the freedom that had been granted to him and this is a penalty that all other descendants have to deal with. Augustine’s arguments present a number of paradoxes that are resolved by the ‘downfall’ perspective. Augustine asserts that human beings in essence are good and he further affirms that evil is not desirable yet all human beings have an inclination to commit evil. This paradox is therefore resolved by the fall where Augustine explains that man acquired the inclination towards evil when Adam himself sinned. Therefore, through the actions of the first man, everyone else became evil. (Outler, p. 60)
Kant’s view on wrongdoing
Kant did not support the ‘downfall’ concept and dismisses it as a falsehood. He however concurs with Augustine that man is naturally moral although man has that inclination towards committing evil. To Kant, one must give precedence to moral principles rather than one’s inclination and this is an inner decision not based on any superficialities. (Kant, p. 271) His explanation on the collective nature of sin is founded on the premise that evil is not equal or superior to the will. This brings in a paradox which is based on the notion of evil and how to define. If one affirms that to be evil to be human then man is free from moral law. Conversely, if one affirms that to be evil is not natural, then it is assumed that some external force actually caused it and he cannot be held responsible for adhering to moral law. The paradox is solved by the noumenal ‘self concept’. Here, he states that man has two sides which include the apparent and the real. The real human is one who has pure intellect and is not bound by space or time. Conversely, the apparent one is one who eventually unravels himself after certain periods of time. Therefore, man can change morally by subscribing to rational faith. (Kant, p. 47) He can therefore atone himself through suffering.
Why I support Kant’s views
The Augustinian view of evil has a number of loopholes. First, the explanation allows one to understand what happened to the rest of humanity but it does not cover Adam’s sin. His type of sin did not emanate from an inherent nature; Adam had not fallen so he was innocent when committing that sin. Furthermore, the type of evil committed by Adam was original so by virtue of its originality, it cannot be repeated. It is therefore difficult to understand exactly how such sin can be carried forward to other human creations that followed Adam. Critics often wonder why God could not intervene and stop that transmission. Additionally, if man is currently not guilty of his wrongdoing, then he escapes the responsibility for sinning (Kant, p. 248).
Kant’s categorical imperative therefore places the responsibility for rectifying one’s sins on the shoulders of man. When man chooses to act beyond moral law, then he is conscious of these acts and must be made accountable for them. This is a critical insight to the problem of wrongdoing because it provides a tangible solution towards correcting man’s imperfections (Kant, p. 60). Furthermore, because of Kant’s focus on the driving force or the maxim behind an evil act in the categorical imperative doctrine, then humans can demystify this phenomenon of evil. Kant believes that one is moral when they opt to act in a manner that can become a universal law by any other person who may have been placed in such a position. This means that it is man’s imperative to decide whether or not he needs to behave in specific way or not. To this end, Kant offers a means with which man can improve himself. By learning more about life, wants and the like, one can be able to act in a moral way. This implies that one is not born as an evil person; however one has the choice to become evil as one learns more about life. In other words, faith’s place in man’s life can have a richer meaning upon understanding the categorical imperative since faith can then be understood as a means for making man less evil (Kant, p. 238).
Conclusion
Kant’s assertions acknowledge that the problem of sin is a concept that will always be a mystery to man. However, through the categorical imperative, he is able to explain why evil occurs and therefore prescribes ways in which man can take responsibility for his actions.
References
Outler, Albert. Augustine: Confessions. Texas: Library of congress, 1955
Kant, Immanuel. Religion within the limits of reason alone, 1793. Steve Palmquist website
The purpose of this paper is to analyze critically the concept of the sublime as presented by Immanuel Kant in his work ‘The Critique of Judgment’.
After reviewing what the philosopher says about the sublime and putting his perspective into context by briefly looking at how he addresses aestheticism and beauty, the paper will take a closer look at how Kant sub-categorizes the sublime aesthetic sublime experience. The two categories of sublime aesthetic experience shall be reviewed further, giving Kant’s opinion on what it means to have a sublime aesthetic experience.
The paper will have a conclusion in which I will give my own opinion on why I agree or disagree with Kant’s elaboration of the sublime.
Introduction
There is the common English saying ‘beauty is in the eyes of the beholder’. What one man deems to be beautiful, and moves him to awe, would leave another man just as indifferent and untouched. What is beauty, what element of a thing determines that it is beautiful hand renders another ugly?
These must have been the questions Immanuel Kant asked himself, though probably in more abstruse philosophical terms when he set out to write his treatise ‘Critique on Judgment’. This text has remained intriguing for philosophers and none philosophers alike for over two centuries now, and is considered pivotal in the study of aesthetics.
In this text, Kant addresses two primary issues: beauty – what I term as surface appeal- and the more complex concept of the sublime, and how judgment and reason play into the understanding and appreciation of beauty. Kant argues that judgment, or the rational faculties, have to be applied in the appreciation of beauty.
This is because there are basic tenets that apply to appreciating the aesthetic in any form, then there has to be a method to it; this method is what is based in reason, and this is what gives beauty its universality. Kant uses his discussions on the universal principles that govern the appreciation of art and the sublime to elucidate on human judgment in general (Kant 27).
It is interesting to note that with the study of aesthetics Kant attempts to bring together the two aspects of philosophy: the theoretical and the practical. Kant postulates that it is actually judgment that is the bridge between these two aspects of philosophy (Kant 15).
The concept of the sublime according to Kant’s ‘Analytic of the Sublime’ from his ‘Critique of Judgment’
While beauty is limited to those objects that have form, with how well defined this form determining to a large extent how beautiful the object is considered to be, the aesthetically sublime covers even those objects without form (Kant 61).
