What do you think?
Rate this book
丕賱丿賷賳 賮賷 丨丿賵丿 賲噩乇丿 丕賱毓賯賱
賱賯丿 賮賯丿 丕賱賳賯丕卮 丕賱毓賯丿賷 丨賵賱 賳賯丿 丕賱丿賷賳 胤乇丕賮鬲賴. 賵丌賳 丕賱兀賵丕賳 賱鬲丿卮賷賳 丕賱賳賯丕卮 丕賱賲丿賳賷 丕賱賰亘賷乇 丨賵賱 賳賯丿 丕賱丨乇賷丞 賮賷 賲爻丕卅賱 丕賱囟賲賷乇. 賱賲 賷毓丿 丕賱爻丐丕賱 毓賳 丕賱毓賯賷丿丞 鬲賮鬲賷卮賸丕 賵賱丕 鬲賰賮賷乇賷賸賾丕 賲賳 賯亘賷賱: 賴賱 兀賳鬲 賲丐賲賳 兀賲 賱丕...責 兀賵 賲賳 兀賷賾丞 賲賱賾丞 責 兀賵 毓賱賶 兀賷賾 賲匕賴亘 兀賳鬲 責 亘賱 氐丕乇 爻丐丕賱賸丕 丨賷賵賷賸賾丕 賵毓賲賵賲賷賸賾丕 毓賳 丌丿丕亘 丕賱乇噩丕亍 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘丞 賱胤亘賷毓鬲賳丕 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞貙 賲賳 噩賳爻: 賰賷賮 賷賰賵賳 廿賷賲丕賳 丕賱兀丨乇丕乇 賮賷 馗賱賾 丿賵賱丞 賲丿賳賷丞責 賵兀賷賾 丿賷賳 賴賵 兀賯丿乇 毓賱賶 鬲乇爻賷禺 丨賯賵賯 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丨乇丞 賮賷 丕賱賰乇丕賲丞 賵賮賷 丕賱丕丨鬲乇丕賲 丕賱賰賵賳賷 責 賵禺丕氐丞: 賰賷賮 賳毓賷丿 廿賱賶 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱兀氐賷賱 賯丿乇鬲賴 毓賱賶 丕賱丨乇賷丞 丕賱賲賵噩亘丞 責
- 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賱丿賷丕賳丞 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲 賵丕賱胤賵丕卅賮 兀賳 鬲丿賾毓賷 賱賳賮爻賴丕 丕丨鬲賰丕乇 兀賷賾 囟乇亘 賲賳 丕賱禺賱丕氐 兀賵 丕賱賵毓丿 亘兀賷賾 賵爻丕卅賱 乇丨賲丞 禺丕氐丞 亘兀鬲亘丕毓賴丕 鬲購賳毓賲 亘賴丕 毓賱賷賴賲 丿賵賳 睾賷乇賴賲 賲賳 爻丕卅乇 丕賱亘卮乇. 賰賲丕 兀賳賾賴 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賱兀賷賾 丿賵賱丞 兀賳 鬲丿賾毓賷 兀賳賾 卮毓亘賸丕 賲賳 丕賱卮毓賵亘 賱賲 賷賳囟噩 亘毓丿 賱丨乇賷鬲賴 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞.
- 賵丨丿賴 丿賷賳 賯丕卅賲 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇賷 丕賱賰賵賳賷 兀賵 賱丕 賷鬲賳丕賯囟 賲毓賴 賷丨賯賾 賱賴 兀賳 賷丿毓賵 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 丕賱賲爻鬲賳賷乇丞 廿賱賶 丕賱鬲丨賱賷 亘廿賷賲丕賳 丨乇賾 賱丕 賮囟賱 賮賷賴 賱兀賷賾 賲賳丕爻賰 毓賱賶 兀禺乇賶 廿賱丕賾 亘賲丿賶 賯丿乇鬲賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賱丕爻鬲噩丕亘丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘丞 賱賱賲毓丕賷賷乇 丕賱賰賵賳賷丞 賱賱毓賷卮 丕賱賰乇賷賲. 廿匕 賵丨丿賴 賲丐賲賳 丨乇賾 亘廿賲賰丕賳賴 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 賲賵丕胤賳賸丕 氐丕賱丨賸丕. 賵賱丕 禺賵賮 毓賱賶 丕賱丿賷賳 賲賳 丿賵賱丞 丕賱丨乇賷丞.
- 鬲賱賰 賴賷 亘毓囟 賲賱丕賲丨 丕賱丨丿丕孬丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀卮丕乇 廿賱賷賴丕 賰丕賳胤 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵丨孬賾 丕賱毓賯賵賱 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賳賴賱 賲賳賴丕 丿賵賳 鬲賵噩賾爻 兀賵 賵噩賱.
- 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賱丿賷丕賳丞 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲 賵丕賱胤賵丕卅賮 兀賳 鬲丿賾毓賷 賱賳賮爻賴丕 丕丨鬲賰丕乇 兀賷賾 囟乇亘 賲賳 丕賱禺賱丕氐 兀賵 丕賱賵毓丿 亘兀賷賾 賵爻丕卅賱 乇丨賲丞 禺丕氐丞 亘兀鬲亘丕毓賴丕 鬲購賳毓賲 亘賴丕 毓賱賷賴賲 丿賵賳 睾賷乇賴賲 賲賳 爻丕卅乇 丕賱亘卮乇. 賰賲丕 兀賳賾賴 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賱兀賷賾 丿賵賱丞 兀賳 鬲丿賾毓賷 兀賳賾 卮毓亘賸丕 賲賳 丕賱卮毓賵亘 賱賲 賷賳囟噩 亘毓丿 賱丨乇賷鬲賴 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞.
- 賵丨丿賴 丿賷賳 賯丕卅賲 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇賷 丕賱賰賵賳賷 兀賵 賱丕 賷鬲賳丕賯囟 賲毓賴 賷丨賯賾 賱賴 兀賳 賷丿毓賵 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 丕賱賲爻鬲賳賷乇丞 廿賱賶 丕賱鬲丨賱賷 亘廿賷賲丕賳 丨乇賾 賱丕 賮囟賱 賮賷賴 賱兀賷賾 賲賳丕爻賰 毓賱賶 兀禺乇賶 廿賱丕賾 亘賲丿賶 賯丿乇鬲賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賱丕爻鬲噩丕亘丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘丞 賱賱賲毓丕賷賷乇 丕賱賰賵賳賷丞 賱賱毓賷卮 丕賱賰乇賷賲. 廿匕 賵丨丿賴 賲丐賲賳 丨乇賾 亘廿賲賰丕賳賴 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 賲賵丕胤賳賸丕 氐丕賱丨賸丕. 賵賱丕 禺賵賮 毓賱賶 丕賱丿賷賳 賲賳 丿賵賱丞 丕賱丨乇賷丞.
- 鬲賱賰 賴賷 亘毓囟 賲賱丕賲丨 丕賱丨丿丕孬丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀卮丕乇 廿賱賷賴丕 賰丕賳胤 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵丨孬賾 丕賱毓賯賵賱 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賳賴賱 賲賳賴丕 丿賵賳 鬲賵噩賾爻 兀賵 賵噩賱.
340 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1793
100 people are currently reading
2,437 people want to read
About the author
Immanuel Kant
2,790听books4,114听followersImmanuel Kant was an 18th-century philosopher from K枚nigsberg, Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He's regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe & of the late Enlightenment. His most important work is The Critique of Pure Reason, an investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics & epistemology, & highlights his own contribution to these areas. Other main works of his maturity are The Critique of Practical Reason, which is about ethics, & The Critique of Judgment, about esthetics & teleology.
Pursuing metaphysics involves asking questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Kant suggested that metaphysics can be reformed thru epistemology. He suggested that by understanding the sources & limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions. He asked if an object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality鈥搘hich he concluded that it does鈥搕hen we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this that it's possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, & so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. So the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind. Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists & the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired thru experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason. Kant鈥檚 thought was very influential in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists & empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding Kant's system, thus bringing about various forms of German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental philosophy.
Pursuing metaphysics involves asking questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Kant suggested that metaphysics can be reformed thru epistemology. He suggested that by understanding the sources & limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions. He asked if an object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality鈥搘hich he concluded that it does鈥搕hen we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this that it's possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, & so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. So the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind. Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists & the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired thru experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason. Kant鈥檚 thought was very influential in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists & empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding Kant's system, thus bringing about various forms of German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews
August 31, 2024
Immanuel Kant seeks to carry out this work, which is enormously challenging and worthy. It is about trying to place religious thought and the feeling of religiosity within the scope of human rationality. Religion within the limits of Simple Reason is a work that aims to unveil the rational mechanisms that engender the perception of divinity, discarding, however, the direct interventions of God and the hypotheses linked to divine enlightenment by the work of the Divine Holy Spirit, by Dues or by his Angels and Saints. In his investigations, the author assumes that the duality of existence represents good and evil. It fundamentally affects the individual, and only through inner clarification can man understand his role in the face of the universal struggle between good and evil, which is in the world but is also present within it. Throughout his book, he demonstrates that in all monotheistic religions, the dual principle exists. Yet, when compared, all these religions reveal common characteristics, suggesting ways of harmonizing man with nature and God.
