Looking back into the history of mankind, one can say that Kant was a genius of a man. Or was he insane? He created four proofs to the fact that God does not exist – and then he created the fifth one, proving the opposite. He turned human nature upside down to see if there is something hidden within it.
He was the most outrageous philosopher of ancient times, and there has been no one to compare to him since then.
However, the things that are of the greatest interest for modern philosophers, modern people, and their modern problems are one of the contradictions of a human’s life.
They are not numerous, Kant himself counted four of them. He called them moments, as if to emphasize the frailty of a man’s life and its being rather an existence than a life. Combined together, they create a philosophic pattern of a human’s life and show that some things exist beyond the reach of our imagination and understanding.
The first one is the moment of disinterested interest. The ancient sorcerer was good at making oxymorons.
What underlay the concept was the idea of the man longing for beauty even without the desire to own the beautiful thing. Kant practically explained a man’s urge for arts and artworks, creating them and observing them, indulging in “tasting” the beauty and appreciating it. As he put it in his book,
One must not be in the least prepossessed in favour of the real existence of the thing, but must preserve complete indifference in this respect, in order to play the part of judge in matters of taste. (33)
Speaking about the second notion that the philosopher suggests, the moment of free necessity, I would like to say that the philosopher meant basically a habit. There are certain things that we do without asking ourselves whether we want it or not because such a question does not even occur to us because the answer seems obvious. Actually, we are free to do this particular thing, because we are willing and we know this is right, but this is an obligatory thing as well, a kind of a law that is in our blood.
Kant’s example of this phenomenon sounds like that:
However, this necessity is of a special kind. It is not a theoretically objective necessity – such as would let us cognize a priori that everyone will feel this delight in the object that is called beautiful by me. Not yet is it a practical necessity, in which case, thanks to concepts of pure rational will in which free agents are supplied with a rule, this delight is the necessary consequence of an objective law… (61)
Thus, the unnecessary necessity is the idea of the subjective perception of reality and subjective measure of beauty.
The next moment I would like to dwell upon is the moment of the subjective universality.
The moment of subjective universality shows that a man is subdued to a feeling that his idea of beauty is the only right one, and that everyone should think the way this person does and admire the same things. The egoistic feeling can be explained psychologically, and that is what Kant doing when stating the following:
…This is the case when it requires the subjective universality, i.e., the concurrence of every one, albeit the judgment is not a cognitive judgment, but only one of pleasure or displeasure in a given object, i.e. an assumption of a subjective finality that has a thoroughgoing validity for every one, and which, since the judgment is one of taste, is not to be grounded upon any concept of the thing. (102)
And, finally, I would like to ponder the moment that Kant called the moment of purposeless purposiveness. That might sound rather abstract, but there are some points that I would like to draw your attention to.
The clue about this idea is that when passing his judgment to a work of art, a critic should not take into account whether the item has a purpose or not. Art itself has no purpose, so there is no use trying to make it sensible and reasonable, or vice versa. As long as the art exists for the sake of itself, it remains an art and it is beautiful. But from the very moment it starts expressing some ideas and be of some use for people, it is no art. Sometimes it is translated as “final without end”, so both names are possible.
To put it in Kant’s own words, the very concept that underlies these words is the following:
In the suggestive aggregation of units requisite for the representation of magnitudes, the imagination of itself advances ad infinitum without let or hindrance-understanding, however, conducting it by means of concepts of number for which the former must supply the schema. this procedure belongs to the logical estimation of magnitude, and, as such, is doubtlessly something objectively final according to the concept of an end (as all measurement is), but it is not anything which for the aesthetic judgment id final or pleasing. (76)
Trying to penetrate the concept of beauty, Kant was aiming at cognizing the world. He was aiming at the nature of people and the world, with its harmony and well-balanced elements. As you understand what makes things seem beautiful, you start understanding what a man I made of. And that can make you closer to the secret of life and death, as well as the secret of the universe. Kant got closer to it than anyone ever had, and, I’m afraid, ever will have. Such is the world, mysterious and silent.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. The Critique of Judgment. Trans. Meredith J. Creed. New York, NY: Forgotten Books, 1973. Print.
Many philosophers presented rationalism and empiricism as two opposite schools before Immanuel Kant combined knowledge about these studies and created his own Theory of Knowledge. The reason for this synthesis was in imperfection that Kant saw in both dogmas. However, this combination of two opposite schools did not mean just a simple adoption of views and implementation of those views into a new theory.
Both empiricists and rationalists had disagreements in their main views. One of them was about thinking about substances and their amount: some philosophers thought that there is just one substance exists, some thought there are many. There were others, who thought there is none. However, the main disagreement between schools was about the role of experiences and senses. While rationalists emphasized the role of senses, empiricists thought that our ideas should be obtained from experience. However, Kant did more than just combined those doctrines. He created his own system of Critical Philosophy, which combines certain elements of both theories and rejects some main views.
