A CRITIQUE OF KANTIAN REASON
Influential philosophical ideas don’t just fall out of the sky and into the pages of history. Rather, they are the offspring of the philosophical environment of the times from which they emerge. The philosophical milieu that surrounded the times of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), was filled with a marked tension between two very significant philosophical systems of thought known as; Rationalism and Empiricism. It was the resolution of this tension that Kant strove to relieve, believing that he could synthesize the two competing theories intelligently.
In short, Kant wanted to arrive at, “…a Copernican revolution of the theory of knowledge.” He was heavily influenced by the agnostic and empiricist thinker, David Hume, who would challenge his traditional German Lutheran upbringing, and cause him to begin formulating a means of bringing these two dogmas into harmony which each other, which was finally realized in his monumental work, A Critique of Practical Reason, in 1788.
In short, Kant wanted to arrive at, “…a Copernican revolution of the theory of knowledge.” He was heavily influenced by the agnostic and empiricist thinker, David Hume, who would challenge his traditional German Lutheran upbringing, and cause him to begin formulating a means of bringing these two dogmas into harmony which each other, which was finally realized in his monumental work, A Critique of Practical Reason, in 1788.
However, he believed Hume’s view to be extreme, “…holding that nothing exists but sensations, there is no God to underlie them and not even a mind to perceive them…”[i] Kant sought to mediate between this radical position and the one’s that the rationalists had taken up by saying that, “…reason can give true knowledge of reality of things experienced by the senses.”[ii] This understanding is reflected in perhaps his most well-known statement, i.e. "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed ...inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. ‘Dare to know! Have the courage to use your own understanding,’ is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."[iii]
He once said, "Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives …it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. …so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on, then I have no need to exert myself."[iii]
He once said, "Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives …it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. …so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on, then I have no need to exert myself."[iii]
This method of synthetic reasoning spilled over into many areas for Kant, most notably his work in the field of Ethics. Kant recognized the overwhelming evidence of design and intelligence displayed within the natural laws that govern the universe, as well as the universal moral law that governs our own actions. To this point he famously proclaimed, “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and reverence, the more often and more steadily one reflects on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”[iv] Consequently, Kant’s theory of ethical behavior was founded on what he believed to be, universal and fundamental moral obligations, which all persons have a duty to abide by, for the sake of promoting Good Will towards his fellow man.
For example: Honesty was considered by Kant to be a universal moral obligation or duty to perform. Not because you wanted to, needed to, or saw the beneficial reasons to, but purely because it was your duty to be honest. This makes good sense, because everyone would like to be treated in an honest manner, it’s the Golden Rule, right? “Do unto others…” In this vein, Kant introduced what he referred to as, Categorical Imperatives, duties that must be observed in order to support the universal moral law that resides in each of us.
The idea of everyone going around being completely honest with each other may seem radical or even ridiculous, but I agree with Kant that it should be our duty to treat others with honesty. That doesn’t mean we should be “brutally honest” with people, knowing that our words will hurt them, and that is where tactfulness, gentleness, compassion, and empathy come in, but you can still be honest. The Bible refers to this as, “…speaking the truth in love… (NKJV Eph 4:15)”[v] Kant referred to it as, “Good Will”, requiring that the motivation of your honesty be one of good will or a blessing toward the person you are addressing. Your mother’s advice that, “If you can’t say anything nice, keep your mouth shut!”, should probably be employed at this juncture.
The idea of everyone going around being completely honest with each other may seem radical or even ridiculous, but I agree with Kant that it should be our duty to treat others with honesty. That doesn’t mean we should be “brutally honest” with people, knowing that our words will hurt them, and that is where tactfulness, gentleness, compassion, and empathy come in, but you can still be honest. The Bible refers to this as, “…speaking the truth in love… (NKJV Eph 4:15)”[v] Kant referred to it as, “Good Will”, requiring that the motivation of your honesty be one of good will or a blessing toward the person you are addressing. Your mother’s advice that, “If you can’t say anything nice, keep your mouth shut!”, should probably be employed at this juncture.
Just imagine if our politicians were honest with us and could not be swayed by special interest groups; if judges were honest in their judicial oversight, not caving to political agendas and bribery; if our policemen, the news media, corporations, academic institutions, religious organizations, and every average citizen did the honest thing and not the self-centered thing that would advance their own interests. It would be nice, right? But guess what, it’s never gonna happen, we’re just not wired that way!
You can assume the Lotus position, chant ‘OM’, imagining world peace, until the dawning of the ‘Age of Aquarius’, (while smoking a doobie, if you desire), but the vast majority of the population will still remain; selfish, dishonest, hard hearted, and unwilling to change, because egoism and selfishness rules the heart and mind of man! Still, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do our part, and Kant would maintain that honesty is always the best course of action to take, because while you cannot control the outcomes, you can control your own inputs.