In short, Kant intends in this work to demonstrate that the experience of religiosity and contemplative ecstasy is also possible through the path of rational enlightenment and philosophical speculation, focused on the study of sacred works, especially concerning monotheistic religions and, even closer, Christian faiths. To this end, it indicates ways of seeking divinity and "enlightenment" based on logical reasoning.
In short, Kant intends in this work to demonstrate that the experience of religiosity and contemplative ecstasy is also possible through the path of rational enlightenment and philosophical speculation, focused on the study of sacred works, especially concerning monotheistic religions and, even closer, Christian faiths. To this end, it indicates ways of seeking divinity and "enlightenment" based on logical reasoning.
March 17, 2016
I read this after the Prolegomena but before the three Critiques. It is probably best read after reading at least the first two Critiques.
Kant was of pietist parentage and took it seriously enough not to attend public services in keeping with the injunction to pray in one's closet. Well, come on, this is Kant we're considering here! Jesus' injunction isn't the reason Kant didn't go to church, Kant's agreement with the reason Jesus gave such advice is the reason--and such is the nature of this book.
If you are not a Christian, but have familiarity with the scriptures, then Kant may make you reconsider.
Rather than go into a lecture on the subject of Kant's ethical religion, see my article on the subject posted herein.
Kant was of pietist parentage and took it seriously enough not to attend public services in keeping with the injunction to pray in one's closet. Well, come on, this is Kant we're considering here! Jesus' injunction isn't the reason Kant didn't go to church, Kant's agreement with the reason Jesus gave such advice is the reason--and such is the nature of this book.
If you are not a Christian, but have familiarity with the scriptures, then Kant may make you reconsider.
Rather than go into a lecture on the subject of Kant's ethical religion, see my article on the subject posted herein.
June 3, 2010
Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason (Religion, hereafter) is a passionate statement of Kant's mature philosophy of religion. As the title suggests, Kant believes that religious experience is best understood through rationalism, an important philosophical movement in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries that argues we know some things intuitively, not through experience, and that we can determine certain absolute truths by relying on this intuitive knowledge.
In Religion, Kant explores the legitimacy of religious experience. He argues that organized religion often gets in the way of genuine religious experience, thereby threatening the moral development of humanity. This argument spans four sections.
In Part One, Kant discusses whether human nature is inherently evil or inherently good. He thinks we have a predisposition to engage in good behavior, which comes in three instinctual urges: propagating the species, fostering meaningful, stable relationships with others, and respecting the moral law. Kant thinks that in addition to our inclination to be good, we have a simultaneous propensity for evil or immoral behavior. Kant suggests that we will see the truth of his thesis if we examine the evil abroad in the world around us. The state of current political and social life will convince skeptics that people are in need of moral development.
In Part Two, Kant argues that it is possible for us to become morally good by following the example of Jesus Christ, who resisted enticing temptations, and by instituting a wholehearted change in behavior.
In Part Three, Kant says it may be possible to create a society that fosters moral behavior. Such a society would emulate the ideal "church invisible," an association of individuals committed to living morally upright lives. Kant says that rituals and professions of faith are not essential for the establishment of a morally sound religious community. We can know our duty to observe the moral law without the aid of miracles or common religious practices.
In Part Four, Kant continues to criticize certain aspects of organized religion. He says that much of existing organized religion does not help people improve their moral standing. Incantations, professions of faith, and even consistent participation in religious services cannot transform the morally corrupt into the morally upright.
***
Philosophers since Kant have quarreled with two main problems that arise in this section. First, one might wonder why maxims鈥攖he rules that human beings formulate internally when they make choices鈥攈ave to be either good or bad, rather than both at the same time. Second, one might question Kant's assertion that any action not performed wholly from a sense of duty is evil.
Kant says that maxims cannot encompass both good and bad desires. He believes that every desire that we face, every impulse that competes for our ratification, falls into one of two categories: run-of-the-mill, everyday desires, or the desire to fulfill your duty and do what the moral law requires. He says we can only be good if we do what duty calls for, and when we act on everyday desires and impulses, as we often do, we are acting immorally.
Kant excludes the possibility that maxims can include more than one desire or impulse. Professional philosophers have struggled with this issue, and most of them either admit Kant's belief that maxims are only motivated by one desire, or insist that maxims can, strictly speaking, include more than one desire or inclination. The latter theory appears to be more consistent with Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. For instance, Kant says in 6:24 that free action not based on the moral law must be based upon an everyday desire, and that "it follows that his disposition as regards the moral law is never indifferent (never neither good nor bad)." This quotation shows Kant's idea that an everyday desire and duty can be unified in one maxim, although the resulting behavior must be considered evil, not good.
This brings us to the second problem: why do maxims forged from a combination of duty and everyday desire have to be considered evil? Again, philosophers have given two responses. Some have said that actions done from both duty and desire are not necessarily evil, but rather lack (in Kantian terminology) full moral worth. This response assumes that passages where Kant describes as evil actions motivated by duty and desire are merely exaggerations. Yet some philosophers have said that Kant did mean to call such behavior evil.
Kant might mean to stress that our predisposition to evil is the real problem, not the moral worth of the actions themselves. In 6:30, Kant says that humans have an overwhelming tendency to engage in immoral behavior, and "the mind's attitude is thereby corrupted at its root, and hence the human being is designated as evil".
In Religion, Kant explores the legitimacy of religious experience. He argues that organized religion often gets in the way of genuine religious experience, thereby threatening the moral development of humanity. This argument spans four sections.
In Part One, Kant discusses whether human nature is inherently evil or inherently good. He thinks we have a predisposition to engage in good behavior, which comes in three instinctual urges: propagating the species, fostering meaningful, stable relationships with others, and respecting the moral law. Kant thinks that in addition to our inclination to be good, we have a simultaneous propensity for evil or immoral behavior. Kant suggests that we will see the truth of his thesis if we examine the evil abroad in the world around us. The state of current political and social life will convince skeptics that people are in need of moral development.
In Part Two, Kant argues that it is possible for us to become morally good by following the example of Jesus Christ, who resisted enticing temptations, and by instituting a wholehearted change in behavior.
In Part Three, Kant says it may be possible to create a society that fosters moral behavior. Such a society would emulate the ideal "church invisible," an association of individuals committed to living morally upright lives. Kant says that rituals and professions of faith are not essential for the establishment of a morally sound religious community. We can know our duty to observe the moral law without the aid of miracles or common religious practices.
In Part Four, Kant continues to criticize certain aspects of organized religion. He says that much of existing organized religion does not help people improve their moral standing. Incantations, professions of faith, and even consistent participation in religious services cannot transform the morally corrupt into the morally upright.
***
Philosophers since Kant have quarreled with two main problems that arise in this section. First, one might wonder why maxims鈥攖he rules that human beings formulate internally when they make choices鈥攈ave to be either good or bad, rather than both at the same time. Second, one might question Kant's assertion that any action not performed wholly from a sense of duty is evil.
Kant says that maxims cannot encompass both good and bad desires. He believes that every desire that we face, every impulse that competes for our ratification, falls into one of two categories: run-of-the-mill, everyday desires, or the desire to fulfill your duty and do what the moral law requires. He says we can only be good if we do what duty calls for, and when we act on everyday desires and impulses, as we often do, we are acting immorally.
Kant excludes the possibility that maxims can include more than one desire or impulse. Professional philosophers have struggled with this issue, and most of them either admit Kant's belief that maxims are only motivated by one desire, or insist that maxims can, strictly speaking, include more than one desire or inclination. The latter theory appears to be more consistent with Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. For instance, Kant says in 6:24 that free action not based on the moral law must be based upon an everyday desire, and that "it follows that his disposition as regards the moral law is never indifferent (never neither good nor bad)." This quotation shows Kant's idea that an everyday desire and duty can be unified in one maxim, although the resulting behavior must be considered evil, not good.
This brings us to the second problem: why do maxims forged from a combination of duty and everyday desire have to be considered evil? Again, philosophers have given two responses. Some have said that actions done from both duty and desire are not necessarily evil, but rather lack (in Kantian terminology) full moral worth. This response assumes that passages where Kant describes as evil actions motivated by duty and desire are merely exaggerations. Yet some philosophers have said that Kant did mean to call such behavior evil.
Kant might mean to stress that our predisposition to evil is the real problem, not the moral worth of the actions themselves. In 6:30, Kant says that humans have an overwhelming tendency to engage in immoral behavior, and "the mind's attitude is thereby corrupted at its root, and hence the human being is designated as evil".