Main Kant’s idea was in the necessity of both reason and experience for human beings. He argued with empiricists about the fundamentalism of experience: while the last is very important for cognition, the reason is necessary for producing this experiment. However, Immanuel argued with rationalists as well and rejected some of their nonempirical reality ideas. Rationalists claim: “We have knowledge of certain entities, such as God, immortal soul, and substances underlying things’ properties that are not objects of any possible experience” (Dicker, 5). In other words, they deny even an idea of human knowledge in nonempirical reality. Kant agreed with them at some points:
Although we cannot know whether God exists, whether there is an immortal human soul, or whether humans have free will, we may believe in God, immortality and freedom. Furthermore, for purposes of action and morality, we ought to believe in them despite the fact that there is no way we can know whether these beliefs are true (Dicker, 4).
Immanuel Kant in his works also gives definitions for such terms as a priori analytic and synthetic. According to Kant’s point of view, in contrast to empirical knowledge, a priory is the knowledge that does not require any experience. He also emphasizes the importance of synthetic a priori judgments. In his opinion, Synthetic judgments are opposite to analytic and are not sufficient to decide the importance of proposition.
In his works, Kant shows mathematics and pure science as two fields of knowledge where synthetic priori judgments exist. Here, the term pure appears as a synonym to a priori. He claims that some laws in science are more than just logical deductions. They are synthetic and complicated. The same thing is about mathematics. Although all mathematic contains logical conclusions, it is based on synthetic judgments: “if my understanding is correct, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem has demonstrated that no fully satisfactory purely analytic account of mathematics can ever be forthcoming” (Dicker, 5).
Immanuel Kant is a philosopher who did not only combine the ideas of rationalism and empiricism but also created his own field of epistemology where he raised the problems of these two schools. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism became a new science school and the ideas of this school are still fundamental and have sense nowadays.
Works Cited
Dicker, George. Kant’s theory of knowledge: an analytical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.
The contribution of Immanuel Kant to the modern philosophy made him be considered as one of the greatest and the most remarkable philosophers existed in the 18th century. His ideas on the transcendental idealism, opposition to skepticism and ideas about metaphysics gained him a niche in the world of philosophy. Born in Konisberg, Kant showed great interest in academics and learning.
His work was influenced by significant historical movements in philosophy – Empiricism and Rationalism – that took place in the 18th century. (Guyer,2010) He found and addressed all the gaps in the contents and arguments of the empiricists and rationalists. It is also believed that his “philosophical awakening and reasoning” emerged after studying the works of a Scottish philosopher Hume. (Guyer, 2010)
Transcendental Idealism
Transcendental idealism is one of the major beliefs that Kant postulated in his philosophical approaches. Kant claimed that human beings focused too much on appearance but not on their feelings and their inner world (Guyer, 2010). He ascertained that space and time were only immanent forms of human hunch. To advance that reasoning, Kant referred to it as “transcendental idealism”. (Guyer, 2010)
In his view, Kant appreciated that one’s experience of some phenomenon in life was based on how such things appeared to the individual, but not on the way the things precisely were. He based his approach on the acknowledgement of a priori mental function (Guyer, 2010). The appearance of these spectacles, according to Kant, existed outside nature.
Kant and Empiricism
Empiricists like John Locke argued that knowledge was gained through our senses. John Locke, for instance, posited that human beings were born as blank slates (Allison, 1983). The senses synthesize everything the one is exposed to, leading to learning. Dismissing this theory, he argued that it was deficient in explaining the beliefs an individual had on the objects he/she possessed. In fact, philosopher proposed that portions of the belief came through experience that the mind of an individual had undergone (Guyer, 2010)
Kant and rationalism
Kant rebutted the ideas of Descartes on rationalism. Descartes argued that an individual could actually extrapolate the existence of objects outside him/her, basing them on knowledge of his own existence. However, Kant strongly rejected this reasoning. External objects, according to him, could not be known through inference.
Kant and moral philosophy
Kant argued that moral responsibilities were based on “categorical Imperative”, meaning that an immoral individual breached the “categorical Imperative”. (Guyer, 2010)
He immensely contributed to the philosophical understanding of ethics. Kant posited that actions could either be moral or immoral. In such a case, the morality could only be deduced from the motive of an action but not from its consequence. He further asserted that only motives dowered actions with moral value arising from universal principles discovered by reason.
This was in contrast with the utilitarianism view of actions. The utilitarianism school of thought laid emphasis on the outcome of actions and not on the objectives. Kant objected to that belief, saying that the utilitarian theories focused entirely on the end result of actions, ignoring the initial goals. Moreover, utilitarianism is motivated by human spectacles and happiness. It ignores the role of reasoning to an individual.
In summary, Kant immensely contributed to modern philosophy; he bridged the rationalists’ school of thought to the empiricists reasoning and outlined the difference between how things were and how we perceived them. Due to his work, philosophers have established a distinct difference between Empiricism and Rationalism.
References
Allison, H. E. (1983). Kant’s transcendental idealism: an interpretation and defense. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Guyer, P. (2010). The Cambridge companion to Kant’s Critique of pure reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
There have been various philosophies concerning the manner in which human beings ought to live in society. Many philosophers consent that there is an Absolute Being who influences human beings to act and behave morally. However, some philosophers refute this claim, because many people have held different opinions concerning what morals are and how to behave morally. This paper examines how Thomas Aquinas and Emanuel Kant present their philosophical views concerning morality.
