-Hayley Mengaziol
Section 10, Group 2 Kant Touch This
Hayley
Mengaziol
Philosophy
Phil
Oliver
November
16, 2014
Immanuel Kant: His Life and
Philosophy
Throughout the history of the world,
people of all ages, all genders, all cultures, and all lifestyles have
questioned the way humans think and what humans actually know. Humans are
naturally inquisitive creatures; we are filled with the desire to learn, create,
and grow as individuals. Immanuel Kant was no exception. One of the most
influential philosophers of his time, Kant contributed to the fields of
metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics still live on today. Kant
wanted to transcend the divide between Empiricism and Rationalism. He called
this metaphysics, which was basically the attempt to make sense of life. He
also made strides in the idea of morals; believing that doing a moral action
just because it makes people feel better, or less guilty, negates the action
entirely. Kant, like any other historical figure, was shaped by the ideals and
events around him; and this is reflected in his work, studies and beliefs.
Immanuel Kant was a German
philosopher who lived from 1724 to 1804. His father was an immigrant from
Scotland and his mother was uneducated. Kant was the fourth of nine children.
Therefore, it was only through the influence of their local pastor that Kant
received an education at a Latin, or Pietist school, then furthered his education
at the University of Konigsberg, attending courses in theology, mathematics,
and physics. These interests would lead him to create some of his most
important ideas in philosophy. In 1744 he began his first book, Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living
Forces, which was mainly concerned with kinetic forces. After the death of
his father, Kant became a tutor for nine years. Through his employment he was
able to make connections within the most influential members of society. After
many years of schmoozing, he was finally able to finish his degree through the
help of a benevolent friend.[1]
Kant continued to acquire
information with a boundless thirst for knowledge. He familiarized himself with
the great philosophers of the time, including Newt, Leibniz, and Baumgarten.
The more he studied, the more he taught, and the more his renown grew. In 1770,
Kant was appointed to the chair of logic and metaphysics, a great honor. He
remained on the chair until only a few years before his demise. Kant spent his
time writing many critiques, his most famous being the Critique of Pure Reason
(Other works include the Critique of Practical Reasoning and the Critique of
Judgment). Kant struggled with poor health his entire life, but still managed
to keep his life in a strict schedule, making sure to take his walk at the same
time every day, a time when he could remain pensive and reflect on various
theories and ideas. The street he used to walk down is now named for him; it is
called “The Philosopher’s Walk”. [2]
During Kant’s lifetime, there
were two major theories that had a great influence on him: Empiricism and
Rationalism. He felt each of these had some serious flaws. The Rationalists
felt that the use of logic could answer all questions about reality. On the
other side of the spectrum, the Empiricists thought reason was too limited and
that to truly arrive at conclusions was to experience things for themselves,
similar to the scientific method. This disagreement of this one fundamental
theory fascinated Kant, and he tried to act as a referee between the two sides.[3]
To combine the two ideals of
Rationalism and Empiricism, Kant created the idea of the synthetic a priori. He
believed it was possible to use both logic and life experience to arrive at
conclusions. Thus, synthetic a priori is a compromise between the two. The use
of the word synthetic is used to show it is different from analytic knowledge,
its opposite. Analytic truths are true by definition alone, while synthetic
truths require research to find. The second part of Kant’s idea, a priori,
separates it from the a posteriori. A priori is knowledge available without
experience. Therefore, Kant combines both Empiricism through the word synthetic
and Rationalism through a priori to create synthetic a priori, a hybrid that
revered both movements.[4]
This idea of synthetic a priori
seems to contradict Kant’s philosophy of discovering the world without leaving
his metaphorical armchair. Without having gained the experience, or the
synthetic part of finding knowledge, one cannot completely use synthetic a
priori. However, Kant gets around this by saying that while it is impossible to
know what is independent of the philosopher without experiencing it for
oneself, it is possible to find knowledge that is inside us. And thus Kant
tells us that we are not reflecting on the actual world, but on the world as we
see it. Space and time, Kant argues, are only an aspect of how we view reality,
and not reality itself. According to Kant, perhaps we will never know true
reality, as we are inhibited by our vastly limited human bodies and minds.[5]
This theme is the central basis for
Kant’s most famous work, the Critique of
Pure Reason. Basically, he is setting the limit of what we can know as
humans, recognizing the possibility of metaphysics in a specific way. Kant’s definition
of metaphysics is “the cognitions after which reason might strive independently
of all experience,” with the final goal of his book being to reach a “decision
about the possibility or impossibility of a metaphysics in general, and the
determination of its sources, vas well as its extent and boundaries, all,
however, from principles.” Basically, Kant wanted to discern whether or not
knowledge without reason, or the aforementioned a priori, is truly possible. [6]
He categorizes many of the great questions as simply unanswerable, such as
whether or not there is a god, or if we really have free will. In Kant’s
opinion, what is most important is how we are perceived in ourselves. He is
preoccupied with the limits that have been set for us, and what lies beyond the
limits. However, it is wrong to assume that Kant believes that these questions
don’t matter, quite the opposite; though we are blinded by our view of the
world, that doesn’t mean the answers to these questions to these questions
aren’t out there. Maybe they are, but then again, maybe they are not.[7]
In Kant’s lifetime, science had
made leaps and bounds with the help of Isaac Newton. New scientific
explanations for seemingly almost everything threatened the religious ideas,
which to Kant meant a threat to our owl personal ideas of freedom. Kant
addresses the issue of a god in an unusual way; he states: ‘I had to deny
knowledge in order to make room for faith’. Perhaps he wanted to protect
religion, or perhaps he did not want to offend others; remember that in this
time in history, religion was a big deal, swallowing almost every aspect of
society, controlling both church and state. Perhaps he wanted to protect traditional
Christian morality, because morality does not exist without free will. Overall,
Kant wanted to accept both science and freedom. He felt that by understanding
the difference between what is real and what we can perceive, we are able to
protect those great questions while simultaneously accepting ourselves and the
universe around us.[8]
Kant was not only interested in
the human perception of reality, but also in the inner workings of morality.