Kant looks at the dark side of the aesthetic experience, and uses the term ‘sublime’ to describe it. Ordinarily, when one thinks of an aesthetic experience, the focus is on the good and the pleasurable. However, Kant studies aspects of the natural world that overwhelm us, and instill a sense of fear. The sublime is that which overwhelms us, not only in the physical sense (Kant 62).
Kant categorizes experience of the sublime broadly into two: there is the dynamic sublime, where the viewer is faced with the violent forces of nature but with the surety that he/she can conquer these forces, or cannot be touched by them, and hence the viewer can derive a certain pleasure from the experience despite the fear. Secondly, there is the ‘mathematical’ sublime, where the viewer focuses on the physical magnitude of the object under observation, and magnitude is measured strictly in physical units (Kant 64).
Sublimity does not originate from the natural object in question, but rather from the feelings of the viewer towards the object. The sublime has more to do with the viewer, what goes on in his/her mind, than what is being viewed (Kant 65).
When one has an experience that is mathematically sublime, says Kant, the object is physically large, like a mountain or a really tall building. The dynamically sublime is that which might or might not be physically large but which exerts a force on the viewer which is not necessarily a physical force (Kant 65).
As Kant asserts, mathematical measurements do not take account of the aesthetic quantity of an object, and thus the magnitude of an object cannot be determined simply on a physical mathematical scale. The aesthetic measure must be considered as well, and this measure is still bound to be limited within units that are comprehensible by human reason, so that the largest unit marks the limits of the measurement of how aesthetically huge an object is (Kant 75).
Thus, in Kant’s view, the dynamically sublime is of more importance than the mathematically sublime. It is the former that moves the viewer, and that shows an active interaction between what the viewer perceives, and his/her judgment (Kant 77).
The moments of the experience of the sublime, and the subcategories of sublime aesthetic experience
The first moment in the experience of the sublime as explicated by Kant is that an aesthetic judgment has to be disinterested; disinterest here means that the viewer, finds pleasure in the object after judging it beautiful, not finding the object beautiful because of the pleasure it brings.
If we are to apply disinterest in this line, a thoroughbred horse would not be found beautiful for the pleasure of galloping off at incredible speeds and high jumps, but for its physical attributes. Disinterest means that beauty does not have to be functional. Kant asserts that if disinterest is to be applied, then the focus in considering objects aesthetically should be on the form of the object, and not on aspects of the object that would lead to a deeper connection, meaning interest (Kant 92).
The second moment in the experience of the sublime as Kant explains rests on the fact that there are universal rules of what is aesthetically appealing, though there are no universal rules as to how an aesthetic state can be achieved. This is because rational thought is applied in reaching the conclusion of what object is aesthetically appealing, same as is applied to morality, which is also universal.
Thus, it is expected that what one person will find aesthetically appealing will also be appealing to a majority. It is a difficult concept to grasp because it goes against the conventional grain of the viewer determining whether he/she finds an object aesthetically appealing or not (Kant 93).
The third moment introduces the concepts of ‘end’ and ‘finality’, or purpose and purposiveness. Kant elaborates that an object can have a purpose, the purpose being the functional reason for which it was made. Purposiveness on the other hand implies that the object might not have any constructive use, but remains of value.
The aestheticism of an object does not include the external purpose- the utility for which the object was built, or the internal purpose- what the object is intended to be like. If an object is judged on the basis of its utility, then its purpose will be determined on how well it does the job. On the other hand, if it is judged based on how close it is to a preconceived notion of how it is meant to look, then the purpose will be perfection(Kant 93).
The fourth moment in Kant’s text, as regards the sublime is that aesthetic judgments must be found necessary. Here, Kant is trying to define the parameters within which objects are judged and why it is necessary to notice the aesthetic in an object, a truly daunting task. Kant refers to these grounds as common sense, meaning the shared sense of the beautiful in an object by different viewers, or in other words-taste (Kant 94).
Yet, as Kant points out, the purpose of beauty is not how useful an object is or how close it comes to being perfect. He charges that the sole aim of beauty, at least in the natural world, its purposiveness is dependent on human judgment, without having a specified purpose.
The most beneficial aspect of the judgment of the sublime in regards to the subject undergoing this experience
Kant states that the importance experiencing the dynamically sublime in nature is because it elevates a man to another level of fortitude that is beyond the narrow perception of what men are used to. Experiencing the dynamically sublime equals experiencing a total freedom, because the viewer transcends the fear that is the first instinctive reaction to forces of such magnitude in nature (Kant 79).
Kant states that beauty is a symbol of moral uprightness, since people seek beauty with the same fervor that they seek moral uprightness. It is almost an innate sense in man to seek things of beauty. Beauty inspires goodness in man, and binds him closer to his own moral code. This is another benefit on one undergoing the aesthetically sublime experience.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that Kant’s study on aestheticism has been central in shaping later concepts of aestheticism to date. That said, there are aspects of his rationale with which I am not in total agreement.
In the natural world, it is easier for the concept of disinterest as Kant defines it to come into play. However, in regards to fine art, art made by man, then this art cannot be totally separated from politics. Though an artist might primarily create a work of art for its aesthetic quality, more often than not, this is not the only reason. There must have been thought that inspired the artist into action of creating his or her piece of work.
Therefore, the artwork has a utility; it makes a statement that the artist wishes to express. Those who observe this artwork will inherently infer the artist’s intended meaning, beyond looking at the work just for its aesthetic appeal. In this sense, no total disinterest can be maintained.
Kant makes a strong point for how the aesthetic contributes towards understanding human judgment, and how the sublime in nature is tied up with the man’s moral uprightness, as well as his awareness of himself.