Aquinas morality
Thomas Aquinas views that morality is part of natural law, which concerns human decisions that could be realized through natural reasoning (Davies 57). Natural law entails self-evident facts that are prompted by the use of reason. When human beings use reason, they will always get the goodness that they seek. Natural law is known to each person. Thomas Aquinas perceives that morality is naturally inherent within each human person. Self-determination and rationality are vital aspects that enhance moral acts. Morality is an absolute reality that human beings must embrace.
Aquinas claims that a virtuous person is morally upright because natural law leads him to be morally upright. This means that people who are morally upright, achieve a happy life. Aquinas affirms that people should acquire knowledge in order to achieve the highest good (eudemonia). “Human beings need to satisfy their desire to achieve the highest happiness; they should know philosophy that goes concurrently with theology” (Fairbanks 7). However, this might not be easy since philosophy sometimes contradicts theology. Aquinas resolves this by claiming that divine being guides human beings in a correct path, provided that people seek the absolute best.
Aquinas held that human beings exist for an end (telos); there is a reason why human beings exist in life. Aquinas views that the main objective of why people exist in life is to be virtuous. Nevertheless, people have various views concerning what entails goodness. Aquinas explains that people have natural capability to reason while other creatures had not such capacity. “This natural capability enables human beings to behave freely and knowingly when handling issues in life” (Mendus 23). This natural capability permits people to do their duties appropriately, which are acceptable as reasonable.
Aquinas asserts that utmost excellence is naturally implanted by God in human life. Aquinas opines that human beings can acquire this theological virtue through virtuous habit. God governs eternal law that controls life in the universe according to his ideal justification. Since human beings have rationality that is generated from God, they possess natural law that enables them to perceive what is morally acceptable. “Aquinas emphasizes that human acts should be based on reason which is intrinsically given through God’s will” (Davies 58). Human beings are intrinsically rational that enable them to control their instincts to lead a moral life.
Kantian morality
Emanuel Kant claims that morality depends on pure reason. Kant opposes philosophers who perceive that morality is engrained within self interest of individuals. Morality is based on reason, but not on self interest, feelings or experience. Kant claims that moral values are not empirical. Morality gives crucial facts that put every rational creature together. Morality could not be derived from empirical facts but on pure reason. “Morality is an a priori fact that could only be attained through thinking, but not on empirical experience and self interest” (Davies 56). Kant believes that human beings require “a priori” morality; he presents that empirical motives and self-interest violate human responsibility. Self interest hinders ethical worth is the highest motive of human responsibility.
Morality is based on the good will; a good that is always good without qualification. A good will act from responsibility (duty) but does not conform to responsibility (duty). For instance, a shopkeeper who gives appropriate change from a just intention, and not from fear that he would be caught, possesses a good will. Kant explains that reason should not be used to attain happiness (this is a poor means of an end). Reason provides a will that is an intrinsic good without qualification. “Kant explains that happiness, which satisfies all human needs, is too indefinite to be an ultimate end of morality” (Fairbanks 5). Kant views that good will is the highest good and is the provision merit that acquire happiness. However, good will is not a complete good.
Happiness is attained when good will is incorporated with complete good
Kant perceived that rationality posses its own independent laws. Kant claims that human beings are rational partly. That is why people experience such independent laws as restraints (as imperatives which they ought to conform to). Such imperatives are valid and known by all rational creatures. Imperative can either be hypothetical (if an individual wish to fulfill objective R, then he ought to perform G) or categorical (an individual ought to perform G). “Morality that concerns hypothetical imperative is termed as heteronomous because it entails conforming to laws stipulated by certain individuals” (Mendus 21). On the other hand, categorical imperatives are not easy to be comprehended, but their contents are clear. Categorical imperatives are based on the principles that human beings ought to act on values which they can will to all individuals. Morality is based on categorical imperatives that are independently generated because people develop and use their own rules.
Analysis
Kantian morality is more correct and applicable than Aquinas philosophical speculation. Morality is based on duties that ought to be done by human beings. Morality is not inclined within peoples’ self interest as Aquinas claims. Aquinas perceives that divine being (God) is the creator of everything in the universe. Aquinas believes that Human beings seek God to discover the implication of life in order to attain happiness. Kant contradicts Aquinas argument that human beings emulate goodness of the divine being (God). Kant explains that morality is intrinsically self-contained, which is independent of any external bond. Kant joins free will with morality. This is true as it opposes what Aquinas claims, “human beings could only attain their end when they conform to the expectations of the metaphysical souls and what the divine being has a plan for them”. Aquinas views that:
Human beings are naturally rational; thus able to do moral acts. God governs human life; hence people have to conform to the divine goodness. Human beings naturally possess morals to enable them to attain happiness. People strive for an end (eudemonia), which is goodness.
