|
Sophia on the web A Resource Guide for Philosophy Students Created by Jennifer Leslie Torgerson, MA This
page last modified: May 5, 2013 ©
copyright, 1997 - present http://philosophyhippo.net
Immanuel Kant 1724 - 1804 Bibliography Frederick
Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy: Book
Two. (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1985 [1944]). Immanuel
Kant. Critique of Pure Reason. J. M.
D. Meiklejohn, editor. (New York, NY: Prometheus Press, 1990). ________. Grounding
for the Metaphysics of Morals and On a Supposed Right to Lie because of
Philanthropic Concerns, 3rd Edition; James W. Ellington,
Translator. (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1993 [1981]). ________. Grounding
for the Metaphysics of Morals. James W. Ellington, Editor. (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1980). ________. The Critique of Judgement. (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1991 [1952] ). ________. The
One Possible Basis for a Demonstration of the Existence of God. (Lincoln,
NE: University of Nebraska Press,
1979). Smith, and Grene. Philosophers Speak For Themselves. (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1957). W.
T. Jones. A History of Western Philosophy:
Kant and the Nineteenth Century, 2nd Edition. (San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace, 1980 [1952]). The
works of Kant On Fire (1755). General Natural History
and Theory of the Heavens (1755). A New Explanation of the
First Principles of Metaphysical Knowledge (1755). The False Subtlety of the
Four Syllogistic Figures (1762). The Only Possible Ground
for a Demonstration of God’s Existence (1762). Enquiry into the
Distinctness of the Principles of Natural Theory and Morals (1764). Observations on the
Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime (1764). Dreams of a Ghost-seer,
explained by Dreams of Metaphysics (1766). The Bounds of Sensibility
and Reason (1771). The Critique of Pure Reason
(1781). Second edition published in 1787. Prolegomena
to any Future Metaphysics (1783). General
History form a Cosmopolitan Point of View (1784). Fundamental
Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785). On
Volcanoes in the Moon (1785). Metaphysical
First Principles of Natural Science (1786). Critique
of Practical Reason (1788). Critique
of Judgment (1790). On
the Failure of all Philosophical Attempts at a Theodicy (1791). Religion
with the Bounds of Reason Alone (1793). On
Perpetual Peace (1795). The
Metaphysics of Morals (1797). Formed from Elements of the Theory of Right and
the Metaphysical Elements of the Theory of Virtue. Opus Postumum Kant and the A Priori Immanuel Kant (1724- 1804), a Prussian philosopher, who
labeled his own position "transcendental" or "critical"
idealism. a little
historical intro. The Age of Reason and the mood of the Enlightenment: The eighteenth-century philosophers were persuaded that
they lived in the best of all possible worlds. Because nature seemed to beneficent- "Whatever is, is right." - and because people seem rational, they conclude that
progress was inevitable. But this optimism suffered a series of severe blows.
The French Revolution in 1789, which was supposed to mark the over throw of
tyranny only ushered in a more formidable tyranny- Napoleon. The Industrial
Revolution, instead of bringing peace and plenty, resulted in urban
overcrowding and misery. And Hume's use of Locke's empirical criterion of
meaning proved to have undermined- even more than Hume himself realized- both
the concept of nature and the concept of reason. As a result a counter
movement began to emerge- a movement hostile to science, skeptical of
progress, opposed to prosperity, and increasingly alienated from the
long-dominant values of rationality, self-consciousness, objectivity, and
detachment. Kant recognized the destructive potential of Hume's
critique; one of the main drives that animated his thought was the desire to
answer Hume's criticisms of the claims of science and to show that an a
priori knowledge of nature is possible. A second main drive of his
philosophy, however, was to limit scientific knowledge in order to make a
place for a feeling, for what he called "faith". Both of these aims
were accomplished in a single stroke by what Kant called his "Copernican
revolution" in the theory of knowledge. Abandoning the traditional view
that minds are the essentially passive contemplators of individually existing
objects, Kant held that objects are the constructs in which the activity of
minds plays an essential part. Distinction between form and content: There is a distinction to be made between the form of a
judgment and its content. All judgments fall into two classes depending on
their form: (1) they assert that either that something has such-and-such a property
(This rose is red) or, (2) they assert that something is the cause of
something else, or that something has such-and- such a degree of quality and
so on. There is a kind of putting together that consists in attribution;
there is another kind of putting together that consists in causation. The problem of pure reason: In Kant's questions is "How are synthetic a priori
judgements possible?" This is according to
Kant the "general problem of pure reason." A judgment is a movement of thought in which two items
are brought together and combined. We judge whenever we say: "This house
is large." or "the interior angles of a triangle equal two right
angles." The mind brings together the terms in a judgment because it
detects a connection between them. It is this connection that is the warrant,
or basis, of the judgment. "This house is large" is an a posteriori or
empirical judgment. "The interior angles of a triangle equal two right
angles" is an a priori, or "independent of experience". Kant explains: "Experience teaches us that a thing
is so and so, but not that it cannot be otherwise.