September 3, 2015
賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱丿賷賳 賮賷 丨丿賵丿 賲噩乇丿 丕賱毓賯賱 丿賵賳 丕賱兀賱賲丕賲 亘賮賱爻賮丞 賰丕賳胤 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞
賵 丕賱鬲賷 賷乇賶 賮賷賴丕 兀賳 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賱丕 鬲賳亘毓 廿賱丕 賲賳 丕賱毓賯賱 匕丕鬲賴 賲亘丕卮乇丞
賵 賱匕賱賰 賮廿賳 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賱賷爻鬲 亘丨丕噩丞 廿賱賷 丕賱丿賷賳 賵 丨鬲賶 兀賳 兀賮鬲乇囟 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷 賵噩賵丿 賰丕卅賳 兀爻賲賶 賮賴匕丕 丕賱賮乇囟 賱賷爻 賴賵 丕賱兀爻丕爻 賮賷 馗賴賵乇 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 ..亘賱 丕賱毓賯賱
賵 賴丿賮 賰丕賳胤 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 賴賵 丕賱禺乇賵噩 賲賳 丕賱鬲丿賷賳 丕賱馗丕賴乇賷 丕賱毓賯丕卅丿賷 廿賱賷 丕賱鬲丿賷賳 丕賱毓賯賱賷 賵 鬲丨乇賷乇 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳 賲賳 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷 廿賱賷 丿賷賳 廿賳爻丕賳賷 賰賵賳賷 氐丕賱丨 賱賰賱 丕賱卮毓賵亘
賲賯鬲胤賮丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘
" 廿賳賾 丕賱賵賴賲 賵丕賱鬲毓氐亘 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賴賵 丕賱賲賵鬲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷 賱賱毓賯賱貙 賵亘丿賵賳 丕賱毓賯賱 賱丕 賷賰賵賳 賴賳丕賰 丿賷賳 賲賲賰賳"
賷丿賵乇 賰賱賾 賲賳 丕賱毓賯賱 賵丕賱丿賷賳 丨賵賱 鈥溬呚辟冐� 賵丕丨丿鈥澵� 賵毓賱賶 丕賱賮賷賱爻賵賮 兀賳 賷賰卮賮 丕賱賳賯丕亘 毓賳賴. 賱賰賳賾 匕賱賰 賱丕 賷鬲爻賳賾賶 廿賱丕賾 賱賲賳 賯亘賱 亘賮乇囟賷丞 賵噩賵丿 鈥溫娰� 毓賯賱賷 賲丨囟鈥� 賵丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴 賴賵 鈥溫з勜戀娰� 丕賱兀氐賷賱鈥澵� 賲賳 兀噩賱 兀賳賾賴 賴賵 鈥溫娰� 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱賲丨囟"
賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賱兀賷賾 卮賷亍 賲賯丿賾爻 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 兀賴賱丕 賱兀賳 賷購毓亘丿 廿賱丕賾 鈥溬呝� 丨賷孬 兀賳賾 丕賱丕丨鬲乇丕賲 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘賴 賷賳亘睾賷 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 丨乇賾丕
毓賱賶 丕賱丿賵賱丞 兀賳 鬲鬲乇賰 丕賱賲賵丕胤賳 丨乇賾丕 鬲賲丕賲丕 賮賷 兀賳 賷丿禺賱 兀賵 賱丕 賷丿禺賱 賮賷 丕鬲丨丕丿 兀禺賱丕賯賷 賲毓 睾賷乇賴.
"賷賳亘睾賷 丕賱鬲賾賲賷賷夭 亘賷賳 賲卮乇賾毓 丕賱噩賲丕毓丞 丕賱丨賯賵賯賷賾丞 賵賲卮乇賾毓 丕賱噩賲丕毓丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷賾丞: 賮賷 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 賷賰賵賳 丕賱噩賲賴賵乇 賴賵 匕丕鬲賴 賵丕囟毓 丕賱丿爻丕鬲賷乇貨 兀賲賾丕 賮賷 丕賱噩賲丕毓丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷賾丞 賮廿賳賾 丕賱卮賾毓亘 賱丕 賷丨賯 賱賴 兀賳 賷囟毓 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞"
"賵丨賷賳 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱丨賯賵賯賷賾丞 卮乇毓賷賾丞 賮廿賳賾 賲乇丕毓丕鬲賴丕 賴賵 鈥溫Ｙ呚� 廿賱賴賷鈥�. 賵賱匕賱賰 丨賷賳 鬲鬲賲賾 賲毓丕乇囟丞 賯丕賳賵賳 賲丿賳賷 睾賷乇 賲禺丕賱賮 賱賱兀禺賱丕賯 亘賯丕賳賵賳 丌禺乇貙 鈥溬呚Ｘ堌� 亘賵氐賮賴 廿賱賴賷丕鈥澵� 賮廿賳賾 毓賱賷賳丕 兀賳 賳丨賰賲 毓賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱兀禺賷乇 亘賵氐賮賴 賯丕賳賵賳丕 鈥溬呝嗀堎勜�"
賵 丕賱鬲賷 賷乇賶 賮賷賴丕 兀賳 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賱丕 鬲賳亘毓 廿賱丕 賲賳 丕賱毓賯賱 匕丕鬲賴 賲亘丕卮乇丞
賵 賱匕賱賰 賮廿賳 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賱賷爻鬲 亘丨丕噩丞 廿賱賷 丕賱丿賷賳 賵 丨鬲賶 兀賳 兀賮鬲乇囟 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷 賵噩賵丿 賰丕卅賳 兀爻賲賶 賮賴匕丕 丕賱賮乇囟 賱賷爻 賴賵 丕賱兀爻丕爻 賮賷 馗賴賵乇 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 ..亘賱 丕賱毓賯賱
賵 賴丿賮 賰丕賳胤 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 賴賵 丕賱禺乇賵噩 賲賳 丕賱鬲丿賷賳 丕賱馗丕賴乇賷 丕賱毓賯丕卅丿賷 廿賱賷 丕賱鬲丿賷賳 丕賱毓賯賱賷 賵 鬲丨乇賷乇 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳 賲賳 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷 廿賱賷 丿賷賳 廿賳爻丕賳賷 賰賵賳賷 氐丕賱丨 賱賰賱 丕賱卮毓賵亘
賲賯鬲胤賮丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘
" 廿賳賾 丕賱賵賴賲 賵丕賱鬲毓氐亘 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賴賵 丕賱賲賵鬲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷 賱賱毓賯賱貙 賵亘丿賵賳 丕賱毓賯賱 賱丕 賷賰賵賳 賴賳丕賰 丿賷賳 賲賲賰賳"
賷丿賵乇 賰賱賾 賲賳 丕賱毓賯賱 賵丕賱丿賷賳 丨賵賱 鈥溬呚辟冐� 賵丕丨丿鈥澵� 賵毓賱賶 丕賱賮賷賱爻賵賮 兀賳 賷賰卮賮 丕賱賳賯丕亘 毓賳賴. 賱賰賳賾 匕賱賰 賱丕 賷鬲爻賳賾賶 廿賱丕賾 賱賲賳 賯亘賱 亘賮乇囟賷丞 賵噩賵丿 鈥溫娰� 毓賯賱賷 賲丨囟鈥� 賵丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴 賴賵 鈥溫з勜戀娰� 丕賱兀氐賷賱鈥澵� 賲賳 兀噩賱 兀賳賾賴 賴賵 鈥溫娰� 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱賲丨囟"
賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賱兀賷賾 卮賷亍 賲賯丿賾爻 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 兀賴賱丕 賱兀賳 賷購毓亘丿 廿賱丕賾 鈥溬呝� 丨賷孬 兀賳賾 丕賱丕丨鬲乇丕賲 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘賴 賷賳亘睾賷 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 丨乇賾丕
毓賱賶 丕賱丿賵賱丞 兀賳 鬲鬲乇賰 丕賱賲賵丕胤賳 丨乇賾丕 鬲賲丕賲丕 賮賷 兀賳 賷丿禺賱 兀賵 賱丕 賷丿禺賱 賮賷 丕鬲丨丕丿 兀禺賱丕賯賷 賲毓 睾賷乇賴.