Though Aquinas’ justification is sound, it is inadequate because morality is based on free will, but not on determinism. A free person conforms to his own rational values, but not on what people expect him to do. Kant claims that people, who act freely, use their own legislations, which turn out to be universal laws. This shows that morality and freedom are compatible. Rational beings are free to act morally because they have higher intelligibility than other creatures. Kantian philosophical justification of morality is correct.
Works cited
Davies Brian. Thomas Aquinas: Contemporary Philosophical Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print.
Fairbanks, Sandra J. Kantian Moral Theory and the Destruction of the Self. Bouldre: Westview Press, 2000. Print.
Mendus Susan. Impartiality in Moral and Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print.
According to Immanuel Kant one’s sexual desires can threaten his or hers basic coherent nature. He specifically thinks that certain sexual practices, including homosexuality, can lessen our respect for not only we but also for others and it go against the basic ethical principles, which every human being should follow. Homosexuality, according to him, goes against a person’s duty and is inconsistent with our moral requirements. He believed that ethically a human being, especially a homosexual, “must never treat another person merely as a means, but always as an end” (Kant, 285).
Discussion 1
Kant says that although human beings do not enjoy another person’s flesh some are inclined towards others and through sexual impulse can sometimes make another human an “object of indulgence”. He says that when a man loves another person it is because he has an inclination towards the other person. However, if love is only due to sexual impulse then it cannot be considered as love, rather it only remains the appetite of that particular person. Kant also opposes to homosexuality since he feels that when a human being is inclined towards his or her own kind then he or she will tend to move away from humanity. In doing so, an individual sacrifices his or her humanity and thus, runs a moral risk in doing so. Kant says that homosexuality is not merely an inclination, which a human feels towards another, but it is the preference for another person’s sexuality. This, to him, is among the principles, which degrades human nature totally. When the question of inclination towards ones own sex comes into being, Kant feels that it leads to the dishonoring of sex, as satisfaction come into play. Human nature becomes subdued since due to homosexuality a person’s sex becomes the object of another’s desire. This to him is disgraceful. Kant says that this makes humanity merely an instrument, which is used for satisfying a person’s inclinations and lust.
He describes homosexuality to be the exploitation of sexuality that contradicts our natural instinct and nature itself and says it is a crimen carnis contra naturam (Gold, 117). He says that in an intercourse among the same sexes or sexus homogenii (Gold, 118), the human being becomes an object of sexual impulse and thus, it ends humanity. He says that by practicing homosexuality we tend to move towards the end of our humanity. Homosexuality does not preserve our species, which should be the basic reason for sexuality. A homosexual person does not help to maintain human kind but, rather dishonors it and thus, demeans oneself even below the level of an animal. Thus, Immanuel Kant says that homosexuality is so corrupting that it brings us to the point where human beings are considered equal to beasts.
Discussion 2
Immanuel Kant further emphasizes on his philosophy by saying that homosexuality takes place against our basic instincts not only degrading human nature but also making a person completely unworthy of his species and thus, basic humanity. A homosexual should no longed be addressed as a person since they do not deserve to be one. An individual has certain duties towards himself, which they must fulfill in their lifetime, but by becoming a homosexual, he or she becomes completely disgraceful and demeans oneself to the lowermost point possible. He says that homosexuality is even more dishonorable than suicide which is the most dreadful of all things but not as shameful as homosexuality. Finally, Kant says that homosexuality is a vice which human beings should be ashamed of since only they are capable of indulging themselves in such disrespectful acts.
Discussion 3
Immanuel Kant intently discouraged homosexuality since in his era it was not something people respected a lot. Thus, his theories sometimes do not fit with our progressive views on homosexuality due to the difference of time and era. Thus, the views he has on homosexuality are all right, considering his time. He puts homosexuality at par with prostitution and even suicide which today is not so but is only an individual’s sexual preference. Kant’s perspectives about homosexuals are very extreme. He says that homosexuals are not to be considered people at all. However, in today’s world this kind of a view has no place.
Homosexuals are also humans and there is nothing degrading about being one. They also deserve all the comforts and rights, which a heterogeneous person gets. In addition, morality is not absolute. Whether a person is homosexual or not does not affect his or her morality. As homosexuality is present in reality, it must be somewhat natural too. Kant says that homosexuality is wrong and demeans a person but it is not so. Although some people may consider homosexuality unnatural as it goes against the ways of nature but it is not unhealthy or wrong. A homosexual person does not commit a crime in being the way he or she is.
According to Immanuel Kant, acts of homosexuality are completely unnatural. However, this opinion of his is a bit too radical. It is a fact that homosexuality may be bad for society since if every person became a homosexual then there will not be a properly functioning society at all and thus, society would collapse. However, that does not mean that we label homosexuality as wrong and unnatural. His views were very extreme as he considered homosexuals to be even below animals. He had the opinion that humans should treat each other’s respectfully and not just merely as means but also as ends. This is where a flaw lies in Kant’s approach. When homosexual people fall in love with their respective partners, it is not always out of sexual desire but because of love, too. Thus, they love their partners and treat them as ends rather than as means. This is where his theories fail to apply.