In the argument presented in Kant’s first moment, he states that the focus on should be on form to maintain that disinterest, but the aesthetic experience must involve all the senses. We cannot ignore some aspects of the object because we have to observe the object in its totality; it has depth, tone, color and texture. If we focus on certain aspects of the object that are centered around the form, we are not perceiving the object in full, thus we are not experiencing its full aesthetic value.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgement. Cosimo Publishing: New Jersey. 2007. Print.
Kant suggested that there is one moral obligation, known as the “Categorical imperative”, and is constituted from the principle of duty. Categorical imperatives are concepts that are known to be suitable; they are valid in and of themselves; they must be followed in any way if our actions is to obey the moral law.
Thus, categorical imperative acts as the basis of moral obligations. Kant’s Formula of Universal Law states: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Korsgaard, 2). The formulation suggests that the imperative is both rational and moral.
If it is abused then the subjects are behaving irrationally and immorally. The test for universal acceptance involve: determining the agent’s maxim; imagining that everyone in the same position as the real-world agent observed that maxim; deciding if there is any contradictions generated from the maxim; if there are contradictions, that maxim is unacceptable in the real world; and if no contradiction arise, then the maxim is acceptable.
Kant implies that categorical imperative is an essential law of rationality and therefore morality should be derived from the law because morality ought to apply to every person despite inclination. Besides, an insightful way of viewing the essence of the universal test is to know that it makes it likely for an individual to test his or her reasons to analyze if they are reasons he or she would allow for anyone.
Arriving at a maxim is always a difficult task, considering the fact that everybody is supposed to arrive at the same conclusions in aspects of duty. It is therefore an issue of what you can will should not result into contradiction. A Universal will generates contradiction in conceptions and contradiction in will (Korsgaad, 3).
Summary of Hegel’s Criticism
Hegel argues that the universal law of categorical imperative contradicts itself and it only provides an abstract understanding on the moral principle. The concept of universal law does not always happen in reality but only happens as a theoretical notion. “Act from maxims” implies that we should follow wills that are deemed to be universally acceptable by others.
Sometimes such laws are not always universal. For the realization of duty, Kant has suggested nothing but the form of duty, which is the rule of abstract understanding. For instance, Hegel disagrees with the statement, “to defend one’s fatherland, to promote the happiness of another, is a duty, not because of the content, but because it is a duty”.
The content in the real sense is not what is appropriate universally in the moral principle, since it contradicts itself. With respect to property, Hegel outlines that the respect of property can be a universal principle but the opposite cannot qualify. This is only a formal determination. At times the determination may be absent and therefore there is no disagreement concerned with theft. If there is no property, then it is not respected. That is the problem with Kant’s principle.
Thoughts on the Criticism
Hegel’s arguments do not consider the conditions set by Kant in coming up with a maxim. He uses a one way approach to analyze the theory; the criticism does not provide us with the benefits of the universal law. For instance, Hegel uses a benevolence example by arguing that the statement, “give your belongings to the poor”, is inappropriate.
His stance is that if all offer what they posses, beneficence is done away with; the matter is not what holds good universally in the moral law. However, Kant suggests that logical, teleological, and practical contradictions may arise due to a maxim. The benevolence statement is a form of logical contradiction that is depicted by Hegel. However, giving possessions to the poor does not imply that people perform actions without conscience.
Giving possessions is more than material property as it involves moral support and encouragement. Even though, the criticism is true, Hegel ought to consider that human beings in most cases incorporate other ethical principles, such as the moral rights principle, in coming up with ethical decisions. Different actions are taken in different occasions, time, and places, therefore actions vary.
Work Cited
Korsgaard, Christine M.1985. “Kant’s formula of universal law”. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. 66, no. 1-2: 24-47.
Immanuel Kant was born on April 22nd, 1724. He was born in Konigsberg near the southeastern shore of the Baltic Sea.1 At the time, Konigsberg was the capital of East Prussia. German was the language predominantly spoken in the city. Though geographically remote from the rest of Prussia, it was a key commercial center, military port, and a cosmopolitan university town.2 Kant grew up to become a renowned tutor, teacher, lecturer, and one of the most respected philosophers of his time. He published many papers during his academic career. One of them was The Critique of Pure Reason, an enormous volume, and one of the most important texts on western thought.3 He published more critiques in the years preceding his death on February 12th, 1804.
Background and Early Years
Kant was born into a humble family of modest means. His father, Johann Georg Kant (1683-1746), was a master harness maker in Konigsberg. On her part, his mother, Anna Regina Kant (1697-1737), was the daughter of a harness maker.4 Immanuel Kant was the fourth child of Kant’s. However, at his birth, his only surviving sibling was a five-year-old sister. Many children did not survive early childhood in the eighteenth century. The death of the children took a toll on Anne Kant. As such, he was naming her son Emmanuel during his baptism answered a real concern and heartfelt sentiment for him. However, Kant changed his name to Immanuel later on after learning Hebrew.5
Johann Georg Kant had moved to Konigsberg from Tilsit.6 At the time, all craftsmen belonged to a specific guild. As such, Georg Kant was unable to break into the trade as an outsider with no guild affiliation. However, his marriage to Anna Regina (the daughter of a master tradesman) on November 13th, 1715, opened the way for him to make a living as an independent tradesman.7 Immanuel Kant’s mother was better educated than most women in the eighteenth century.
She took note of Kant’s attention to objects in nature and admired his keen understanding of things and advanced comprehension of his surroundings. The family lived fairly well during Kant’s early childhood. However, things became worse as he grew older. The death of his grandfather on 1st March 1729, left Johann George as the sole provider for the whole family. The family had to relocate to their grandmother’s house to be able to offer comfort and take better care of her. The new business location was not as profitable as the old one. As a result, there was a steady decline in income. In spite of all this, Johann Georg and Anna Regina did all they could to provide a safe environment for their children.