"賷賳亘睾賷 丕賱鬲賾賲賷賷夭 亘賷賳 賲卮乇賾毓 丕賱噩賲丕毓丞 丕賱丨賯賵賯賷賾丞 賵賲卮乇賾毓 丕賱噩賲丕毓丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷賾丞: 賮賷 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 賷賰賵賳 丕賱噩賲賴賵乇 賴賵 匕丕鬲賴 賵丕囟毓 丕賱丿爻丕鬲賷乇貨 兀賲賾丕 賮賷 丕賱噩賲丕毓丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷賾丞 賮廿賳賾 丕賱卮賾毓亘 賱丕 賷丨賯 賱賴 兀賳 賷囟毓 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞"
"賵丨賷賳 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱丨賯賵賯賷賾丞 卮乇毓賷賾丞 賮廿賳賾 賲乇丕毓丕鬲賴丕 賴賵 鈥溫Ｙ呚� 廿賱賴賷鈥�. 賵賱匕賱賰 丨賷賳 鬲鬲賲賾 賲毓丕乇囟丞 賯丕賳賵賳 賲丿賳賷 睾賷乇 賲禺丕賱賮 賱賱兀禺賱丕賯 亘賯丕賳賵賳 丌禺乇貙 鈥溬呚Ｘ堌� 亘賵氐賮賴 廿賱賴賷丕鈥澵� 賮廿賳賾 毓賱賷賳丕 兀賳 賳丨賰賲 毓賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱兀禺賷乇 亘賵氐賮賴 賯丕賳賵賳丕 鈥溬呝嗀堎勜�"
September 18, 2017
廿賳 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓賶 賴賵 丿賷賳 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱賲丨囟 賵賴賵 丿賷賳 兀禺賱丕賯賶 賮賶 兀爻丕爻賴 賯丕卅賲 毓賱賶 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丨乇賷丞 丕賱廿乇丕丿丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賵兀賴賲 賲丕 賷賲賷夭賴 丕賳賴 丿賷賳 亘丕胤賳賶 賯丕丿乇 毓賱賶 兀賳 賷氐賱 賱毓賯賱 賰賱 廿賳爻丕賳 亘賳賮爻賴 丕賵 賳賯賱賴 賲賳 卮禺氐 賱丌禺乇 亘賲噩乇丿 丕賳 賷賰卮賮 賱賴 毓賳 禺亘丕賷丕 毓賯賱賴 丕賱賲丨囟 丕賱匕賶 賷鬲囟賲賳 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賶 亘卮賰賱 胤亘賷毓賶 賵賱丕 賷丨鬲丕噩 丕廿賱賶 丕賱賲毓噩夭丕鬲 兀賵 丕賱禺賵丕乇賯 賱賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘賴 賰賲丕 賷賰鬲賮賶 賴匕丕 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱賰賵賳賶 丕賱胤亘賷毓賶 亘丨爻賳 丕賱賳賷丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 丕賱亘丕胤賳丞 丕賱賲氐丕丨亘丞 賱賱賮毓賱 毓賱賶 丕賱賲爻鬲賵賶 丕賱毓賲賱賶 賵丕賱鬲噩乇賷亘賶 丨鬲賶 賳賳丕賱 丕賱乇囟丕 丕賱廿賱賴賶 賵賱丕 賷丨鬲丕噩 丕賱賶 胤賯賵爻 兀賵 丕丨鬲賮丕賱丕鬲 兀賵 毓亘丕丿丕鬲 賱丕 鬲丨賲賱 賮賶 匕丕鬲賴丕 兀賶 賯賷賲丞 賱匕丕鬲賴丕 賵賴賶 囟乇亘 賲賳 鬲丿賷賳 丕賱毓亘賷丿 賵賱丕 鬲氐賱丨 賰丿賷賳 賰賵賳賶 賮賲賳 丕賱賲爻鬲丨賷賱 兀賳 賷氐賱 賴賰匕丕 丿賷賳 廿賱賶 賰賱 毓賯賵賱 丕賱亘卮乇 亘賯賳丕毓丞 鬲丕賲丞 .
April 22, 2019
When I was a youngster, I had to attend church regularly. I went through the confirmation process to become an official member of the Methodist Church, but the entire experience never touched me either emotionally or intellectually. I understood that the underlying idea was to come together with others with the guiding principle to be kind to one another but the theology and the Bible appeared utterly archaic, unbelievable and with no application to modern life. Virgin birth? Raising the dead? Eternal life or eternal damnation? It was nothing more to me than a very elaborate fairy tale with an almost childish emphasis on threat and promise that said nothing at all about the real world. I came away from it with no inclination to follow any religion and genuine puzzlement at how any intelligent person could be religious, that is, having a faith with no evidence to support it.
Little did I know that the 18th century had produced a man deeply concerned with religion being compatible with reason, understandably so at a time when reason was sweeping all before it in a new appreciation of the world that produced undeniable, provable laws of nature which religion over many centuries had been speaking of with no concrete understanding at all. For the lack of anything to compete with it, humanity accepted the tales of who and what we are that were told by unknown writers who texts were declared god-given. Immanuel Kant attempted to address my inability to place religion in a rational world view 200 years before I was born, and he makes an impressive case without ever bringing the supernatural into the picture. I was all ears.
For Kant, undeniably a Christian and a Protestant, there is only a single religion, it is open to human beings by way of our innate ability to reason and it has as a foundation the duty of each individual to follow the moral law, as a free choice, with the goal of each one valuing all others and being valued by them. This religion is timeless (outside of history) and universal.
That's it. No dogma, no theology, no clergy, no established church. Who could not be impressed? Quite a few, who are invested in any one of the plurality of what we commonly call religion, who do not appreciate the specifics of their particular version of what they hold to be truth being called irrelevant.
This multitude of religions Kant calls faiths. A faith is local, historical and tied to specific events. As such, none of them have universal appeal and all require beliefs to be held about why the world came to be, Christianity being no exception.
Kant says of a deity that even if it exists there is no way that human beings can have any idea of the nature of such a thing, let alone know what it wants. This makes revelation meaningless. Praise is pointless. Going through routines to show obedience such as doing good deeds or confessing or even going to church do not earn salvation. All of the elaborate liturgies, houses of worship and daily religious habits such as prayer are theater but for one thing, that they appeal to the common man for whom the abstract idea of duty to morality as the supreme good in itself cannot be grasped. Thus we have the many "ecclesiastical churches" as Kant terms them with their sacred stories and characters that at their best can only point one in the direction of the one universal church standing outside of time.
This is heady stuff, but Kant's analysis of the Christian faith is marvelous. Calling it the sole faith dedicated to universal morality, Kant proceeds to dissect the story of Christ as a way of relating the religion of reason to the mind of man. It is in this discussion that it dawned on me why the preposterous stories of the Bible could make some kind of sense, whereas looking at them at face value, for me, did not.
Kant writes that Christ being half human and half divine is a way of telling you and me that achieving a moral life is not beyond human capacity, we can make the attempt as well. The details of Jesus' life are not important, nor is he himself important as a figure in history. He may not have existed as he is described and that doesn't matter. It is only through the interpretation of the story that we gain anything of value and the same can be said of other religions that have their own important stories and persons. All alike point to the one universal timeless church of reason.
Studying the Bible or any sacred text to guide morality is not productive. There is no one right reading of any part of the Bible, but any part of the Bible can be made to show moral value through interpretation. Attempting to see the Bible as a whole that must tie together without contradiction or even to be consistent as a prescription for behavior is impossible, as is the belief that it is the word of a god. Kant takes quotations from the Bible frequently to illustrate their meaning in support of the church of reason and his reasoning is quite powerful, but it is clear that a moral life is quite possible without reference to any religious text
What he is driving at is that it all comes down to you and, even then, you cannot know if you have succeeded in always choosing the right path in life. You are not qualified to be the judge of the content of your heart (the root of your behavior). The best any person can do is to make the maxim of valuing all others as ends rather than means his/her duty to observe at all times. To be able to look back on past behavior can provide feedback that one is on the right path, but never complacency as the challenge does not end until one's life ends. Even at the end, one still cannot be the judge of oneself. Here, again, positing an all seeing god capable of knowing our heart is an aid in helping us to believe we have the chance of salvation as grace received by an imperfect being from one that is, as perfection itself, in a position to judge. This shows the practicality of the faiths mankind knows, while not saying they are true.
Kant makes a very powerful case and in the process takes an extensive look at what has been called evil. From what I've written so far, you can guess that the idea of satan is practical as is the story of the Fall. If all the mythology works to make men behave better toward each other, then that is all to the good, though Kant doesn't hesitate to say the history of human civilization does not tell us this is so. Kant admits that from youth we see some people behaving very well and others quite badly as if each is predisposed to this or that behavior. He also admits that the concept of free will is a must for his thesis to hold together. He states that there may be a physical reason for every bit of our behavior but that until it is shown to be the case (and science since has steadily made more clear that it is) free will must be supposed.
Thus one arrives at the great irony of this work. After showing that traditional religious mythology is not to be believed as true on the basis of reason, and then using reason to show that one can make a very strong case for religion based on reason alone, and even a practical case for mythological belief if it moves people toward good behavior, the entire reason-based structure stands on the faith that free will exists. At the time he wrote, free will was accepted just as the idea of a god was accepted, on faith, for there was nothing else to consider. I would argue that not believing in free will is far harder than not believing in a god. Who can find it easy to think that there is no "me" standing over the mind/body and directing daily behavior?
Kant's was a marvelous intellect eager to address the most difficult problems of philosophy. I found Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone revealing and quite educational if not satisfying.