Conclusion
Immanuel Kant considered homosexuality to be a crime against nature. He says that homosexuality is immoral since it makes a person go against his or her moral duty. He had the opinion that his morality should be able to hold on to the contempt he had towards homosexuality. He thinks that a homosexual person does not respect others and thus, uses everyone merely as a means rather than as ends. Immanuel Kant said that homosexuality is completely and universally wrong since it violates humanity ending it with respect to a person’s sexuality, which actually preserves our human species without adulterating an individual. He also had the opinion that a person who is homosexual is completely degraded and thus, should be considered even below the level of an animal. (Kirkendall and Gravatt, 58-9)
Works Cited
Gold, Steven. Moral controversies: race, class, and gender in applied ethics. London: Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1992.
Kant, E. “Love and Sex”. Morality and moral controversies: readings in moral, social, and political philosophy. Ed. John Arthur and Steven Scalet. London: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004. 285-290.
Kirkendall, Lester, and Arthur E. Gravatt. Marriage and the family in the year 2020. Oxford: Prometheus Books, 1984.
The 17th-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes developed a rather primitive materialistic worldview, but it became prevalent among the so-called advanced, atheistic figures, and therefore became widely known. According to Hobbes, the only subject of philosophy (and science in general) is the body, for there are only material and finite objects. God is unknowable, and philosophy cannot judge him, deity and soul are not objects of rational knowledge, but given in the revelation of faith and related theology. Hobbes reduced human thinking to one logic and limited it to simple mathematical operations of comparison and discrimination, addition, and subtraction. This approach is natural for a worldview that reduces all reality to one body, but Hobbes’s interpretation, even for him, is extremely simplified.
Main text
In the theory of knowledge, Hobbes proclaims consistent empiricism. Logic, in his opinion, operates exclusively with data obtained from experience. The movements evoke impressions in people’s sense organs, and the impressions evoke movements within people. Thoughts are these movements occurring within a person, and they, therefore, are ordinary movements of bodily substances, not containing anything ideal. Consciousness processes ideas through a physiological connection between the material traces of movements. Comparison, conjunction, and separation process simple empirical ideas into more complex ones. In his philosophical works, Hobbes compares this to how thoughts of consecutive numbers arise from combining ideas of individual units. People cannot have ideas of incorporeal objects since the senses do not perceive such objects. Comparison, connection, and separation do not change the simple ideas obtained by experience from sensations, but only consider them side by side, now, in a merger, then separately.
Will, like cognition, arises from impressions of the outside world, and in addition to logical conclusions, the latter generate feelings of pleasure and displeasure. The individual seeks how to strengthen the pleasure and to weaken displeasure. Both are only movements in a person’s heart, as perception is movements in his brain. People consider things that cause pleasure as useful and evaluate opposite feelings as evil. The desire to preserve and enhance comfort goes into action, and the opposite craving leads to abstinence from activity.
The result of choosing between actions and abstinence from them is called will. The voluntary choice is outwardly free, but it is easy to make sure that it always necessarily tends toward the most definite attraction considering its underlying roots. Therefore, talking about free will is possible only with significant reservations. In ethics, Hobbes, like most materialists, proclaims the relativity of morality. Absolute goodness does not exist. What is suitable for people is evil for their enemies. The concept of good, according to Hobbes’s philosophy, comes down to the everyday feelings of beauty and utility, not based on anything more sublime.
The theory of the origin of the state is set forth by Hobbes in the famous work Leviathan. Like all materialists, he proceeds in it from the fact that man is naturally evil and greedy (Hobbes and Gaskin, 1996). It is impossible to look at the human personality in any other way if one denies the existence of ideal principles in the soul and explains everything in it with just material impulses. Hobbes believes that in the original, natural state (before the state), people were equal. However, under their greedy nature and the desire of everyone to rule over his neighbor from this equality, only a war of all against all could arise. It was necessary to create a state to get rid of the fear and danger associated with this universal war. For this, each individual had to give up his freedom and unlimited right to everything, transferring it to one or more persons.
According to Hobbes’s philosophy, to prevent the renewed war of all against all, all the rights of individuals must be transferred to the state in full. It must become unlimited, and subjects must fully obey the three types of government, which are democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. Only the monarchy achieves the main goal for which the state happened, which is the safety of citizens. Therefore, the monarchical system is the best possible, and an individual citizen must be wholly powerless and insignificant to the state (Hobbes and Gaskin, 1996). As the source of laws, the representative of the supreme authority stands above them, for he defines fair and unjust, honest, and dishonorable. Citizens can rebel against the state only if it is unable to protect the world and only to replace loose despotism with a competent one and then again renounce all its rights in its favor. The supreme power should fully dominate not only in secular affairs but also in determining religious dogma and cult.