Kant had immaculately strict moral guidelines. According to him, it is not
enough to simply do the right thing, you must do it for the right reasons as
well. Feelings such as sympathy, guilt, or benevolence are irrelevant; people
must do the right thing simply because it is their duty to do the right thing.
In Kant’s view, emotions are a matter of luck and chance. Some people have more
emotions than others, Kant argues. Being good is a choice, not a question of
morals. In fact, the person who does not want to help anyone at all, but does
so out of a sense of duty, is actually, according to Kant, more moral than
someone who helps people out of good will. Emotions only violate the thought
process and the distinction Kant sees between right and wrong. The idea is to
overcome all emotion and carry out your actions regardless, not because, of
them.[9]
This also applies to negative
deeds. Most people take into account the intentions of someone when judging
their mistakes. Kant, however, believes only that the outcome matters, because
what if everyone did that? Each individual situation cannot be accounted for,
because in Kant’s theory, every action needs to be viewed as a blanket term. In
every case, the question “can this be applied to everyone?” needs to be asked.
The reasoning behind this is that everyone should be treated equally and with
respect. Therefore the same rules need to apply to everyone, no matter the
circumstance. Additionally, the idea of doing certain things only to get what
you want is morally wrong. One must think of right and wrong based on
reasoning, not emotion; feelings are once again irrelevant to the outcome. In
Kant’s opinion, morality should be available to everyone. This idea is quite
different than the views of many other famous philosophers, such as Aristotle,
who believed a moral person should have the right moral, compassionate feelings
already, and these feelings would then cause that person to act in the correct
way, which is of course very different from what Kant believed.[10]
Kant’s philosophy of morals can
be applied directly to many situations in life. For example, someone who is
cruel to animals is obviously not somebody of good moral character. However,
according to Kant, the pain of the animal being abused is not important in the
moral sense. The reason the cruelty of animals is immoral, to Kant, is because
if someone is cruel to beings lesser than him or herself, that person is more
likely to harm fellow human beings. This violates the duty we have toward other
human beings.[11]
However, there are some flaws in
Kantian ethics, the main one being that it is empty. It gives no help to people
who are torn between two decisions. For example, the decision to lie to protect
somebody would go against Kant’s belief that lying for any reason is still
wrong. However, if the person told the truth, they would also be violating
Kant, because they would be putting another person in danger, and therefore
breaking the duty that everyone has to one another. The idea of Kantian ethics
is solely a linear function, with no room for improvisation or addition.
Therefore, while Kantian ethics may apply very well to a basic situation, such as
a young boy lying to his mother about doing his chores, it does not stand up
well in more complex situations. A differing view that may be more applicable
to complicated situations is consequentialism, which focuses on the intentions
of the liar, and the expected consequences of one’s actions.[12]
In both Kantian ethics and consequentialism, the young boy would still be
wrong. However, the person who lies to protect a friend would be immoral
according to Kant, but according to consequentialism, they would be of good
moral character because their desired outcome would be a morally correct one. Therefore,
it is left to each and every one of us to decide whether or not we should take
Kant’s stance on morals to heart.
Today, the more popular view in
social situations is consequentialism. The criminal justice system, however,
takes the opposite side of the spectrum, judging people’s actions on the end
result alone, with only a few exceptions (for example, murder as opposed to
involuntary manslaughter), and these exceptions tend to only apply to
large-scale charges. Some would criticize this as being too harsh, while others
could call the idea of consequentialism too soft. The lingering question
remains: does the end justify the means?
Overall, Immanuel Kant was a man who
overcame humble beginnings to become one of the most influential philosophers
of his time period. He began by reading the theories and implications others
had to offer, than escalated to writing his own publications of his theories,
thus becoming a role model for those who would follow in his footsteps. Kant’s
philosophies live on today, asking us grand, vast questions that challenge our
ideas of faith, reality, and the notion of right and wrong. We are all, each of
us, philosophers, and it is our own personal responsibility to decide whether
to accept or eschew the ideals presented by Kant. Regardless, Immanuel Kant was
an important element of our history, and his ideas should be respected and
ruminated upon even in this modern age, because even as our society evolves,
human nature remains the same.
Works Cited
Bird, Otto Allen. "Immanuel Kant." Encyclopedia
Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
Edmonds, David, and Nigel Warburton. Philosophy Bites Back.
Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Rohlf, Michael. "Immanuel Kant." Stanford
University. May 20, 2010. Accessed November 17, 2014. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#KanProThePurRea.
Warburton, Nigel. A Little History of Philosophy.
London: Yale University Press, 2012.
Warburton, Nigel. Philosophy: The Basics. London:
Routledge, 1992.
[1]
Otto Allen Bird. "Immanuel
Kant." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica,
n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
[3] David Edmonds
and Nigel Warburton. Philosophy Bites Back. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford
University Press, 2012.
133-134
[4] Philosophy Bites Back 134-135
[6]
Michael Rolf. "Immanuel
Kant." Stanford University. May 20, 2010. Accessed November 17, 2014. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#KanProThePurRea.
45-47
Good job!
ReplyDelete"Emotions only violate the thought process and the distinction Kant sees between right and wrong. The idea is to overcome all emotion and carry out your actions regardless, not because, of them" - Kant would have made a good Vulcan, or Stoic. For a very different view, check out Robert Solomon's books on the relevance of emotion for human (and humane) thinking. And, Daniel Goleman's concept of "emotional intelligence."