I want to thank Jonathan Bennett and his website for translations from the German into readable prose, overcoming the hurdle of the often opaque writing for which Kant is known.
Little did I know that the 18th century had produced a man deeply concerned with religion being compatible with reason, understandably so at a time when reason was sweeping all before it in a new appreciation of the world that produced undeniable, provable laws of nature which religion over many centuries had been speaking of with no concrete understanding at all. For the lack of anything to compete with it, humanity accepted the tales of who and what we are that were told by unknown writers who texts were declared god-given. Immanuel Kant attempted to address my inability to place religion in a rational world view 200 years before I was born, and he makes an impressive case without ever bringing the supernatural into the picture. I was all ears.
For Kant, undeniably a Christian and a Protestant, there is only a single religion, it is open to human beings by way of our innate ability to reason and it has as a foundation the duty of each individual to follow the moral law, as a free choice, with the goal of each one valuing all others and being valued by them. This religion is timeless (outside of history) and universal.
That's it. No dogma, no theology, no clergy, no established church. Who could not be impressed? Quite a few, who are invested in any one of the plurality of what we commonly call religion, who do not appreciate the specifics of their particular version of what they hold to be truth being called irrelevant.
This multitude of religions Kant calls faiths. A faith is local, historical and tied to specific events. As such, none of them have universal appeal and all require beliefs to be held about why the world came to be, Christianity being no exception.
Kant says of a deity that even if it exists there is no way that human beings can have any idea of the nature of such a thing, let alone know what it wants. This makes revelation meaningless. Praise is pointless. Going through routines to show obedience such as doing good deeds or confessing or even going to church do not earn salvation. All of the elaborate liturgies, houses of worship and daily religious habits such as prayer are theater but for one thing, that they appeal to the common man for whom the abstract idea of duty to morality as the supreme good in itself cannot be grasped. Thus we have the many "ecclesiastical churches" as Kant terms them with their sacred stories and characters that at their best can only point one in the direction of the one universal church standing outside of time.
This is heady stuff, but Kant's analysis of the Christian faith is marvelous. Calling it the sole faith dedicated to universal morality, Kant proceeds to dissect the story of Christ as a way of relating the religion of reason to the mind of man. It is in this discussion that it dawned on me why the preposterous stories of the Bible could make some kind of sense, whereas looking at them at face value, for me, did not.
Kant writes that Christ being half human and half divine is a way of telling you and me that achieving a moral life is not beyond human capacity, we can make the attempt as well. The details of Jesus' life are not important, nor is he himself important as a figure in history. He may not have existed as he is described and that doesn't matter. It is only through the interpretation of the story that we gain anything of value and the same can be said of other religions that have their own important stories and persons. All alike point to the one universal timeless church of reason.
Studying the Bible or any sacred text to guide morality is not productive. There is no one right reading of any part of the Bible, but any part of the Bible can be made to show moral value through interpretation. Attempting to see the Bible as a whole that must tie together without contradiction or even to be consistent as a prescription for behavior is impossible, as is the belief that it is the word of a god. Kant takes quotations from the Bible frequently to illustrate their meaning in support of the church of reason and his reasoning is quite powerful, but it is clear that a moral life is quite possible without reference to any religious text
What he is driving at is that it all comes down to you and, even then, you cannot know if you have succeeded in always choosing the right path in life. You are not qualified to be the judge of the content of your heart (the root of your behavior). The best any person can do is to make the maxim of valuing all others as ends rather than means his/her duty to observe at all times. To be able to look back on past behavior can provide feedback that one is on the right path, but never complacency as the challenge does not end until one's life ends. Even at the end, one still cannot be the judge of oneself. Here, again, positing an all seeing god capable of knowing our heart is an aid in helping us to believe we have the chance of salvation as grace received by an imperfect being from one that is, as perfection itself, in a position to judge. This shows the practicality of the faiths mankind knows, while not saying they are true.
Kant makes a very powerful case and in the process takes an extensive look at what has been called evil. From what I've written so far, you can guess that the idea of satan is practical as is the story of the Fall. If all the mythology works to make men behave better toward each other, then that is all to the good, though Kant doesn't hesitate to say the history of human civilization does not tell us this is so. Kant admits that from youth we see some people behaving very well and others quite badly as if each is predisposed to this or that behavior. He also admits that the concept of free will is a must for his thesis to hold together. He states that there may be a physical reason for every bit of our behavior but that until it is shown to be the case (and science since has steadily made more clear that it is) free will must be supposed.
Thus one arrives at the great irony of this work. After showing that traditional religious mythology is not to be believed as true on the basis of reason, and then using reason to show that one can make a very strong case for religion based on reason alone, and even a practical case for mythological belief if it moves people toward good behavior, the entire reason-based structure stands on the faith that free will exists. At the time he wrote, free will was accepted just as the idea of a god was accepted, on faith, for there was nothing else to consider. I would argue that not believing in free will is far harder than not believing in a god. Who can find it easy to think that there is no "me" standing over the mind/body and directing daily behavior?
Kant's was a marvelous intellect eager to address the most difficult problems of philosophy. I found Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone revealing and quite educational if not satisfying.
I want to thank Jonathan Bennett and his website for translations from the German into readable prose, overcoming the hurdle of the often opaque writing for which Kant is known.
July 9, 2021
Interesting work but I know too little about the subject to have a good opinion. But it was pretty readable.
August 13, 2016
I'm sure that this is a towering work of genius and all that, but I just don't agree with Kant on very much at all. It's a noble project that he undertakes here, attempting to find the rational religion that all humans can, and indeed must subscribe to. It involves peeling back the layers of revealed truths to find the core of rational truth that our reason can testify to. What is left however, is heavy, unwieldy and unappealing and it robs Christianity of its finest elements leaving an insipid mess that isn't overly rational.
It's something else to see the Enlightenment optimism towards this rational project. The fact that Kant believes in the possibility of a Commonwealth of Ethics that all enlightened "men" would wish to join shows shockingly naive optimism with perhaps a generous helping of hubris. At least that's my opinion. There are perhaps some who still believe in the possibility of something similar. In any case, this is the exact sort of book you'd expect from a staggering 18th century intellect who never left his Prussian hometown. This is an excellent book to read to gain insight into Kant's ethical and religious ideas. It's not a bad book, just horribly wrong.
It's something else to see the Enlightenment optimism towards this rational project. The fact that Kant believes in the possibility of a Commonwealth of Ethics that all enlightened "men" would wish to join shows shockingly naive optimism with perhaps a generous helping of hubris. At least that's my opinion. There are perhaps some who still believe in the possibility of something similar. In any case, this is the exact sort of book you'd expect from a staggering 18th century intellect who never left his Prussian hometown. This is an excellent book to read to gain insight into Kant's ethical and religious ideas. It's not a bad book, just horribly wrong.
October 27, 2015
Along the same lines of his Critique project, Kant talks about religion and the limits of reason. Kant says that in order to act freely, we must have some power to ratify or reject our desires. Maxims allow us to accept or reject a given desire, and hence allow us to act freely. Because a maxim is good, only duty inspires it, human nature can only be good (in accordance with duty) or evil (in accordance with everyday desires). In order to be morally responsible you must not only have an intention to do something, you must also have a maxim or principle that puts the final stamp of approval on your intentions. The moral law is part of what makes us rational creatures. But we certainly can demote the moral law, and the tendency to do this is what makes us essentially evil. He argues that when we make decisions, we often put our inclinations first, combine them with our sense of duty, or ignore duty altogether. In his eyes, each of these tendencies qualifies human beings as morally evil.
That, through the moral law, man is called to a good course of life; that, through unquenchable respect for this law lying in him, he finds in himself justification for confidence in this good spirit and for hope that, however it may come about, he will be able to satisfy this spirit; finally, that, comparing the last-named expectation with the stern command of the law, he must continually test himself as though summoned to account before a judge 鈥� reason, heart, and conscience all teach this and urge its fulfilment.
Here we then have a complete religion which can be proposed to all human beings comprehensibly and convincingly through their own reason
Kant offers an illuminating metaphor of two concentric circles鈥攖he inner one representing the core of the one religion of pure moral reason and the outer one representing many revealed historical religions, all of which should include and build on that core. Existing religious traditions are important if they provide the opportunity for moral reflection.
A religion, accordingly, can be natural, and at the same time revealed, when it is so constituted that men could and ought to have discovered it of themselves merely through the use of their reason, although they would not have come upon it so early, or over so wide an area, as is required. Hence a revelation thereof at a given time and in a given place might well be wise and very advantageous to the human race, in that, when once the religion thus introduced is here, and has been made known publicly, everyone can henceforth by himself and with his own reason convince himself of its truth. In this event the religion is objectively a natural religion, though subjectively one that has been revealed.
Kant criticizes certain aspects of organized religion as a whole. He starts by denying the certainty of revelation and the the limitations time, place and language of this revelation.