The fundamental idea of Kant’s epistemology is that all people’s knowledge is composed of two elements – the content that the experience supplies, and the form that exists in mind before any experience. Human cognition begins with experience, but the experience itself is carried out only because it finds in people’s minds pre-experienced (a priori) forms and conditions for all perception given in advance. Therefore, first of all, it is necessary to study these non-empirical conditions of empirical knowledge, and Kant calls it transcendental. People know the world of things intuitively, through sensory representations, but this intuition is possible only because the material brought by sensations is inserted into a priori subjective forms of the human mind; these forms of intuition, according to Kant’s philosophy, are time and space. Everything that people know through sensations, they realize it in time and space, and only in this temporal-spatial shell is the physical world before people. Time and space are not ideas, not concepts, and their origin is not empirical.
According to Kant, they are “pure intuitions” that form the chaos of sensations and determine sensory experience; they are personal forms of the mind, but this subjectivity is universal, and therefore the knowledge arising from them is a priori and binding on everyone (Kant and Ellington, 1993). That is why pure mathematics is possible, geometry with its spatial, arithmetic, with its temporal content. The forms of space and time apply to all objects of possible experience, but only to them, only to phenomena, and things in themselves are hidden to people (Kant and Ellington, 1993). If space and time are subjective forms of the human mind, then it is clear that the knowledge they determine is also subjective-human (Kant and Ellington, 1993). However, that Kant’s views on the essence of things in themselves and on phenomena are not entirely sustained and are not the same in various works of him (Kant and Ellington, 1993). However, knowledge on intuition does not stop, and people get a wholly finished experience when they synthesize intuition utilizing concepts, these functions of reason.
If sensuality perceives, then idea thinks; it connects intuitions and gives unity to their diversity, and just as sensuality has its a priori forms, it also has a reason. These forms are categories that are the most general and independent of experience concepts by which all the rest, subordinates to them, theories are united in judgments. To get the judgments of reason from the decisions of intuition, one must first bring them into the appropriate categories, and this is done through the ability of the imagination, which can determine which type this or that intuitive perception fits into, since each group has its scheme, in the form link homogeneous with both the phenomenon and the category.
This scheme in Kant’s philosophy is considered a priori relation of time (filled time is a scheme of reality; empty time is a scheme of negation). This relation indicates which category applies to a given subject. Although the types by their origin depend on experience and even determine it, their use does not go beyond the limits of possible experience, and they are entirely inapplicable to things in themselves (Kant and Ellington, 1993). These things in themselves can only be conceivable but not known; for people, they are nouns (objects of thinking), but not phenomena (objects of perception).
Nevertheless, the human spirit strives for its cherished goal for the super-experienced and whole ideas of God, freedom, immortality. These ideas arise in people’s minds because the diversity of experience receives the highest unity and final synthesis. Ideas, bypassing the objects of intuition, apply to the judgments of the mind and give them the character of an absolute and unconditional; thus, according to Kant, people’s knowledge gradients, beginning with sensations, passing on to reason and ending in the mind. However, the unconditionality that characterizes ideas is only an idea, only a task, to the solution of which a person continually strives, wanting to find a condition for each conditional. In Kant’s philosophy, ideas serve as regulatory principles that govern the mind and lead it up the endless ladder of more generalizations, leading to higher purposes of the soul, world, and God.
Furthermore, if people use these ideas of the soul, peace, and God, without losing sight of the fact that people do not know the objects corresponding to them, they will serve people excellent service as reliable leaders of knowledge. If cognizable realities are seen in the purposes of these ideas, then there is a basis for the three theoretical sciences, which, according to Kant, are the stronghold of metaphysics – for rational psychology, cosmology and theology. In ideas, pure reason speaks its last word and then begins the area of practical reason, the area of will.
Conclusion
Among the latter, a categorical imperative stands out for its indestructible demandingness, commanding people to act morally, no matter how these actions affect people’s well-being. Kant believes that people should be moral for the sake of morality, virtuous – for virtue; performance of duty is itself the goal of good behavior (Kant and Ellington, 1993). Moreover, only a person who does good, not because of the happy inclination of his nature, but solely for duty, can be moral. True morality defeats inclinations rather than goes hand in hand with them, and the incentive of a virtuous act should not include a natural inclination toward such acts.
References
Hobbes, T., & Gaskin, J. C. A. (1996). Leviathan. Oxford University Press.
Kant, I., & Ellington, J. W. (1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals: With on a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns (Hackett Classics) (3rd ed.). Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Philosophy is a very difficult science to understand without studying it properly. It is not enough just to read philosophical works, they must be studied and understood, only in this way it is possible to enter the philosophical world, to comprehend it in a full volume. The great philosopher of his time Immanuel Kant still has an influence in the world philosophical thought and his works are still valid, in spite of the fact that he lived and wrote in the XVIII century. Kant’s great thoughts are still discussed in the world, his theories still work and it is impossible to reject his great contribution to ethical philosophy.