You can assume the Lotus position, chant ‘OM’, imagining world peace, until the dawning of the ‘Age of Aquarius’, (while smoking a doobie, if you desire), but the vast majority of the population will still remain; selfish, dishonest, hard hearted, and unwilling to change, because egoism and selfishness rules the heart and mind of man! Still, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do our part, and Kant would maintain that honesty is always the best course of action to take, because while you cannot control the outcomes, you can control your own inputs.
Nevertheless, I will also challenge Kantian Ethics by suggesting that it is, at least in my opinion, intellectually dishonest! I say this simply because it is quite obvious that Kant’s so-called, “Copernican revolution of the theory of knowledge.”[vi], in regard to ethics anyway, is merely a reboot of the Divine Command Theory, (the idea that moral actions are demanded by God; i.e. the 10 Commandments)! Kant is promoting a universal moral law, but he denies the actions and inputs of the universal moral law giver!
In essence, he just changed the wording from, “Thou shalt not lie” to, “Just be honest”, and cleverly reduced, “God’s will be done” to, “Good will be done”! He simply removed the elements of God’s, “Divine Commands”, replacing them with his own, “Categorical Imperatives”, and in doing so, he actually attempted to erase the Eternal and Absolute Truth of God, by subjugating it to his own version of subjective truth. In this, he is one, “…having a form of godliness but denying its power. …always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim 3:5-7)”, because “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge… (Prov 1:7)”, and his philosophies are responsible for removing that from the western mindset to a large degree.
In essence, he just changed the wording from, “Thou shalt not lie” to, “Just be honest”, and cleverly reduced, “God’s will be done” to, “Good will be done”! He simply removed the elements of God’s, “Divine Commands”, replacing them with his own, “Categorical Imperatives”, and in doing so, he actually attempted to erase the Eternal and Absolute Truth of God, by subjugating it to his own version of subjective truth. In this, he is one, “…having a form of godliness but denying its power. …always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim 3:5-7)”, because “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge… (Prov 1:7)”, and his philosophies are responsible for removing that from the western mindset to a large degree.
Unfortunately, even though Kant seemed to defend Christian ethics to some degree, his interpretation resulted in a new form of skepticism, that unnecessarily but effectively hamstrung any attempts to use reason or empiricism as a means of proving the existence of God or other metaphysical constructs. In effect, Immanuel was saying that, “God is not really with us”, but He is beyond us, and we have no means of detecting Him, as such. As a result, Kant’s philosophy ultimately rejected, “…natural theology and traditional “proofs” for the existence of God because… it does not allow for apprehension of viable knowledge in the realm of metaphysics.”[vii]
For this reason, it has been said of Kant that, “Few philosophers in history have been so unreadable and dry as Immanuel Kant. Yet few have had a more devastating impact on human thought. …Kant, more than any other thinker, gave impetus to the typically modern turn from the objective to the subjective. This may sound fine until we realize that it meant for him the redefinition of truth itself as subjective. And the consequences of this idea have been catastrophic.”[viii]
Yet to me, it only reinforces the fact that God's word is so real, valid, relevant and applicable on a universal scale, that the man known as being one of the most influential philosophers of all time, found it to be so and blatantly plagiarized its standards of righteousness, in order to form the basis for modern ethics and morality as we know it today. Well, you know what they say, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.” ― Oscar Wilde
For this reason, it has been said of Kant that, “Few philosophers in history have been so unreadable and dry as Immanuel Kant. Yet few have had a more devastating impact on human thought. …Kant, more than any other thinker, gave impetus to the typically modern turn from the objective to the subjective. This may sound fine until we realize that it meant for him the redefinition of truth itself as subjective. And the consequences of this idea have been catastrophic.”[viii]
Yet to me, it only reinforces the fact that God's word is so real, valid, relevant and applicable on a universal scale, that the man known as being one of the most influential philosophers of all time, found it to be so and blatantly plagiarized its standards of righteousness, in order to form the basis for modern ethics and morality as we know it today. Well, you know what they say, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.” ― Oscar Wilde
By Pastor Glen Mustian
Works Cited:
[i] Western Civilization. History of Man: The Last Two Million Years. NY, NY: Reader’s Digest. Print. 1974. (Pg. 293).
[ii] Western Civilization. History of Man: The Last Two Million Years. NY, NY: Reader’s Digest. Print. 1974. (Pg. 293).
[iii] Kant, Immanuel. http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html
[iv] http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/practicalreason/quotes/
[v] NKJV New King James Version. Holy Bible. Thomas Nelson. Nashville, TN: 2000. Print.
[vi] Velarde, Robert. http://www.equip.org/article/immanuel-kant/. Web. Accessed 07/16/2017.
[vii] Velarde, Robert. http://www.equip.org/article/immanuel-kant/. Web. Accessed 07/16/2017.
[viii] Kreeft, Peter. The Pillars of Unbelief—Kant. Jan-Feb 1988, Philosophy/Ethics Dept. Web Accessed. 06/22/2018.
