Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Immanual Kant

    Uploaded by

    Jay Chaudhari
    5 views35 pages

    Original Title

    Immanual Kant (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views35 pages

    Immanual Kant

    Uploaded by

    Jay Chaudhari

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 35
    ' 8 Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Kant has been regarded as the most important modem philosopher. In him meet the cross currents of modem philosophy and then again pass out many more tendencies inthe contemporary thought. Kant was not only a philosopherbut also ‘was essentially a moralist, a theologian and a natural scientist In him the German ‘thought with ts characteristics of thoroughness, profundity and obscure termino- ogy began to show themselves. 8.01. Introduction Kant began his philosophical career as a rationalist of the Wolffian school, but hhe soon saw its inadequacy. According tot, we can begin with innate ideas, but hhow can we say that they are also true of the external world? Like spiders we ‘cannot weave out fancies and regard them to be valid of the real world, After ‘ejecting rationalism as a natural scientist, he began to look upon experience to explain knowledge. However, he was roused from his dogmatic slumber by the sceptical writings of Hume. Thus he was dissatisfied with both rationalism and empiricism. For the time being he tried to take refuge in Nouveau Essais of Leibnitz. But the whole system of Leibnitz was based on the doctrine of the pre- established harmony, which is only an uncritical assumption, incapable of ‘supporting a scientific system. In this hopeless state of philosophical progress a lesser man would have ‘succumbed to despair. But Kant believed in the validity of scientific knowledge ‘and his faith in moral goodness never failed to enkindle his spits. His problem, therefore, was to find out the conditions which would make knowledge possible, ‘There is knowledge, according to Kant, in Mathematics and Physics and if this ‘cannot be explained by rationalism or empiricism then so much worse for the theories. The failure of empiricism and rationalism should open a new avenue of Approach to the understanding of knowledge. Kant attributes the failure of ‘metaphysics tothe uncritical use of reason itself. Before we trust ourselves to the ‘guidance of reason, we should examine its nature, limit and competence. Thus {in general the problem of Kant is the same as that of Locke, namely, “If, by this inquiry into the nature of the understandinglI can discover the powers thereof; how far they reach, to what things they are in any degree proportionate, and where they Immanuel Kant 331 fail us; I suppose it may be of use to prevail with the busy mind of man, to be more cautious in meddling with things exceeding its comprehension, o stop when itis atthe utmost extent of is tether; and to sit down in a quite ignorance of those things, which, upon examination, are found tobe beyond reach of our capacities.” (Essay-l,1,2,4) 8.02. Kant’s Problem and its Solution Like other moderers, viz., Descartes and Locke, Kant answered that knowledge ‘means certain knowledge. Such knowledge according to him, is found in ‘mathematics and physics. Both of these sciences were making good progress. So scepticism appeared to him to be unwarranted. If, therefore, empiricism and rationalism had failed to explain knowledge, then their failure would not be reflecting any actual state of affairs inthe world of science. Their failure would be entirely the consequence of their improper analysis of knowledge. The failure of empiricism —Kant agreed with Hume and the perceding classical empircists in holding that the manifold of sense-data or the sense- impressions are passing events. However, knowledge proper is obtained by ordering, connecting and synthesizing them into some system. Ordinarily, we systematise the discrete sensory deta with the help ofthe categories of substance, causality etc. However, following the hints of scepticism concerning “substance” made by Locke and Berkeley, Hume had come to the conclusion that there could ‘eno intelligible account of substance, either material or spiritual. Inghe long run, the notion of substance, according to Hume, was an idle figment of imagination ‘and of the association of ideas. Inthe same strain, Hume demonstrated that no {intelligible account of universality and necessity involved in causality would be sziven on the basis of ‘impressions and their ideas’. Like substance, therefore, ‘causality’ according to Hume, was a figment of imagination. Now if substance ‘and causality, not to speak of other lesser categories, were mere fictions,andthen ‘certainly there could be no intelligible way in which the discrete and passing manifold of sense-impressions could be ordered. Without the order, there could bbe no knowledge. Therefore, scepticism is a necessary outcome of classical ‘empiricism, according to Kant. ‘Again, as noted earlier,’ on the basis of experience, strict universality and necessity cannot be obtained. So empiricism can never guarantee universal and ‘necessary elements in empirical propositions. And, for Kant, knowledge proper ‘must have universal and necessary factors along with factuality. So, on the very face of it, according to Kant, empiricism cannot explain knowledge as is found {in mathematics and physics. The failure of rationalism—According to rationalism there is @ universal faculty of reason by virtue of which each individual has certain innate ideas. 4. Supra § 0.08, p. 23. 332 A Critical History of Western Philosophy Knowledge proper, according toi, is exclusively constituted of such ideas. This theory successfully explains universality and necessity, acoording to Kant. All ‘men have the same innate ideas because of their possessing a common faculty of reason. Naturally, being constituted of them cognitive proposition must be the same for allmen. Again all persons cannotbut perceive the truth a their rational faculty directs them. Hence, cognitive propositions constituted by innate ideas ‘must be necessary as a result of inner compulsion or constraint. Bat the difficulty of rationalism lies in another direction, Innate ideas are ‘subjective, being in the mind of human knowers. What isthe guarantee that they ‘will also be true of facts? Here Descartes and Leibniz take recourse to deus ex ‘machina. According to Descartes, God's veracity isthe ultimate guarantee for the factual truth of clear and distinct ideas. Quite obviously, clear and distinct ideas by themselves do not explain their factual guarantee. This is most patent with regard to Descartes’ explanation of our knowledge of the extemal world. But if clearness and distinctness of ideas by themselves cannot explain factual propositions, then the magic term ‘God’ cannot do this miracle. Similarly, according to Leibnitz, all ideas are innate. He has, therefore, to answer the ‘question concerning their factuality. Here he takes recourse tothe doctrine of Pre- ‘established Harmony. According to Leibnitz, God hasso created the monads that ‘the order and development in oneis reflected in those of all other monads. As such. 1 thought of a table in a soul-monad called Ram is actualy reflected in a bare ‘monad called ‘table’. But, how can Ram verify this correspondence? Obviously, ‘he cannot, since being a windowless imonad, he can never put himself outside his ‘own cocoon-like monadic existence. Therefore, the doctrine of pre-established harmony is a priori assumption, which ordinarily cannot explain actual states of affairs. Hence, the doctrine of pre-established harmony remains an unverifiable and a fictional explanation of knowledge proper. ‘There is yet another difficulty of rationalism. Rationalism starts from certain clear and distinct concepts, and proceeds to other ideas systematically and ‘gradually as a result of deductions from them. Thus, Descartes started with 2

    You might also like