Immanuel

[anthony]

I'm opening this because from debate in the Kamhi art thread, it looks like we are not on the same page regarding the epistemology of Immanuel Kant.

It is a brief and simplified synopsis, too simplified some might say.

Excuse the splodge (William)

Immanuel Kant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Kantianism
• Enlightenment philosophy

Main interests

• Epistemology
• Metaphysics
• Ethics
• Cosmogony

• Categorical imperative
• Transcendental idealism
• Synthetic a priori
• • Noumenon
  • Sapere aude
• Nebular hypothesis

Immanuel Kant 22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) was a German philosopher, who is considered the central figure of modern philosophy.^[2] Kant argued that fundamental concepts of the human mind structure human experience, that reason is the source of morality, that aesthetics arises from a faculty of disinterested judgment, that space and time are forms of our understanding, and that the world as it is "in-itself" is unknowable. Kant took himself to have effected a Copernican revolution in philosophy, akin to Copernicus' reversal of the age-old belief that the sun revolved around the earth. His beliefs continue to have a major influence on contemporary philosophy, especially the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political theory, and aesthetics.

Kant in his critical phase sought to 'reverse' the orientation of pre-critical philosophy by showing how the traditional problems of metaphysics can be overcome by supposing that the agreement between reality and the concepts we use to conceive it arises not because our mental concepts have come to passively mirror reality, but because reality must conform to the human mind's active concepts to be conceivable and at all possible for us to experience. Kant thus regarded the basic categories of the human mind as the transcendental "condition of possibility" for any experience.^[3]

Politically, Kant was one of the earliest exponents of the idea that perpetual peace could be secured through universal democracy and international cooperation. The exact nature of Kant's religious ideas continue to be the subject of especially heated philosophical dispute, with viewpoints ranging from the idea that Kant was an early and radical exponent of atheism who finally exploded the ontological proof for God's existence, to more critical treatments epitomized by Nietzsche who claimed that Kant had "theologian blood"^[4] and that Kant was merely a sophisticated apologist for traditional Christian religious belief, writing that "Kant wanted to prove, in a way that would dumbfound the common man, that the common man was right: that was the secret joke of this soul."^[5]

In Kant's major work, the Critique of Pure Reason (Kritik der reinen Vernunft, 1781),^[6] he attempted to explain the relationship between reason and human experience and to move beyond the failures of traditional philosophy and metaphysics. Kant wanted to put an end to an era of futile and speculative theories of human experience, while resisting the skepticism of thinkers such as David Hume. Kant regarded himself as ending and showing the way beyond the impasse which modern philosophy had led to between rationalists and empiricists, and is widely held to have synthesized these two early modern traditions in his thought.^[7]

Kant argued that our experiences are structured by necessary features of our minds. In his view, the mind shapes and structures experience so that, on an abstract level, all human experience shares certain essential structural features. Among other things, Kant believed that the concepts of space and time are integral to all human experience, as are our concepts of cause and effect.^[8] One important consequence of this view is that our experience of things is always of the phenomenal world as conveyed by our senses: we do not have direct access to things in themselves, the so-called noumenal world. Kant published other important works on ethics, religion, law, aesthetics, astronomy, and history. These included the Critique of Practical Reason (Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, 1788), the Metaphysics of Morals (Die Metaphysik der Sitten, 1797), which dealt with ethics, and the Critique of Judgment (Kritik der Urteilskraft, 1790), which looks at aesthetics and teleology.

Kant aimed to resolve disputes between empirical and rationalist approaches. The former asserted that all knowledge comes through experience; the latter maintained that reason and innate ideas were prior. Kant argued that experience is purely subjective without first being processed by pure reason. He also said that using reason without applying it to experience only leads to theoretical illusions. The free and proper exercise of reason by the individual was a theme both of the Age of Enlightenment, and of Kant's approaches to the various problems of philosophy. His ideas influenced many thinkers in Germany during his lifetime, and he moved philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists and empiricists.