First, then, if we have a proposition which is being thought of as necessary,
[...] it is an a priori judgement [...] Secondly
[..] if, then, a judgement is thought [...] in such manner that no exception
is allowed as possible, it is not derived from experience, but is valid
absolutely a priori. [...] Necessity and strict universality are thus a criteria of a priori knowledge, and are inseparable from
each other." Critique of Pure Reason analytic: propositions that are true by definition (tautological) and
necessary. synthetic: propositions that are not true by definition and are contingent. a priori: the truth value of these propositions are
known independent of experience. a posteriori: the truth value of these propositions are
dependent upon experience. noumena: things-in-themselves (or beyond appearance). The term literally
means the thing that appears, but this is beyond our perception. phenomena: that which appears, or better, the appearance of a thing. We
experience the appearance, but not the thing that appears. transcendental deduction: to go beyond (transcend) direct
observation to discover necessary conditions. Deduction is a form of logical
argument in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the premise(s) and
hence the conclusion can be held with certainty. transcendental idealism: the view that what we know of reality is
immaterial and consists of understanding phenomena or perceptions about the
phenomena. That which causes the phenomena (the noumena)
is beyond our experience and understanding. Hume thought that all analytic propositions were a
priori and that all synthetic propositions are a posteriori. Kant does not
agree. Kant claims that all analytic propositions are a priori but not vice
versa and that all a posteriori propositions are synthetic but not vice
versa. This means that there are synthetic a priori propositions.
1. There can be no analytical a posteriori judgments,
because all analytical statements are universal and necessary. 2. Since a flower is part of the definition of a rose,
we contradict ourselves if we assert that a rose is not a flower. 3. Such judgments are warranted by experience. 4. But what about synthetical
a priori judgments, how are they possible? They are not warranted by
experience, nor by the law of contradiction, but by
an organizing principle of the mind (or the irremovable goggles). (a) synthetical
a priori judgments do apply to mathematics (arithmetic and geometry in
particular), because mathematics (as Hume also thought) is synthetical (Is 5 + 7 = 12 identical to 6 + 6 = 12? no.),
but Kant also thought that mathematical judgments are universal and
necessary. Hence they are synthetical a priori
judgments. Typical such judgments would be seen as analytical and a priori. (b) Kant also agreed with Hume that synthetical
a priori judgments could not be applied to metaphysics, but asking such
question points to the fact that reason has a 'regulative' use. (c) But synthetical a priori
judgments can be applied to physics, and other natural sciences. Every event
has a cause can be known as a synthetical a priori
judgment. Kant says that the mind has three faculties: (1) intuition (perception), (2) understanding (of perceptions), and (3)
reason. Reason is about pure concepts that are uncontaminated
by the senses. Kant uses his transcendental deduction to answer the
question: How is perception possible? Kant would not ask: "What is
perception?" He wants to know how perception is possible, since this is
a commonsense question that is based on the commonsense view that we do
perceive the world. In order to understand our perceptions some conditions
must hold. It is impossible to explain reality using sense data as the sole
source of our perceptions and ideas. The sense data is unorganized by itself.
Thus concepts are not deduced from reality, but in fact that mind brings them
to reality. We each have a set of irremovable goggles out of which we view
the world. We need to transcend our experience and get behind it to discover
the necessary conditions needed for understanding. There must be a necessary
structure of the mind (the irremovable goggles) that organizes our
experiences. These are like rules (i.e. of a game) used to organize the sense
data and contain: space, time, substantiality, and causality. Substantiality
is best described by the table of categories and it is not equivalent to
acknowledging the existence of Substance since such would be part of the unexperienced and noumenal
realm. The Table of Categories includes: (1) quantity (universal, particular,
and singular); (2) Quality (affirmative, negative, infinite); (3) Relation
(categorical, hypothetical, disjunctive); (4) Modality (problematic, assertoric, apodictic). Problematic propositions are
disputable and not demonstrable. Assertoric
propositions are affirmed without proof. Apodictic propositions are clearly
demonstrable and indisputable. For more about quantity, quality and relation,
please take one of my Logic courses, or check out my Logic Topics page, which
contains definitions of all of the terms in those categories. You can believe in God, soul, immortality, justice,
freedom, but you cannot claim you know these via perception, understanding of
perception, or reason. There are NO synthetical a
priori foundations for such concepts. These terms are NOT metaphysical
necessities, but they can be seen as practical necessities. Kant rejects the correspondence theory of truth due to
his transcendentalism. We are unable to match our statements to some external
reality that is independent of our experience. What lies behind our
perceptions or the phenomenal experience is noumenal
and ineffable. Correspondence theory of truth is the view that true ideas
match their ideate (or objects). Kant anticipates
the need for a new theory of truth. He uses the coherence theory of truth,
since Kant holds that statements or beliefs are true only if they tie in with
other statements or beliefs (using the irremovable goggles). He uses
something like the pragmatic theory of truth. Kant holds that statements or
beliefs are true only if they work (or as James puts it, have cash-value).