Pure religious faith alone can found a universal church; for only [such] rational faith can be believed in and shared by everyone, whereas an historical faith, grounded solely on facts, can extend its influence no further than tidings of it can reach, subject to circumstances of time and place and dependent upon the capacity [of men] to judge the credibility of such tidings.
Every faith which, as an historical faith, bases itself upon books, needs for its security a learned public for whom it can be controlled, as it were, by writers who lived in those times, who are not suspected of a special agreement with the first disseminators of the faith, and with whom our present-day scholarship is connected by a continuous tradition. The pure faith of reason, in contrast, stands in need of no such documentary authentication, but proves itself.
People demand divine revelation, and hence also an historical certification of its authority through the tracing back of its origin. Now human skill and wisdom cannot ascend so far as heaven in order itself to inspect the credentials validating the mission of the first Teacher. It must be content with evidence that can be elicited, apart from the content, as to the way in which such a faith has been introduced 鈥� that is, with human reports which must be searched out little by little from very ancient times, and from languages now dead, for evaluation as to their historical credibility.
For how are the unlearned, who can read it only in translation, to be certain of its meaning? Hence the expositor, in addition to being familiar with the original tongue, must also be a master of extended historical knowledge and criticism, in order that from the conditions, customs, and opinions (the popular faith) of the times in question he may be able to derive the means wherewith to enlighten the understanding of the ecclesiastical commonwealth.
Now even though the announcement of such an historical event, as well as the faith in rules of conduct based upon it, cannot be said to have been vouchsafed solely or primarily to the learned or the wise of the world, these latter are yet not excluded from it; consequently there arise so many doubts, in part touching its truth, and in part touching the sense in which its exposition is to be taken, that to adopt such a belief as this, subjected as it is to so many controversies (however sincerely intentioned), as the supreme condition of a universal faith alone leading to salvation, is the most absurd course of action that can be conceived of.
He says that much of existing organized religion does not help people improve their moral standing. Professions of faith, and even consistent participation in religious services cannot transform the morally corrupt into the morally upright. Kant Also thinks that like all formally organized religions encourages "religious delusion." Those suffering from religious delusions think that simply believing in a religious doctrine makes them better in God's eyes. Kant thinks it deluded to believe that God is pleased when we profess faith in Jesus, for example. Kant says there are three kinds of religious delusions, all of which we should avoid. We should not believe in miracles, since we do not have direct, empirical evidence of miracles occurring today or in the days of old. Kant also speaks against religious mysteries, since their existence also cannot be proven through reason.He also denounces clericalism as promoting such misguided pseudo-service, which mistake participation in these practices for true moral conduct.
Between a shaman of the Tunguses and the European prelate who rules over both church and state, or (if, instead of the heads and leaders, we only want to look at the faithful and their ways of representation) between the wholly sensuousp Wogulite, who in the morning lays the paw of a bear skin over his head with the short prayer, "Strike me not dead!" and the sublimated Puritan and Independent in Connecticut, there certainly is a tremendous distance in the style of faith, but not in the principle; for, as regards the latter, they all equally belong to one and the same class, namely of those who place their service of God in something (faith in certain statutory articles, or the observance of certain arbitrary practices) which cannot by itself constitute a better human being. Only those whose intention is to find this service solely in the disposition to good life-conduct distinguish themselves from those others by crossing over into an entirely different principle, one exalted far above the other, namely the principle whereby they profess themselves members of a (invisible) church which encompasses all right-thinking people within itself and alone, in virtue of its essential composition, can be the true church universal.
We should not believe that religious rituals or professions of faith will make us more righteous in God's eyes. Kant claims that as long as we are earnest in trying to become morally upright, as long as we act in true devotion to duty, God will take care of the rest. Religious practices can be either good expressions of devotion, if they bind us together in moral community or bad expressions of mere pseudo-service, if designed to ingratiate us with God. Kant wants to clarify that good religious groups are those that value the moral improvement of their members over the observance of ritual and dogma.
Whatever, over and above good life-conduct, man fancies that he can do to become well-pleasing to God is mere religious delusion.
People are fooling themselves if they think they really understand God. Professing to know what God is and what he wants does absolutely nothing for our own moral improvement.
But, if this very faith (in a divine Trinity) were to be regarded not just as the representation of a practical idea, but as a faith that ought to represent what God is in himself, it would be a mystery surpassing all human concepts, hence unsuited to a revelation humanly comprehensible, and could only be declared in this respect as mystery. Faith in it as an extension of theoretical cognition of the divine nature would only be the profession of a creed of ecclesiastical faith totally unintelligible to human beings or, if they think that they understand it, the profession of an anthropomorphic creed, and not the least would thereby be accomplished for moral improvement.
Kant goes on to explain that all religious faiths involve something holy that people can comprehend, this holy quality is usually embodied in a moral ruler of the world, a deity who has the final word on all moral questions and concerns. Some faiths articulate the relationship between the moral ruler and humanity better than others. For Kant, true religions believe in a God who is as a morally holy lawgiver, a benevolent ruler, and a just judge and administrator of his laws. He speaks against a concept of God a World-Ruler who transforms this duty into a command to us, a figure who demands reverence to him which makes us act as slaves for him because this turns religion from morality through reason to idolatry.
there is something which so exalts the soul, and so leads it to the very Deity, who is worthy of adoration only because of His holiness and as Legislator for virtue, that man, even when he is still far from allowing to this concept the power of influencing his maxims, is yet not unwillingly sustained by it because he feels himself to a certain extent ennobled by this idea already, even while the concept of a World-Ruler who transforms this duty into a command to us, still lies far from him. But to commence with this latter concept would incur the danger of dashing man鈥檚 courage (which goes to constitute the essence of virtue) and transforming godliness into a fawning slavish subjection to a despotically commanding might.
In that which concerns the moral disposition everything depends upon the highest concept under which one subsumes one鈥檚 duties. When reverence for God is put first, with virtue therefore subordinated to it, this object [of reverence] becomes an idol, that is, He is thought of as a Being whom we may hope to please not through morally upright conduct on earth but through adoration and ingratiation; and religion is then idolatry. But godliness is not a surrogate for virtue, whereby we may dispense with the latter; rather is it virtue鈥檚 consummation, enabling us to be crowned with the hope of the ultimate achievement of all our good ends.
Kant says to escape all those dogmas, interpretation is necessary to make sense of religious scriptures, and that existing religious practices and religious scriptures do not always interpret correctly. Kant says that clever people of considerable moral fortitude should be responsible for interpreting a given religious tradition. Individuals whose primary loyalty is to reason are in the best position to ensure that religious practices improve people's morals. Kant thinks that such interpreters are needed because some aspects of religious doctrine actually run contrary to moral principles. (Read Kierkegaard Fear and Trembling to see the opposing point of view).
Kant reinterprets Christianity, He starts by the role of Jesus Christ, and humanity's proper relationship to Jesus, saying that the idea of Jesus Christ, stripped of particular religious beliefs surrounding him, is simply the idea of a perfect moral being. A morally perfect being must be capable of falling from grace but able to resist the fall. According to Kant, we can wash out evil by modeling ourselves on this perfect moral being. Jesus should be merely an example that can inspire us to engage in moral behavior. Then he moves to the idea of original sin. Kant rejects that because of Adam and Eve, all humans are born sinful. He thinks the biblical story of Adam and Eve should be understood allegorically, not literally. Kant says we fall from grace not because of Adam and Eve, but because of our own bad behavior. We are not guilty for the sins of Adam and Eve, but guilty for using our free will to choose immoral desires and thoughts. Finally he come to the idea of salvation through faith in Jesus, his main complaint is that it isn't enough to absolve human beings of their sins.
There is absolutely no salvation for human beings except in the innermost adoption of genuine moral principles in their disposition
From our human perspective, religion鈥攂oth revealed and natural鈥攕hould be regarded as "the recognition of all duties as divine commands".Kant makes a particularly provocative claim, that, ultimately, there is only one (true) religion, "the religion of morality", while there can be various "historical faiths" promoting it. From this perspective, Judaism, Islam, and the various denominations of Christianity are all legitimate faiths, to be located in Kant鈥檚 metaphorical outer circle, including the true religion of morality, his metaphorical inner circle. However, some faiths can be relatively more adequate expressions of the religion of moral reason than others.
Hence to start off with this knowledge, and to let the historical faith which harmonizes with it follow, is not only an act of prudence; it is also our duty to make such knowledge the supreme condition under which alone we can hope to become participants in whatever salvation a religious faith may promise. So true is this that only as warranted by the interpretation which pure religious faith gives to the historical can we hold the latter to be universally binding or are we entitled to allow its validity (for it does contain universally valid teaching); meanwhile the moral believer is ever open to historical faith so far as he finds it furthering the vitality of his pure religious disposition. Only thus does historical faith possess a pure moral worth, because here it is free and not coerced through any threat (for then it can never be honest).