[anthony]

"Kant regarded himself as ending and showing the way beyond the impasse which modern philosophy had led to between rationalists and empiricists..."

[Great! that "impasse" or false dichotomy is equally what Rand recognized, and exactly which Objectivism has achieved in replacing].

However:

"The former asserted that all knowledge comes through experience; the latter maintained that reason and innate ideas were prior. Kant argued that experience is purely subjective without first being processed by reason".

[A blatant contradiction to the first statement - whether in the synopsis, or by Kant. Therefore, he 'solved' the false dichotomy by advancing rationalism over empiricism...]

"...the world as it is 'in-itself' is unknowable".

[so, a skeptic...]

"...while resisting the skepticism of thinkers such as David Hume".

[!]

[moralist]

Thanks for posting this topic, Tony. I've never studied philosophy and browsed through some of the links to get an overview.

Kant's concept of categorical imperative is interesting in that it echoes the Ten Commandments

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

There are most definitely universal laws.

Our lives bear the scars of violating them.

Greg

[moralist]

"Kant argued that experience is purely subjective without first being processed by reason".

Experience itself is objective. How we perceive it is totally subjective. It requires the awareness of an objective reason greater than our subjective thoughts and emotions to make proper sense of it.

Greg

[anthony]

Thanks, Greg. Goes without saying, we'll differ on this. Objectively, consciousness has an identity (is objective) by nature of the ~contents~ of one's consciousness. Thoughts and emotions are existents, with identity as well. Not "subjective".

You've often wondered about moral and evil people in the past. This is the difference.

[moralist]

Hey Tony, if there weren't any different views there wouldn't be anything to talk about.

I see consciousness and the individual who chooses to identify with it as two separate things as so many people chose to deny it.

If consciousness and the individual were not two separate things, people could not choose to act contrary to what it reveals to them and the world in which they live, because it would be impossible for them to act contrary to themselves...

...and in essence they would be just animals who cannot choose to act contrary to their nature.

Greg

[anthony]

.

Kant's concept of categorical imperative is interesting in that it echoes the Ten Commandments

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

There are most definitely universal laws.

Greg

Greg, are you sure about that? What about I'm a Jihadist, (or your worst, a Liberal ;)) isn't that precisely what I am trying to attain? 'Willing' my maxim to become universal law? A subjective-universalist morality implies some arbitrary person's arbitrary moral standards should apply to everybody. Doesn't work.

[moralist]

I take "will that it should become universal law" to be a statement of desire rather than something anyone could ever actually have the power to do.

A law is I either universal or it isn't.

So while I would like to see moral law universally observed, I know that will never happen, so I observe it in my own life and leave what others choose to do up to them.

Greg

[anthony]

I take "will that it should become universal law" to be a statement of desire rather than something anyone could ever actually have the power to do.

A law is I either universal or it isn't.

So while I would like to see moral law universally observed, I know that will never happen, so I observe it in my own life and leave what others choose to do up to them.

Greg

"A statement of desire", right. (Intention, which Kant was big on). Mainly, I think it's an injunction by Kant to moral consistency since you are supposed to imagine everybody else will act the same as you. But as a guiding moral principle, it offers no more.

This is not just about you (or I, or any one decent person) however. There are plenty people of all types.

Few people believe they are morally wrong, and most would likely think it would be a good idea that their morality becomes "universal". However 'good' or 'bad' or mixed, then, they'd continue to act on their (subjective) "maxim". "Anything goes" is the result, and all moralities equally valid.

In reality a universal moral law doesn't exist, nor ought there to be, nor can one be implemented without force ... or an all-apparent Divinity. Clearly, the choice is on each individual to move to consistent rationality - without the choice of options, morality is moot.

[9thdoctor]

In reality a universal moral law doesn't exist, nor ought there to be, nor can one be implemented without force ... or an all-apparent Divinity. Clearly, the choice is on each individual to move to consistent rationality - without the choice of options, morality is moot.