Kant uses something like the semantic theory of truth since true statements
or beliefs follow the rules of language which set up a correspondence between
certain statements and "the facts" our language picks our in the world. Critique of Kant: Kant's positions are gained from using a priori
reasoning, and empiricists may find this foundation merely tautological and
not able to express anything about the world of experience. This certainty gained by combining a priori with synthetical knowledge has had a cost: namely the
knowledge of that which transcends the phenomenal world (things as they
appear), the noumenal (things-in-themselves), which
includes God. But this is because this type of reasoning is of the
theoretical type. Kant is well aware of the loss. This is the main point to
the Critique of Pure Reason. Reason is about pure concepts
uncontaminated by the senses (such as God and soul). There are no synthetic a
priori foundations for such concepts. We can only understand concepts gained
from our perceptions which we get via intuition. Practical reason will provide a means of
"knowing" through the moral argument for the possibility of
existence of God. Kant rejects the traditional arguments for the existence of
God since they claim to be able to demonstrate existence by necessity and use
existence as a real predicate. Kant is only willing to argue for the
possibility of the existence of God. Kant's Moral argument "for the possibility of the
existence of God" The moral argument for the existence of God postulates
that the existence of God is a necessary condition for the Summum Bonum (Highest Good).
The pursuit of the highest good (summum bonum) demonstrates that the existence of the original
highest good (or the existence of God) is possible. The author of the highest
good is God. Remember that Kant does not pretend to be able to
demonstrate the existence of God. Kant is not using existence as a
predicate. This argument is based in practical, not pure, reason. The critique to this argument is that the mere
postulating of the existence of God as a necessary condition of the summum bonum does not
demonstrate that God necessarily exists. The highest good may be attainable
without having been created by God. Knowledge of what is good does not
necessarily depend upon a supernatural deity. Kant's categorical imperative as an example of deontological ethics Kant said that all imperatives are either categorical
or hypothetical. Kant never claimed to discover the categorical imperative. It
is a working criterion supposedly employed by any rational agent as a guide
for making his or her own judgments but without his or her being necessarily
able to formulate it or make it explicit. Kant has five different
formulations of this moral law in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of
Morals (1785). categorical imperative: is the necessary and absolute moral law believed to be
the ultimate rational foundation for all moral conduct. "So act that you
can will the maxim (principle) of your action to be an
universal law binding upon the will of every other rational person."
Categorical imperatives are absolutely binding. Whatever you claim to be good or right should be good
or right for everyone. One must obey the categorical imperative without
regard to the consequences of the action. It is one's duty to follow the
categorical imperative. Categorical means obligatory. (1) The first formulation of the categorical imperative
in the Grounding is : that one should act only on
that maxim that can be at the same time willed to become universal law [of
nature]. (2) The second formulation of the categorical
imperative in the Grounding is : that one should
always act in such a way that humanity either in oneself or in others is
always treated as an end itself and never merely as a means. If a person is
treated as nothing more than a means, then (s)he is
treated as nothing more than a thing without purposes of his or her own
rather than a self-determining agent. Really (1) and (2) are equivalent. According to the
formula of universal law, any violation of the formula of the end in itself
must be wrong; i.e. when someone is treated as a mere means, his purposes are
regarded as not counting; when the maxim of such treatment is universalized,
the agent of such treatment must be willing to be so treated in turn. But
here is a contradiction, for no one wants his purposes to count for nothing.
The two formulations simply imply one another, and therefore must be
equivalent. hypothetical imperative: command one to do X only if you wanted Y. This
conditional statement is not absolutely binding. Hypothetical means
'optional', or contingent. DUTIES
Critiques of Kantian ethics: (1) Can reason alone be trusted to discover the right
and the good? Can moral law be found a priori? (2) What happens when two moral laws conflict? It would
be impossible to know how to act in that situation. (3) Some rules may have exceptions, but the absolutist
would claim that you should always follow the rule no matter what the
consequences may be. (4) Is there moral law? Some believe in a subjective, or relative ethic. Objectivism Actions are right because of some objectively existing
quality in them, which when experienced, makes them desirable. Therefore
these values or laws are grounded in a reality outside humanity. These laws
are universally binding for all and are eternally true. These laws can be discovered
through the use of reason. Because of the emphasis upon following the
eternally true laws, objective ethics are deontological in nature.
Objectivism is the opposite of relativism, or a subjective ethic. examples of objective ethics: (1) Kant's categorical imperative (2) The philosophy behind the ethic of the Constitution
is objective. Jefferson stated the basis of the objective ethic in his
Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, among them these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness." This is not a right to do anything, but only those rights
which have been established by our Creator. We saw that this passage was lifted directly from
Locke's Second Treatise of Government, but Locke said "... life,
liberty and property." (3) Plato's theory of Ideal Forms is another example of
an objective ethic. The true absolute reality is in the realm of perfect,
independently existing, unchanging, timeless, Ideal Forms. The Good can be
known through the light of reason. (Republic BK 4). subjective ethics: The theory that ethical judgments such as "good"
means "I approve" of certain actions. Moral values are based on
feelings, thoughts, and desires which have no objective reference in the
world. examples: (1) cultural relativism (2) relativism |