Kant’s Grandmother died in 1735.8 Though sad for the family, the death took some pressure off the family with one less mouth to feed. There was also less work for the mother and more room for the children. In November of the same year, Kant’s mother gave birth to another child, a son named Johann Heinrich.9 Anna Regina died at the age of forty on 18th December 1737. Her death was as a result of constant strain. Her ninth pregnancy had also taken a toll on her body and general health. Immanuel Kant was largely affected by the death of his mother as he was only 13 years old at the time of her death.
Education
Prime Education
Kant was a solid and unspectacular student. He was brought up in a pietist household that emphasized religious devotion, humility, and literal interpretation of the Bible.10 Pietism was an evangelical Lutheran society that focused on conversion, dependence on divine grace, the experience of religious emotions, and personal devotion. It involved regular Bible study, prayers, and meditation.11 Kant’s education was strict, punitive, and disciplinary.
The boy expressed his aptitude for studies at an early age. He first attended school at the Collegium Fridericianum. Kant sought refuge from the strong and forced soul searching that students were subjected to at the school by enrolling in Latin classics, which were central to the school’s curriculum. His later emphasis on reason and autonomy, rather than emotion and dependence on either authority or grace at an older age, may have been informed by his experience of pietism at school.12 However, his hatred of pietism did not make him respect his pietist parents any less. Kant graduated from Collegium Fridericianum at the end of summer in 1740.
University Education
Immanuel joined college at the University of Konigsberg.13 His earlier interest in classics was quickly replaced by a thirst for knowledge in philosophy. At the university, philosophy encompassed mathematics, logic, physics, ethics, natural law, and metaphysics.14 When teaching philosophy at the university, most of the lecturers applied the approach of Christian Wolff. Wolff’s critical synthesis of the philosophy of Leibniz (1679-1750) was popular and influential in German universities at the time.
However, Kant was also exposed to a wide range of people who criticized the teachings of Wolff. There were also strong followers of Aristotelianism and Pietism in the school’s Philosophy Department, who heavily influenced Kant’s thinking. For instance, Knutzen’s (1713-1751) teachings of Isaac Newton are largely present in Kant’s first work, ‘Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces’. The text was published in 1747.15 The book was a critical attempt to mediate on a dispute in natural history between the supporters of Leibniz and those of Isaac Newton over the proper measurements of force.16
Knutzen dissuaded Kant from the theory of pre-established harmony, which he regarded as “the pillow for the lazy mind17 He also discouraged Kant from adhering to idealism, the idea that reality is purely mental. Idealism was negatively regarded by most philosophers in the 18th century. His father’s stroke and subsequent death in 1746 greatly affected his studies.18 He left school shortly after in August 1748 to become a private tutor for young children outside Konigsberg. It was mainly because after the death of his father, his finances were no longer secure enough for him to continue with an academic career. However, Kant finally returned to Konigsberg in 1754, where he taught at Albertina.
Early Works
Kant had a burst of publishing activities in the years that followed his return from working as a private tutor. He made an important astronomical discovery about the nature of the rotation of the earth. His discovery won him the Berlin Academy Prize in 1754.19 The Universal Natural History and Theory of the heavens in 1755 was a major book in which he developed what later became known as the nebular hypothesis about the formation of the solar system.20
He tried to explain the formation of the solar system from a cloud of gases as opposed to the creation theory, where the solar system was created by God. To become qualified to teach at the university, Kant also wrote two dissertations. The first was the ‘Concise Outline of Some Reflections on Fire’. The second was the ‘New Elucidation of the First Principles of Metaphysical Cognition’. He published the two works in 1755.21 In 1756, he published yet another Latin work, ‘The Employment in Natural Philosophy of Metaphysics Combined with Geometry’.22
After several years of relative calm, Kant released another burst of publications between 1762 and 1764. They included five philosophical works. In 1762, he published ‘The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures: A Work in Logic’.23
Two more works were released the following year. They were ‘The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God’ and ‘Attempt to Introduce the Concept of Negative Magnitudes into Philosophy’.24 In 1762, Kant submitted an essay titled ‘Inquiry Concerning the Distinctness of the Principles of Natural Theology and Morality’ to a prize competition by the Prussian Royal Academy.25 His submission took second place to Moses Mendelssohn’s essay.
The essay was not published until 1764. In 1766, Kant published his first work in metaphysics, ‘Dreams of a Spirit-Seer Elucidated by Dreams of Metaphysics’. The publication was heavily influenced by Kant’s fascination with the Swedish visionary, Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772).26 On March 31st, 1770, at the age of 45, Kant was finally appointed Full Professor of Logic and Metaphysics at the University of Konigsberg. The appointment came after teaching for 15 years as an unsalaried teacher. To cement and defend this new position, he wrote his last Latin dissertation, ‘Principles of the Sensible and the Intelligible World’.27 The publication was also popularly known as the inaugural dissertation.
Later Works
Kant spent a decade working on the critique of pure reason and never published any other significant work between 1770 and 1781. Although fond of company and conversations with others, he isolated himself and resisted his friends’ attempts to bring him out of his eleven-year long isolation. He never surrendered his view that sensibility and understanding are distinct powers of cognition.28
He was also of the view that space and time are independent forms of human susceptibility. In addition, he believed that moral judgments are based on pure understanding. His embrace of Platonism in the Inaugural Dissertation was short-lived. He soon denied that our understanding is capable of insight into an intelligible world.29 The understanding cleared the path for his mature position in the critique of pure reason.