Immanuel Kant was born on the twenty-second of April, 1724 in Königsberg in a big family with ten brothers and sisters. His parents were notable people: his father was a craftsman and his mother, having come out of a famous family, had an excellent education, considering the fact that it was inappropriate for women to be well-educated. Since the very6 childhood, Kant was influenced by the surrounding environment. The city he lived in was the center of the province. So, the whole political, military, economical, literary and religious life was concentrated there. The culture in the city was on a high level and being isolated from other literature centers, influenced the desire for intellectual growth. (Stuckenberg 2009)
Due to the fact that his mother was well-educated, she did her best to impart her love for knowledge to her son. The principles of morality, peace, and piety were cultivated in Immanuel since his childhood, and these principles were inserted into his philosophical tractates. His first works were superior moral ones, because of the influence on him by his upbringing. On the other hand, there was noting notable or extraordinary in Kant’s youth. (Stuckenberg 2009)
Childhood and youth of the philosopher were the most crucial parts of his life as they were periods when his consciousness was formed, when his tastes and ideas were constructed, in spite of the fact that he did not understand that, it was on the subconscious level.
Kant’s works are multi-thematic, it is impossible to divide his life into periods according to the themes of his works, but still, the number of his works may be divided into several themes (periods): a mathematical, a physical, a metaphysical, and an ethical period.
Ethics is one of the oldest disciplines, the object of which is morality. Considering the problem of ethics in Kant’s works it is impossible to avoid the fact that the problem of ethics was considered at different times by Aristotle, Spinoza, Marks, and others and the interest in this subject does not reduce for so many years. The works by Kant about ethics are the most significant in this sphere of knowledge. Between the classics of German philosophy, Kant paid much more attention to specifics of morality and his ethical conception, logically developed in the number of his specific works, was the most worked out, systematic and finished.
Reading Kant’s work “To Perpetual Peace”, it is impossible not to notice Kant’s doctrine of publicity. Kant offers one formula, which, according to his opinion, should be used in international and national arenas in order to provide peace. He insists that “All actions that affect the rights of the men are wrong if their maxim is not considered with publicity” (Kant 2003-37). This phrase may be considered from several sides (e.g. judicial as the human rights are mentioned), but the main aspect is its ethical nature. The mentioned principle is called the transcendental formula.
Dwelling upon the similar theme, Kant notices that ”All maxims that require publicity (in order not to fail of their end) agree with both politics and morality” (Kant 2003-41). These two Kant’s principles just underline the principles of morality, which should exist in every society. Society is the main follower of moral ethics. If some person does what he/she wants without considering the consequences and without considering whether society agrees to recognize that action as moral, so the person has followed all ethical rules, which were required from him/her. If the person refuses to inform society about the actions or if they do not correspond to moral status in the society, the person cannot be considered as ethically right.
Kant’s consideration is that every person should be accountable to ethical and moral norms which exist in the whole society. The nation is not one single person, it is the group of people who follow similar ethical rules. If every person in the society may be named “moral person” (Kant 2003-48), so the whole society may be considered ethical and moral.
Kant’s work “Metaphysics of Morals” focuses on the fundamental issue of morality. The essence of duty is, according to Kant, for the first, is the responsibility before himself or herself.
A human being has a duty to raise himself from the crude state of his nature, from his animality, more and more toward humanity, by which he alone is capable of setting himself ends: he has a duty to diminish his ignorance by instruction and to correct his errors. (Kant 1996-151)
Studying Kant’s understanding of the duty, it becomes visible that moral behavior requires not just the practical realization of the duty, but practical performance. Morality and duty are closely interconnected in Kant’s works. It seems that if some person does something for the good of the other person, at the same time what contradicts his/her own goods, this means that this person is on the highest level of morality. Kant is right when says that the moral imperative requires providing people with the necessary help, but does not make them love these people for that help. It is impossible to say that you must love your neighbor. It may be agreed that the feeling of duty as if exclude the feeling of love. But it is impossible to agree with Kant’s consideration that love and duty may never coincide as pure humanization requires love to all people.
So, the ethics of Kant is based on the feeling of morality in the whole society. Moral people have their duty, first of all before themselves and then before the whole society, as morality should be understood by the whole society in order to be ethically confirmed. Kant’s ethical theories are one of the strongest principles which were popular during his time and his works still continue to be studied and discussed in the modern world. Kant’s philosophical principles hide a lot of sense which is impossible to understand from one reading.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Kant, Immanuel. To perpetual peace: a philosophical sketch. Hackett Publishing, 2003.
Stuckenberg, J. H. The Life of Immanuel Kant. BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009.
In the essay What Is Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant provides readers with the definition of enlightenment as well as the path towards it. In his own words, enlightenment may be defined as “man’s release from his self-imposed tutelage.” The tutelage, which can also be perceived as immaturity, is the concept by which an individual perceives the world and is unable to utilize their own understanding without the guidance of others. As such, enlightenment may be achieved in the case in which a person gains the courage to rely on their own understandings and reasonings to guide their lives and beliefs.
Kant proposes that the state of unenlightenment is easy as it allows for complete reliance on others. As such, the foundation for enlightenment is rooted in freedom, and Kant believed that in the case that freedom is granted, people are likely to follow enlightenment in order to achieve it. However, Kant argues that most are not free in most senses. Even authoritarian figures lack freedom as they are victims of their own systems, which have been inherited and will continue to exist after them. He elaborates by making a distinction between public freedom and civic duty. Public freedom refers to the ability to criticize and discuss existing structures such as the military or taxation. However, when one is faced with civic duty, such as the order to pay bills or perform military tasks, one must do so as a result of their civic duty.