Kant likes the fact that Christianity's message can be communicated to human beings. Furthermore, humans can evaluate Christianity's moral teachings without any special training. They do not need scholarly ability, special insight, or divine election to understand Christianity. Christianity is both a natural and a revealed religion, and Kant shows how the gospel of Matthew expresses Kantian ethics, with Jesus as its wise moral teacher. According to Kant, a comparison between Judaism and Christianity shows how revolutionary the Christian faith can be. In his view, Judaism has restricted its membership to an exclusive group of people, thereby thwarting any possibility of developing into a universal church whose laws would apply to all people. Also Judaism's core principles are more akin to public laws than to internal moral principles.
Christianity possesses the great advantage over Judaism of being represented as coming from the mouth of the first Teacher not as a statutory but as a moral religion, and as thus entering into the closest relation with reason so that, through reason, it was able of itself, without historical learning, to be spread at all times and among all peoples with the greatest trustworthiness.
For Kant, faith is useless unless individuals devote themselves to their own moral improvement. He believes that the innate good in people will cause them to turn away from ecclesiastical faith and religious practices, and toward moral religion. He does not claim that people will convert to moral religion because it is simpler than traditional religions. In fact, moral religion is more demanding than ecclesiastical faith, for it requires every individual to take full responsibility for becoming a better person. In the end, if we do not discover this truth, we are responsible, for we did not search our own hearts long enough to uncover it.
There exists meanwhile a practical knowledge which, while resting solely upon reason and requiring no historical doctrine, lies as close to every man, even the most simple, as though it were engraved upon his heart鈥揳 law, which we need but name to find ourselves at once in agreement with everyone else regarding its authority, and which carries with it in everyone鈥檚 consciousness unconditioned binding force, to wit, the law of morality. What is more, this knowledge either leads, alone and of itself, to belief in God, or at least determines the concept of Him as that of a moral Legislator; hence it guides us to a pure religious faith which not only can be comprehended by every man but also is in the highest degree worthy of respect.
That, through the moral law, man is called to a good course of life; that, through unquenchable respect for this law lying in him, he finds in himself justification for confidence in this good spirit and for hope that, however it may come about, he will be able to satisfy this spirit; finally, that, comparing the last-named expectation with the stern command of the law, he must continually test himself as though summoned to account before a judge 鈥� reason, heart, and conscience all teach this and urge its fulfilment.
Here we then have a complete religion which can be proposed to all human beings comprehensibly and convincingly through their own reason
Kant offers an illuminating metaphor of two concentric circles鈥攖he inner one representing the core of the one religion of pure moral reason and the outer one representing many revealed historical religions, all of which should include and build on that core. Existing religious traditions are important if they provide the opportunity for moral reflection.
A religion, accordingly, can be natural, and at the same time revealed, when it is so constituted that men could and ought to have discovered it of themselves merely through the use of their reason, although they would not have come upon it so early, or over so wide an area, as is required. Hence a revelation thereof at a given time and in a given place might well be wise and very advantageous to the human race, in that, when once the religion thus introduced is here, and has been made known publicly, everyone can henceforth by himself and with his own reason convince himself of its truth. In this event the religion is objectively a natural religion, though subjectively one that has been revealed.
Kant criticizes certain aspects of organized religion as a whole. He starts by denying the certainty of revelation and the the limitations time, place and language of this revelation.
Pure religious faith alone can found a universal church; for only [such] rational faith can be believed in and shared by everyone, whereas an historical faith, grounded solely on facts, can extend its influence no further than tidings of it can reach, subject to circumstances of time and place and dependent upon the capacity [of men] to judge the credibility of such tidings.
Every faith which, as an historical faith, bases itself upon books, needs for its security a learned public for whom it can be controlled, as it were, by writers who lived in those times, who are not suspected of a special agreement with the first disseminators of the faith, and with whom our present-day scholarship is connected by a continuous tradition. The pure faith of reason, in contrast, stands in need of no such documentary authentication, but proves itself.
People demand divine revelation, and hence also an historical certification of its authority through the tracing back of its origin. Now human skill and wisdom cannot ascend so far as heaven in order itself to inspect the credentials validating the mission of the first Teacher. It must be content with evidence that can be elicited, apart from the content, as to the way in which such a faith has been introduced 鈥� that is, with human reports which must be searched out little by little from very ancient times, and from languages now dead, for evaluation as to their historical credibility.
For how are the unlearned, who can read it only in translation, to be certain of its meaning? Hence the expositor, in addition to being familiar with the original tongue, must also be a master of extended historical knowledge and criticism, in order that from the conditions, customs, and opinions (the popular faith) of the times in question he may be able to derive the means wherewith to enlighten the understanding of the ecclesiastical commonwealth.
Now even though the announcement of such an historical event, as well as the faith in rules of conduct based upon it, cannot be said to have been vouchsafed solely or primarily to the learned or the wise of the world, these latter are yet not excluded from it; consequently there arise so many doubts, in part touching its truth, and in part touching the sense in which its exposition is to be taken, that to adopt such a belief as this, subjected as it is to so many controversies (however sincerely intentioned), as the supreme condition of a universal faith alone leading to salvation, is the most absurd course of action that can be conceived of.
He says that much of existing organized religion does not help people improve their moral standing. Professions of faith, and even consistent participation in religious services cannot transform the morally corrupt into the morally upright. Kant Also thinks that like all formally organized religions encourages "religious delusion." Those suffering from religious delusions think that simply believing in a religious doctrine makes them better in God's eyes. Kant thinks it deluded to believe that God is pleased when we profess faith in Jesus, for example. Kant says there are three kinds of religious delusions, all of which we should avoid. We should not believe in miracles, since we do not have direct, empirical evidence of miracles occurring today or in the days of old. Kant also speaks against religious mysteries, since their existence also cannot be proven through reason.He also denounces clericalism as promoting such misguided pseudo-service, which mistake participation in these practices for true moral conduct.
Between a shaman of the Tunguses and the European prelate who rules over both church and state, or (if, instead of the heads and leaders, we only want to look at the faithful and their ways of representation) between the wholly sensuousp Wogulite, who in the morning lays the paw of a bear skin over his head with the short prayer, "Strike me not dead!" and the sublimated Puritan and Independent in Connecticut, there certainly is a tremendous distance in the style of faith, but not in the principle; for, as regards the latter, they all equally belong to one and the same class, namely of those who place their service of God in something (faith in certain statutory articles, or the observance of certain arbitrary practices) which cannot by itself constitute a better human being. Only those whose intention is to find this service solely in the disposition to good life-conduct distinguish themselves from those others by crossing over into an entirely different principle, one exalted far above the other, namely the principle whereby they profess themselves members of a (invisible) church which encompasses all right-thinking people within itself and alone, in virtue of its essential composition, can be the true church universal.
We should not believe that religious rituals or professions of faith will make us more righteous in God's eyes. Kant claims that as long as we are earnest in trying to become morally upright, as long as we act in true devotion to duty, God will take care of the rest. Religious practices can be either good expressions of devotion, if they bind us together in moral community or bad expressions of mere pseudo-service, if designed to ingratiate us with God. Kant wants to clarify that good religious groups are those that value the moral improvement of their members over the observance of ritual and dogma.
Whatever, over and above good life-conduct, man fancies that he can do to become well-pleasing to God is mere religious delusion.
People are fooling themselves if they think they really understand God. Professing to know what God is and what he wants does absolutely nothing for our own moral improvement.
But, if this very faith (in a divine Trinity) were to be regarded not just as the representation of a practical idea, but as a faith that ought to represent what God is in himself, it would be a mystery surpassing all human concepts, hence unsuited to a revelation humanly comprehensible, and could only be declared in this respect as mystery. Faith in it as an extension of theoretical cognition of the divine nature would only be the profession of a creed of ecclesiastical faith totally unintelligible to human beings or, if they think that they understand it, the profession of an anthropomorphic creed, and not the least would thereby be accomplished for moral improvement.
Kant goes on to explain that all religious faiths involve something holy that people can comprehend, this holy quality is usually embodied in a moral ruler of the world, a deity who has the final word on all moral questions and concerns. Some faiths articulate the relationship between the moral ruler and humanity better than others. For Kant, true religions believe in a God who is as a morally holy lawgiver, a benevolent ruler, and a just judge and administrator of his laws. He speaks against a concept of God a World-Ruler who transforms this duty into a command to us, a figure who demands reverence to him which makes us act as slaves for him because this turns religion from morality through reason to idolatry.
there is something which so exalts the soul, and so leads it to the very Deity, who is worthy of adoration only because of His holiness and as Legislator for virtue, that man, even when he is still far from allowing to this concept the power of influencing his maxims, is yet not unwillingly sustained by it because he feels himself to a certain extent ennobled by this idea already, even while the concept of a World-Ruler who transforms this duty into a command to us, still lies far from him. But to commence with this latter concept would incur the danger of dashing man鈥檚 courage (which goes to constitute the essence of virtue) and transforming godliness into a fawning slavish subjection to a despotically commanding might.