When he finally emerged from his silence in 1781, the result was the critique of pure reason. In this work, Kant tries to ascertain the scope and limits of pure reason. He formulated his critique in terms of questions. The first question was, “How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?”.30 He argued that judgment is synthetic if it has substantive content. It is ‘more formal’ if the process of the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject. Otherwise, it is analytic.31
According to this critic, a judgment can either be prior or posterior. It is prior if it can be known independently of experience. On the other hand, it is posterior if it can only be known through experience. As such, the practical dictates of pure reason, if any, must be expressed in synthetic a priori judgments. The question of the power of reasons is one that deals with ‘how much’ judgments can be established. It is the major question in Kant’s critique.32
The philosopher believed that principles of understanding could be established only for phenomena or things as they appear to us. As a result, the principles of understanding are recognized as conditions of the possibility of our experience.
The work was largely ignored upon its initial publication. It was mainly as a result of the lengthy nature of the book’s original edition and the complex style in which it was written. It received a few reviews, which gave it little importance. However, Kant’s former student, Johann Gottfried, criticized it for placing reason as an entity worth of criticism instead of considering the process of reasoning within the context of language and one’s entire personality. As such, he rejected Kant’s position that space and time possessed a form that could be analyzed.33
Disappointed by his work’s reception, Kant wrote ‘The Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics’ in 1783. It was a summary of his main views in the critique of pure reason.34 His reputation was later rekindled, sparked by a series of important works. In 1784, he wrote an essay titled ‘Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?’. Later on, in 1785, he wrote his first paper on moral philosophy, ‘Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals35 In this paper, Kant’s purpose was to seek out and establish the supreme principle of morality. The work was divided into two sections. In the first part, Kant analyzes what we suppose to know and uncovers what that knowledge presupposes.
He infers that an agent who does something out of duty sees doing the action or promoting its purpose as something that is required of him, while a person who acts out of good will sees his maxim as having the form of law.36 As such, he concludes that the principle of good will is ‘the principle of adopting those maxims that you can only to be laws.’ The work was heavily criticized by Hegel. His contention was that the formula developed by Kant was empty and did not yield substantial and morally correct results.37
Kari Leonhard’s letters in 1786 on Kantian philosophy made Kant’s critique of the pure reason more famous. In the letters, Leonhard argued that Kant’s critique of pure reason could settle the debate on the value of reason by defending the authority and bounds of this concept.38 In 1787, Kant published a heavily revised second edition of ‘The Critique of Pure Reason’.39 In the edition, the philosopher tried to explain his critique in fewer details and from a less complex point of view. He continued to develop moral philosophies, notably ‘The Critique of Practical Reason’ in 1788 and ‘The Critique of Judgment’ in 1790.40
With these works, Kant secured international fame and came to dominate German philosophy in the late 1780s. In 1790, he announced that ‘The Critique of the Power of Judgment’ would be the end of his critical originality. However, he continued publishing other important works shortly after the announcement. In 1792, he rubbed shoulders with the authorities after publishing the second of the four pieces on ‘Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason’.41
The work was met with fierce opposition from the king’s Censorship Commission. The organization had been established for theological censorship. Kant arranged for the pieces to be published through the philosophical department. As a result, he avoided the need for theological censorship. Following the defiance, the king ordered him never to publish or speak of religion in public. Kant published ‘The Conflict of Faculties’ in response to the king’s reprimand.42 He also wrote a number of semi popular essays on history and politics in the late 1790s. They included the ‘Doctrine of Virtue’ and the ‘Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View’ in 1797 and 1798 respectively.43
Death
Kant retired from teaching in the late 1790s.44 For nearly two decades, he had lived a highly disciplined life, focused primarily on completing his philosophical system. The system had taken shape in his mind since his early childhood. At the time of his retirement, he believed that there was a gap in the system separating the metaphysical foundations of natural sciences from physics itself.45 He set out to close this gap in a series of notes that suggest the existence of an ether or caloric matter.46 The late notes, which are known as ‘Opus Post Mum’, were never published. They showed signs of his declining mental health. His health worsened at the start of 1800. The philosopher died on 12th February, 1804, just short of his eightieth birthday.47
Conclusion
Immanuel Kant is without doubt one of the most significant philosophers in the history of western philosophy. His contributions to metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and epistemology will have a lasting and profound impact on people in these fields. His criticism of major theories, such as utilitarianism, will continue affecting how these frameworks are interpreted and used throughout the course of history. Many lessons can be learnt from the simple but dedicated life that Immanuel Kant lived.
Selected Bibliography
Books
Burnham, Douglas. Kant’s Philosophies of Judgement. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004.
Kant, Immanuel. Toward Perpetual Peace and other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.
Kuehn, Manfred. Kant: A Biography. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Kul-Want, Christopher, and Andrzej Klimowski. Introducing Kant: A Graphic Guide. London: Icon Books Ltd., 2011.
Uleman, Jennifer. An Introduction to Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Different philosophers have elaborated different views on understanding the world as a whole and society in particular. Philosophers’ theories are this or that way justified and have both supporters and opponents. We are not empowered to say that some theory is more valid and the other is not sufficiently grounded, as each of them is a result of the philosopher’s painful process of thinking and seeking the truth. The current paper is concerned with the investigation of the three genii of philosophical thinking: Immanuel Kant, Rene Descartes, and David Hume. The comparison is expected to be made in terms of the four perspectives:
The biographical facts from the lives of the three philosophers;
Their major philosophical views;
The influence that the philosophers had on their contemporaries and future generations, their followers;
The philosophers’ messages and the contemporary world.
Starting with a comparison of biographical facts from the lives of the three philosophers we should admit that Kant (the years of life are 1724-1804) and Hume (1711-1776) can be considered contemporaries, whereas Descartes lived and worked significantly earlier: the years of his life embrace 1596-1650. Kant was born in the East Prussian city of Königsberg to a family of a craftsman; he was the fourth of eleven children. Descartes was born in La Haye to a family of a lawyer and magistrate. He was one of surviving two siblings and two half-siblings. His mother died a year after his birth and he with other children was raised by their grandmother. Hume was born to a moderately wealthy family from Berwickshire Scotland, near Edinburgh.