In the closing paragraphs of the essay, Kant discusses the further complexities of enlightenment through the lenses of civil, spiritual, and intellectual freedoms. He argues that those that are with less civil freedom are, in fact, those that uphold greater freedom in areas of intellect and spirituality. As a result, individuals with greater intellectual freedom improve the health of society by perceiving all people as having dignity.
Immanuel Kant’s essay “Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment?” contains the thoughts of a philosopher about the distinguishing features of a person of the Enlightenment era. For Kant, it is a turning point in the historical development of humanity, which is aimed at realizing a person’s mental abilities laid down by nature. In Kant’s understanding, only a person who can think independently, without relying on the opinion of others, reaches maturity. The main ideas and arguments presented in the essay need to be systematized and summarized for a better understanding of Kant’s philosophy.
In the essay, Kant focuses on the principles of independence, freedom, and restrictions, which in his opinion, are keys to Enlightenment thinking. In Kant’s understanding, the ability to make independent and reasonable judgments is an exit from the state of immaturity. Kant claims that for a long time, humanity did not realize and did not use its inherent ability to make independent judgments appropriately. Moreover, Kant states that a person is the cause of this prolonged immaturity. People do not have enough courage to start thinking independently, and it is convenient for them to remain immature all life and to think under the guidance of others.
According to the philosopher, the key to the emergence of independent thinking is the presence of freedom. In conditions of freedom, the education of society is virtually inevitable. Moreover, Kant declares that restricting the freedom of judgment for a person can be considered a restriction of his freedom in general, which is the greatest crime against society. The imposition of dogmas and beliefs that are not characteristic of people leads to the fact that humanity cannot reach its maturity and cannot advance in its historical development.
In this context, much attention is paid to the role of religion in society. For Kant, the imposition of religious dogmas is an example of a flagrant lack of freedom in the possibility of independent judgment. The philosopher claims that people who blindly obey religious dogmas are at the highest level of immaturity because they blindly agree with attitudes that no one has ever questioned. Thus, Kant recommends avoiding dogmatic politics and giving society freedom in matters of religion to create an enlightened society.
However, along with freedom, Kant talks about the importance of having certain restrictions. These restrictions can contribute to the enlightenment of society as effectively as complete freedom. The philosopher draws a line between the citizen’s and scholar’s freedom and claims that a citizen must have certain restrictions. A person must follow the procedures established by the authorities and, for example, pay taxes, and at the same time, should have the right to express his disagreement with the need to pay taxes publicly. Sometimes it looks like the less freedom a citizen has, the more a scholar has. The same applies to public and private use of one’s reason. Freedom should extend only to the public sphere and be limited to private use of reason to maintain public order.
Thus, by Enlightenment, Kant understands the transition of human consciousness from the stage of unquestioning perception of other people’s thoughts and attitudes to the stage of formation by a person of his independent judgments. However, the creation of an enlightened society must follow certain principles. A person as a scholar needs freedom to think; however, a citizen’s freedom must be limited and controlled to avoid chaos in society.
Kant coined his universalizing formulation in order to deduce a principle of evaluating the actions to be produced by a human being with consciousness and reason. The formulation aims at establishing moral conditions of mind satisfying humanity as a whole and each person in particular. The formulation could justify itself; namely, the invocation of the general will of all humans guarantees the consistency and applicability of the thesis. To be precise, the categorical imperative commands people to act so that the effects of their deeds would be in accordance with their will. In turn, their will includes the need to be treated so as to establish their good. Since every human desire to attain good (however, in different ways), the most common desire would be to follow the law or set of principles that could satisfy others. Then, the moral will be to fulfill this common desire to benefit oneself and other people, which tests the strength of volition. Hence, the categorical imperative is self-evident but not recognizable by people with a mere understanding of the nature of will.
I will discuss in terms of the universalizing formulation of a situation of putting a “beware of dog” sign on my front door while I have none. The motivation behind such an action could be a desire to reduce the probability of intervention on my property by intimidating people. Suggestively, I will do that because of the need for security and the elimination of any disturbance. Although the sign may prevent visits from intruders or even burglars, it may emotionally distress my neighbors and friends. Moreover, after recognizing that the sign yet may not indicate the presence of a dog, others may bear this knowledge when seeing other signs of the same use. Applying Kant’s categorical imperative for the case would be as follows:
Step 1: To determine the maxim of action.
For my wish for safety and calmness, I can use the sign that would prevent others from entering my property effectively, although the sign’s purpose does not correspond to my use of it.
Step 2: To Formulate the maxim as universal.
When anyone wants to protect their house from intervention or disturbance of unwanted guests, they could place the sign “Beware of the dog” on their doors and expect the effectiveness of this effort.
Step 3: To determine if the maxim is genuinely universal.
Since the sign’s purpose would be ignored by people who place it, it would not serve them. Burglars and unwanted guests will recognize the falsity of the sign and stop considering it a threat.