Concerning universalizability, I invite you to listen to Peikoff's Kant lecture here:

http://campus.aynrand.org/classroom/66/

It says it's 90 minutes, but the version I have (an mp3 I bought) is 2:38:41 (that is, two hours thirty eight minutes forty one seconds), so something's up, they've recut it somehow. Anyway, the particular remark of his I have in mind comes at 1:40:20, which is 58:20 from the end; I think that ought to be enough for you to find it (try 31:40). If you haven't heard this before, I expect you'll take it from the top anyway.

What he says is that universalizability is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a valid moral principle. BTW, whether Kant would agree with Peikoff's presentation of his ideas is another matter (the "to Kant with love" quip is annoyingly frivolous), I'm basically just using an argument from authority here concerning what the Objectivist position is. Rather than putting in the time to make a reasoned case. You can call me a lazy bones, but no one else has bothered either. Universalizability is supposed to be a feature of Objectivist Ethics, and you'll find Rand use it when she says you can't claim a right for yourself and deny it to others; I remember her saying this in Q&A's but I can't pull out a citiation off-hand.

[anthony]

"Universalizability", what is that really? The ability to make universal, perhaps? From one instance, to all?

It might appear like O'ist ethics is 'universal', but I think rather that's the consequence of an absolute standard.

Not 'all men', but 'man'. It will be interesting to hear what Peikoff says, ta. I'll be away for a week, catch this later.

[9thdoctor]

"Universalizability", what is that really?

It means a valid moral principle applies to everyone. As opposed to what? How about Jesuitical Casuistry giving us one rule for the King, another for the Nobles, and yet another for the Commoners.

The whole course is now free, so dive in.

[moralist]

Tony writes:

Greg, are you sure about that?

Yes.

What about I'm a Jihadist, (or your worst, a Liberal ;)) isn't that precisely what I am trying to attain? 'Willing' my maxim to become universal law?

Sure...

...and you have the blessing of the objective reality of the consequences of your actions to let you know whether or not what you are striving to attain is right or wrong.

I'll leave aside the separate fact that, right or wrong, NO ONE possesses the power to make anything universal. It is either already universal or it isn't. Only in your own life do you have that power, and only for yourself.

A subjective-universalist morality implies some arbitrary person's arbitrary moral standards should apply to everybody. Doesn't work.

I agree, Tony.

There is no such thing as a subjective-universalist morality. Because NO ONE has the power to make their arbitrary standards apply to everyone else.

The objective reality of moral standards is a stand alone application. NO ONE can impose their morality on my life anymore than I ever could impose mine on theirs. So we each enjoy the blessing of being able to make the sovereign choice of our own journey through life.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

I have "the power." It's awesome.

Wait until you see what I'm going to do with it.

--Brant

luckily I'm one of the good guys (unless I've been drinking)

[moralist]

You do, Brant... over your own life.

Only those who fail to govern themselves are governed by others.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

No, no, no. I mean the power to rule the world!

--Brant

start trembling

[moralist]

You do have the power to rule your world... as do I to rule mine.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Curses! I would have gotten away with it except for you and that stupid dog!

--Brant

the impotence of evil in the face of relentless positivity

[anthony]

"Universalizability", what is that really?

It means a valid moral principle applies to everyone. As opposed to what? How about Jesuitical Casuistry giving us one rule for the King, another for the Nobles, and yet another for the Commoners.

The whole course is now free, so dive in.

ND I beg to differ in that here you introduce the concept of rights, not morality (you also earlier mentioned Rand's remark in this vein).

Indisputably, there is no choice in the matter of rights in a free country being equally applicable to all, and so "universalizable". Kant however specifically proposed ~a morality~ which he said should be universalizable.

"Act only according to that maxim...that it should become a universal law".

(Despite "law", this could only be a moral dictate).