As far as the education of the would-be philosophers is concerned, all of them received higher education. Kant studied at the University of his native city, where afterward he worked as a tutor and professor in philosophy, logic, and metaphysics. In 1770 Kant achieved wide renown through writing his Inaugural Dissertation that focused on the difference between right- and left-handed spatial orientations.
Descartes was educated at the Jesuit college of La Fleche where he was sent to at the age of ten. Descartes studied there for twelve years and then entered the University of Poitiers, in a year he received his Baccalaureate and License in Canon & Civil Law there. Then Descartes entered the army of Prince Maurice of Nassau. Meanwhile, he started his work on the Compendium Musicae, his great essay on algebra. But only in 1637, he made a name for himself by a group of essays on analytical geometry, optics, and meteors.
Hume’s background was shaped by Calvinistic and Whiggish views of his family. During his childhood, he attended the local church. The primary education he received from his mother who educated him until the age of eleven when he left for the University of Edinburgh. Hume’s devotion to Calvinism left a significant mark on his later life.
Several words should be told about the way the great philosophers’ lives ended. Kant died peacefully in his bed at the age of eighty.
Descartes died of pneumonia in Stockholm. He had been invited there to teach Queen Christina of Sweden. His disease might have been a consequence of immune system problems. The thing is that he was commonly asked to teach the Queen early in the morning that was not beneficial for his health if we consider that he worked late at night. One more possible cause of his disease results from nursing his friend the French ambassador who suffered from pneumonia. At the present day, Descartes’ tomb rests in the church of Saint-German-des-Pres in Paris and his brain resides in the Musee de l’Homm.
Hume spent the remaining years of his life in Edinburgh. There he communicated with his friends from the city’s intellectual circles, revised and refined his published works. At the age of sixty-five, he died from an internal disorder he had suffered from for several months.
The collection of Hume’s chief works includes Treatise Upon Human Nature (1739-1740), Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751).
Hume accepts and develops the empirical ideas of John Locke. He concludes that the principle of causality is not valid and that there is not any existing substance in the world. Only sensations can be considered as the only reliable knowledge. The complex interaction of impressions and subjective and phenomenal ideas can explain the laws of the material and spiritual world. Hume negates causality that exists as the fundamental principle of metaphysics and the sciences. Also, he rejects the existence of substance, and questions the existence of God and the immortality of the human soul.
Descartes’ major works are Discourse de la Method (1637), Meditationes de Prima Philosophia (1641), Principia Philosophiae (1644), Les Passions de l’ame Physiological Psychology (1649), Systematic and Mechanistic Study of Nature and Organisms (1664), Le Monde, ou Traite de la Lumiere (1664), L’Homme (1644).
Descartes is considered to be a founder of modern philosophy as he started the new theory of knowledge which serves as a basis for modern Western philosophy. His method of philosophical inquiry is characterized by two features:
It is a method of inquiry (vs. a method of proof): a way of finding out things and making sure one makes no mistakes; the point of view of the ignorant learner;
It is a method of doubt: a refusal to accept anything as true unless it is absolutely certain (Rene Descartes’ Views).
This method led to the transformation in the central nature of philosophy which was concerned with answering the two questions:
What exists? (About the nature of the universe, of being): Metaphysics;
What can I know to exist? (About the nature of knowledge, the mind, reasoning): Epistemology (Rene Descartes’ Views).
Descartes claimed that intuition and deduction are the two operations through which certain knowledge can be achieved. He defined intuition as “the conception which an unclouded and attentive mind gives us so readily and distinctly that we are wholly freed from doubt about that which we understand” and saw intuition as the basis of all certain knowledge (Rene Descartes’ Views). According to him, each deductive step is based on intuition (Rene Descartes’ Views). Cartesian Dualism was based on the two principles:
There exist two kinds of substances: minds and bodies.
Minds and bodies interact.
As far as Kant’s philosophical views are concerned we should admit that contrary to most philosophers that wrote their major works being rather young, Kant wrote the most important pieces of his works being at the age of between fifty-seven and sixty-seven: Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (1783), Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Critique of Practical Reason (1788), Critique of Judgment (1790), Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone (1793). Kant’s philosophical views can be summarized as “a synthesis of the Leibniz-Wolffian rationalism and the Humean skepticism” (Kant, 2007, p. 25687). Kant suggested the following term for his insights into the nature of knowledge: “the Copernican revolution in philosophy” (Kant, 2007, p. 25687). Kant claimed that human attempts to understand things in themselves were doomed to failure. The human field of knowledge according to him is limited to the world of phenomena. The phenomenal experience is based on the work of causality and substance.
In his works, Kant focuses on the three great problems of metaphysics: God, freedom, and immortality. His point is that they are insoluble by speculative thought. “Their existence can be neither affirmed nor denied on theoretical grounds, nor can they be scientifically demonstrated.” (Kant, 2007, p. 25687) Still, Kantian moral philosophy shows the necessity of a belief in their existence.
The views of the three philosophers considered we conclude that they are better understood in their complex interconnection. This happens because Kant developed a theory that included both the world of empiricism and rationalism and ruined the imbalance between them.
One cannot overestimate the impact that the philosophers’ works had both at the time they lived and for the coming generations. Kant’s works were a springboard for the development of German idealism represented by Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. Neo-Kantianism movement that emerged at the end of the XIX century had many branches throughout Europe. The most influential of them were the Marburg school and the Heidelberg school (founded by Cohen and Cassirer and Windelband and Rickert, respectively). The Marburg school focused on the application of Kantian ideas to an understanding of the physical sciences, the Heilberg school was primarily concerned with the application of his ideas to understanding the historical and cultural sciences. Kantian philosophy influenced Hamilton and Green’s works through which Kantian ideas influenced English. Kant’s contribution to theology is obvious in the works of Schleiermacher and Ritschl. In psychology, Kant’s ideas were supported in Gestalt psychology by Köhler.
Descartes’ influence on philosophy is obvious. His Cogito Argument symbolized the centrality of the self and the neglect of authority from without. In physics, the value of his works consists in the rejection of scholastic physics of matter and form. Instead, scholastic physics was replaced by a mechanistic physics of matter and motion (Garber). In biology, he is noted for the rejection of Aristotelian vitalism.
Descartes had a lot of followers in France. There Clerselier’s circle published all his works and developed his ideas. La Forge extended Descartes’ ideas. Other followers include Regius, Heereboord, Raey, Clauberg. Descartes’ writings were paraphrased and commented on in different ways by his followers in late seventeenth-century Europe.
Hume was a follower of John Locke. He contributed to the study of human thought, perception, and understanding of ideas according to principles set by Locke. Different sciences concerned with the development and origins of knowledge benefited from his works. But we would like to focus on the impact that Hume’s ideas had on Kant. Actually, Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason was a sort of response to Hume’s empirical ideas. Kantian study of Hume’s empiricism encouraged him to speak of idealism that empiricism leads to. Analyzing Hume’s observations about the limitations of the human mind while it perceives reality, he claims that some or all objects exist in the human mind only.
Hume’s philosophy originated from the eighteenth century but it has a very modern sound. Modern philosophy is characterized by the same attempts to skepticism, subjectivism, and relativism that result from the collapse of all rational understanding that Hume argued for.
Contemporary philosophy is also concerned with many of Descartes’ ideas. Many of the contemporary philosophers argue that his doctrine of the soul that is consistent with the Catholic doctrine is not valid, as it leads to the degradation of the body and encourages one’s way to abuse.
Kant’s ideas not only bonded the empiricists and rationalists that came before him but left a significant field for investigation in various fields. Today, scholars do not stop debating his ideas, as they are rather topical in relation to contemporary issues.
Descartes, Kant, and Hume investigated the problem of skepticism, but they focused on different perspectives: Descartes was concerned with skepticism about reality as a whole, whereas Kant explored skepticism about causation and Hume investigated skepticism on objective validity of causation. All three theories enlarged the treasury of philosophical knowledge and posed a lot of questions to those interested in uncovering the mysteries of philosophy. We are inclined to think that in these questions the main value of the philosophers’ works is rooted.
References
Garber, D. (1998, 2003). Descartes, René. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Web.
Kant, Immanuel. (2007). In The Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
MacNabb, D. G. (1951). David Hume, His Theory of Knowledge and Morality. London: Hutchinson’s University Library.
Kant’s principle of humanity is focused on upholding dignity and respect, which underpin morality. The principle advocates for the treatment of human beings as an end and not as a means. It is a comprehensive approach that applies to all autonomous and rational beings regardless of species (Shafer-Landau, 2014). The reason is that, similar to human beings, other organisms are deserving respect and dignity, which is where the problem arises. Most people assume that humanity holds a given aspect that leverages dignity and makes a given person worthy of respect (Shafer-Landau, 2014). Additionally, human beings believe that they are more deserving of respect than any other living creature. This brings to light a more defensible position or rather a self-interested prejudice as humans stride towards superiority.
However, Kant had a response to this issue that highlighted the fundamental approach behind his principle. He claimed that every organism is autonomous and rational in its way and that it is the differences in traits that make accord others special moral statuses. He held the opinion that rationality is what involved the use of reasons in the pursuance of given goals, being the determinant of whether such goals can be pursued in a morally acceptable way (Shafer-Landau, 2014). Eventually, Kant concluded his argument with the idea that only human beings had the power to engage in such complicated reasoning.
Nonetheless, on closer inspection, Kant’s theory holds a lot of vagueness. This is because the treatment of individuals as an end is an unclear idea, which makes it difficult to apply (Shafer-Landau, 2014). Additionally, the principal fails to make provisions for the determination of what people deserve. This is brought to the light with Kant’s views on justice, wherein he believes that justice should be achieved at all costs, which is to an extent a contravention of stipulated moral concerns (Shafer-Landau, 2014). Moreover, the assumption of autonomy is misguided since in most cases, human beings’ choices are necessitated, meaning that they lack control, which is a reflection of the lack of autonomy. Additionally, in his response, Kant does not explain why people lacking autonomy and rationality deserve dignity and respect (Shafer-Landau, 2014). Furthermore, he assumes that our actions’ morality depends on autonomous control, yet this is disputed by moral luck, which is critical in choices and judgments.
Reference
Shafer-Landau, R. (2014). The fundamentals of ethics (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Manuel’s theory of knowledge focuses on the way people perceive the reality of things, basing on their prior experiences. The theory states that, the ability to understand something is rooted from the prior experience with a similar situation. More precisely this theory of knowledge tries to examine in depth; the relationship between rationalism and empirialism.
To a greater extent, Manuel succeeds in bringing out the distinction between rationalism and empirialism and also showing the link between the two. This research paper will therefore bring out the links that exist between rationalism, and imperialism in real life applications.
Introduction
Rationalism can be defined as the ability to sense using prior experience, over a certain complex life situation. At a more precise level, rationalists are those individuals who judge issues or situations basing on what they already know (Manuel, 2011: 254-260).