As I think it's a lesser, derivative concept, I suspect that "universalizability" has important differences in meaning from the Objectivist sense to the Kantian sense.

Moral action has to be chosen individually and presupposes one has alternative options, objectively speaking.

I think as Kant used the word it is a 'projection' or extrapolation-- of one's own ethics, onto all other people..

Universalized = Projected. Even if only imagined.

I suggest this is subjective.

(I have not heard Peikoff yet, but the topics in his Kant lecture look quite tantalizing. I registered for the course but found I have to re-jig my computer to view it).

[9thdoctor]

ND I beg to differ in that here you introduce the concept of rights, not morality

"Jesuitical Casuistry" was an example, I could supply another. But it's a suitable example, and has nothing to do with rights, unless your view of rights includes a right to get your weekly transubstantiated wafer, and to be assured by a guy in a funny hat that you're going to the happy place when you die. That your Whole After-Life Insurance policy is all paid up. I'm talking Pascal, Louis XIV, Molière, that crowd. Of course this approach to morality did travel downstream to (political) rights, but the issue was more fundamental.

(I have not heard Peikoff yet, but the topics in his Kant lecture look quite tantalizing. I registered for the course but found I have to re-jig my computer to view it).

You have to register? I thought it was a streaming thing. Back a year or two ago they seriously dropped the prices on the old courses, so I have this one as mp3. Since then they've made quite a few of them free. You really ought to listen to it before spilling any more ink on the topic of universalizability.

[moralist]

Tony writes:

Kant however specifically proposed ~a morality~ which he said should be universalizable.

Universal moral law already exists.

The proof is right in front of everyone as the consequences of their own actions. Violating moral law can't invalidate it. Neither can violating it prevent it from being universal.

On the contrary, violating universal moral law only affirms its existence.

Greg

[anthony]

Tony writes:

Kant however specifically proposed ~a morality~ which he said should be universalizable.

Universal moral law already exists.

The proof is right in front of everyone as the consequences of their own actions. Violating moral law can't invalidate it. Neither can violating it prevent it from being universal.

On the contrary, violating universal moral law only affirms its existence.

Greg

And who is the author - shall I say, Author - of that universal moral law?

We reach our usual impasse, Greg. ;)

An intriguing comparison you made earlier with the Ten C.'s and Kant's Imperative. I think you have a point, but might not appreciate my take on it.

Moses did a pretty good job of formulating 'Imperatives' for men's behavior (but nothing that any individual of reason couldn't arrive at independently, and soon supersede).

As I see it, Kant's Imperative advocated - circularly, subjectively - that Man's standard of morality is a man's own morality...

Kant, too, brought his Moral Law down from the mountain top to we humans, attempted to 'universalize' it, and so effectively defeated morality.

[Brant Gaede]

Tony writes:

Kant however specifically proposed ~a morality~ which he said should be universalizable.

Universal moral law already exists.

The proof is right in front of everyone as the consequences of their own actions. Violating moral law can't invalidate it. Neither can violating it prevent it from being universal.

On the contrary, violating universal moral law only affirms its existence.

Greg

Hey--the violator's existence too. That may be enough motivation.

--Brant

a few bumps and bruises?

[moralist]

Tony writes:

And who is the author - shall I say, Author - of that universal moral law?

The same God who created the Heavens and the Earth... but I can only know this for myself and for no one else.

We reach our usual impasse, Greg. ;)

And that's as it should be, Tony... for each individuals personal choice concerning God is always a free one with absolutely nothing to coerce anyone in either direction. It can only be freely made... or it's not God's love. God has no need for anyone to acknowledge Him. Whatever decision we choose to make is for our own good... not His. Because it's up to Him to reveal Himself to us, and not for us to try to believe in Him.

So if you do what's morally right long enough out of your love for what is good... God will make Himself known to you in no uncertain terms... and you will NEVER have to wonder about it.

That's His promise... and He always keeps His promises.

Greg