Emperialism on the other hand refers to the ability to determine how a past experience, can influence the choices that we make by first applying a sensory test. Basing on this statement, therefore, empirialists have to carry out a rigorous test to determine the relationship between the decisions that individuals make, and the prior knowledge affecting the decisions making. Rationalism and empirialism according to Manuel are interrelated in the sense that, they complement each other (Manuel, 2011: 254-260). On the above basis, therefore, both rationalists and empirialsts seem to perceive different phenomena on the same basis but just that they vary in their methods of introspection.
Rationalism
According to Manuel, rationalists vary in their levels to see the insight of issues depending on an individual’s various experiences; which vary in magnitude from one individual to another. In this respect therefore rationalists differ in their views depending on their understanding of various situations, which they have experience (Manuel, 2011: 254-260).
In rationalism, the ability to see the insight of things is called institution; which depends on the knowledge gained before, different from the current one and the interrelation between the two. These two different situations are incorporated in the mind; after which then the mind strikes at a point of bringing the two situations together; so as to be able to judge the latter one basing on the former. As Manuel argues, this is the innate knowledge of reality that helps individuals to make judgments over two different situations in their day-to-day activities (Manuel, 2011: 254-260).
Empirialism
Empirialism is the ability to use the senses to determine or judge a situation; so as to make a decision basing the outcome of the sensory experience. The decisions made afterward are determined by the ability to relate the outcome of the latter situation, with a prior experience. Emperialists, therefore, don’t believe in independent reasoning as they assert that; it is out of a prior experience that decision-making concerning the results of a test carried out using the senses that individuals have (Manuel, 2011: 254-260).
The link between rationalism and imperialism
Manuel combined empirialism and rationalism and asserted that these two concepts are interrelated and that they complement each other in a way. As it is in emperialism, individuals have to involve themselves by using their senses so as to make a judgment, which he linked with rationalism in the sense that; in both, individuals have to apply their prior acquired knowledge so as to make a decision over an issue.
It can clearly be seen that in both two concepts; past experience is a basic instrument to help arrive at a decision. Manuel also noted that rationalists at one point were empirialists in the sense that; they used their senses to learn a situation whereby it is through this past experience that they inter-relate issues in making a decision. More specifically, both rationalists and empirialists apply a common ability to relate the current situation with a prior one; before making any judgment or decision (Manuel, 2011: 254-260).
‘The Synthetic a Priori Statement of Mathematics and Natural Science’
As Manuel argued, ‘The Synthetic’ which is a statement used in natural science as well as in mathematics; can be well understood in both disciplines either through rationalism or empirialism. Rationalists argue that from instituting a situation we now come to a deduction that involves making conclusions of what we have perceived, from a given situation. From the above statement, knowledge gained from two independent experiences can be interrelated in the sense that; the mind has to link any two experiences and try to bring some relationship between the two (Manuel, 2011: 254-260).
‘The synthetic’ as known in mathematics; through sensory experience can also be linked to another known through natural science at which a rigorous test was carried out. Mathematicians learn the concept of ‘the synthetic’ theoretically and in any case of any other related phenomenon, the former knowledge can be used to judge the latter which is done by rationalists. Empirialists on the other hand, have to involve a rigorous sense experience so as to come up with clear results of what a phenomenon is; and then relate it with a prior one so as to make a decision concerning the phenomenon (Manuel, 2011: 254-260).
Conclusion
Empirialism and rationalism are two concepts that seem to be different yet they are highly related to being distanced. From the research, therefore, it has been revealed that both empirialism and rationalism are two concepts, which can be combined to explain various phenomena. As it has been revealed, both rationalists and empirialsts have been found to have a common base of argument concerning their understanding of various phenomena, founded on their prior knowledge of a related phenomenon.
Work cited
Manuel, Velasquez. “Introduction to Philosophy”, 11th Edition. New York: Worth Publishers. 2011: 251-265.
Kant anchors his argument on the difference between pure and empirical knowledge on the premise that human experience is the cornerstone of knowledge. He contends that it is impossible to understand anything before experiencing it. However, he recognizes that experience is not the source of all human knowledge, but just a starting point— “the first instruction.” Accordingly, peoples’ impressions and their personal repositories of knowledge may also influence their understanding, which is an indication of their ability to differentiate between their knowledge and raw data.
Kant wonders whether there is knowledge that exists independent of experience, a priori, compared to that which develops through experience, a posteriori, and poses the question whether such a distinction exists. The former is pure knowledge, being that it is independent of all experience, while the latter is empirical in nature as it derives from experience. The author discusses a method for differentiating between these two forms of knowledge. He identifies necessity and strict universality as certain criteria for pure knowledge, which he interprets as indication of a special source of knowledge. Humans possess repositories of knowledge that are necessary and universal, therefore, pure. He asserts that pure knowledge is integral to developing experience as it facilitates certainty as guiding rules.
Kant proceeds to identify a philosophical gap in the form of the lack of a means to determine the possibility, principles, and scope of pure knowledge. There are situations where experience becomes inadequate, thereby requiring reason to supplement human knowledge. He identifies metaphysics as the realm where reason necessarily takes precedence over experience owing to the latter’s inadequacy to facilitate interrogation of abstract concepts. However, Kant emphasizes the need to engage in such abstract enquiries cautiously by interrogating the origins of the a priori knowledge that informs them. He notes that reason enables people to engage in analysis that results in the development of knowledge.
He turns to an evaluation of the difference between analytic and synthetic judgments and explains that the presence or absence of an identity between the subject and the predicate is the determining factor. Hence, a judgement is synthetic where the connection is without identity. Synthetic a priori judgements are embodied as principles of reason in all theoretical sciences. The author refers to judgements in mathematics, physics, and metaphysics as apt examples of synthetic judgements. They satisfy the elements of necessity that does not derive from experience and strict universality. However, the possibility of synthetic judgements constitutes a problem for pure reason, thus, provides the basis and justifications for developing a special science called a ‘critique of pure reason.’