In that which concerns the moral disposition everything depends upon the highest concept under which one subsumes one鈥檚 duties. When reverence for God is put first, with virtue therefore subordinated to it, this object [of reverence] becomes an idol, that is, He is thought of as a Being whom we may hope to please not through morally upright conduct on earth but through adoration and ingratiation; and religion is then idolatry. But godliness is not a surrogate for virtue, whereby we may dispense with the latter; rather is it virtue鈥檚 consummation, enabling us to be crowned with the hope of the ultimate achievement of all our good ends.
Kant says to escape all those dogmas, interpretation is necessary to make sense of religious scriptures, and that existing religious practices and religious scriptures do not always interpret correctly. Kant says that clever people of considerable moral fortitude should be responsible for interpreting a given religious tradition. Individuals whose primary loyalty is to reason are in the best position to ensure that religious practices improve people's morals. Kant thinks that such interpreters are needed because some aspects of religious doctrine actually run contrary to moral principles. (Read Kierkegaard Fear and Trembling to see the opposing point of view).
Kant reinterprets Christianity, He starts by the role of Jesus Christ, and humanity's proper relationship to Jesus, saying that the idea of Jesus Christ, stripped of particular religious beliefs surrounding him, is simply the idea of a perfect moral being. A morally perfect being must be capable of falling from grace but able to resist the fall. According to Kant, we can wash out evil by modeling ourselves on this perfect moral being. Jesus should be merely an example that can inspire us to engage in moral behavior. Then he moves to the idea of original sin. Kant rejects that because of Adam and Eve, all humans are born sinful. He thinks the biblical story of Adam and Eve should be understood allegorically, not literally. Kant says we fall from grace not because of Adam and Eve, but because of our own bad behavior. We are not guilty for the sins of Adam and Eve, but guilty for using our free will to choose immoral desires and thoughts. Finally he come to the idea of salvation through faith in Jesus, his main complaint is that it isn't enough to absolve human beings of their sins.
There is absolutely no salvation for human beings except in the innermost adoption of genuine moral principles in their disposition
From our human perspective, religion鈥攂oth revealed and natural鈥攕hould be regarded as "the recognition of all duties as divine commands".Kant makes a particularly provocative claim, that, ultimately, there is only one (true) religion, "the religion of morality", while there can be various "historical faiths" promoting it. From this perspective, Judaism, Islam, and the various denominations of Christianity are all legitimate faiths, to be located in Kant鈥檚 metaphorical outer circle, including the true religion of morality, his metaphorical inner circle. However, some faiths can be relatively more adequate expressions of the religion of moral reason than others.
Hence to start off with this knowledge, and to let the historical faith which harmonizes with it follow, is not only an act of prudence; it is also our duty to make such knowledge the supreme condition under which alone we can hope to become participants in whatever salvation a religious faith may promise. So true is this that only as warranted by the interpretation which pure religious faith gives to the historical can we hold the latter to be universally binding or are we entitled to allow its validity (for it does contain universally valid teaching); meanwhile the moral believer is ever open to historical faith so far as he finds it furthering the vitality of his pure religious disposition. Only thus does historical faith possess a pure moral worth, because here it is free and not coerced through any threat (for then it can never be honest).
Kant likes the fact that Christianity's message can be communicated to human beings. Furthermore, humans can evaluate Christianity's moral teachings without any special training. They do not need scholarly ability, special insight, or divine election to understand Christianity. Christianity is both a natural and a revealed religion, and Kant shows how the gospel of Matthew expresses Kantian ethics, with Jesus as its wise moral teacher. According to Kant, a comparison between Judaism and Christianity shows how revolutionary the Christian faith can be. In his view, Judaism has restricted its membership to an exclusive group of people, thereby thwarting any possibility of developing into a universal church whose laws would apply to all people. Also Judaism's core principles are more akin to public laws than to internal moral principles.
Christianity possesses the great advantage over Judaism of being represented as coming from the mouth of the first Teacher not as a statutory but as a moral religion, and as thus entering into the closest relation with reason so that, through reason, it was able of itself, without historical learning, to be spread at all times and among all peoples with the greatest trustworthiness.
For Kant, faith is useless unless individuals devote themselves to their own moral improvement. He believes that the innate good in people will cause them to turn away from ecclesiastical faith and religious practices, and toward moral religion. He does not claim that people will convert to moral religion because it is simpler than traditional religions. In fact, moral religion is more demanding than ecclesiastical faith, for it requires every individual to take full responsibility for becoming a better person. In the end, if we do not discover this truth, we are responsible, for we did not search our own hearts long enough to uncover it.
There exists meanwhile a practical knowledge which, while resting solely upon reason and requiring no historical doctrine, lies as close to every man, even the most simple, as though it were engraved upon his heart鈥揳 law, which we need but name to find ourselves at once in agreement with everyone else regarding its authority, and which carries with it in everyone鈥檚 consciousness unconditioned binding force, to wit, the law of morality. What is more, this knowledge either leads, alone and of itself, to belief in God, or at least determines the concept of Him as that of a moral Legislator; hence it guides us to a pure religious faith which not only can be comprehended by every man but also is in the highest degree worthy of respect.
February 2, 2022
"Wij weten niets van de toekomst."
July 12, 2016
Another great surprise in my life, found on another evening examining the aisles of an ancient, indispensable library. When it comes down to the mind-breaking process of contemplating the ontology of religion, this text is a feast for those put off by the current religiosity of atheism. Don't tell me that nothing comes next. Don't tell me what comes next. Just drink wine with me atop a mountain and tell me what you've seen. And don't you dare ask for a donation; my donations are time, cigars, laughter, peace, and the other things, the holiest of all, next to the written word, which the good woman in my life knows all about. Have made a note to purchase the book. Shipment in. Too much damn work. Must get to the sea. Unto the Delaware River!
December 22, 2012
Kant's work is indispensable for understanding aspects of the Enlightenment that ruptured the early Modern worldview. The book requires lots of time - his sentences are unbelievably long, but his program and logic are keys for understanding the post-modern condition.
October 3, 2019
This gets a 3-star (liked it) not because I agree with Kant's understanding of religion or with his overall philosophical project, but because it was so helpful to understand the thought historically downstream of him (and Hume, who impacted Kant) regarding religion and Protestant Christianity.
January 13, 2024
Het was lange tijd eigen interpretatie van Kant om in te schatten hoe Kant tegenover het geloof zou staan. Maar nu ik dit boek heb gelezen, kan ik met een gerust hart constateren dat het systematisch denken van Kant ook in dit boek terugkomt en mijn inschatting derhalve redelijk klopte.
Het eerste en tweede deel zijn simpelweg meesterwerken. Het behandelt de psychologie van de mens en de aard van het Kwaad. Eerlijkheid gebiedt mij te bekennen dat ik tranen heb gehad op bepaalde momenten tijdens het lezen. Het betreft een interessant samenspel tussen de stelling dat de mens van nature goed is maar tegelijkertijd een hang heeft naar het kwade. Dit is uit te leggen in de veronderstelling dat het Kwaad voortkomt uit de vrijheid. Doordat het voortkomt uit de vrijheid, zal het Kwaad nooit uitgebannen kunnen worden (Kant noemt dit het radicale Kwaad wat Hannah Arendt later verder heeft uitgewerkt) en heeft de mens die voor het Goede heeft gekozen de taak voor zich om de onophoudelijke strijd aan te gaan tegen het Kwaad dat in zichzelf zit.
Het derde en vierde deel gaan over de institutionalisering van het geloof als een godsdienst. Hierbij wordt de doorsnee auteur meestal betrapt op vooringenomenheid waarbij een bestaande christelijke stroming wordt verdedigd omdat de auteur toevallig tot die club behoort. Bij Kant moeten alle christelijke stromingen eraan geloven. Er is geen enkele christelijke stroming die Kant kan toe-eigenen. Kants eigen christendom is een nieuwe combinatie van stromingen. Het kan het beste bestempeld worden als een soort verlicht christendom: de Rede staat altijd boven de Openbaring. Bovendien hamert Kant erop dat enkel en alleen de morele intentie zaligmakend is (deze conclusie is natuurlijk enkel mogelijk als men de menselijke psychologie van de vorige delen accepteert, wat niet elke christelijke stroming doet).
Het eerste en tweede deel zal elke Kantiaan in vervoering brengen. Het derde en vierde deel is de concretisering hiervan en is daarom minder spannend, maar desalniettemin interessant om te vergelijken met de bestaande christelijke stromingen.
Het eerste en tweede deel zijn simpelweg meesterwerken. Het behandelt de psychologie van de mens en de aard van het Kwaad. Eerlijkheid gebiedt mij te bekennen dat ik tranen heb gehad op bepaalde momenten tijdens het lezen. Het betreft een interessant samenspel tussen de stelling dat de mens van nature goed is maar tegelijkertijd een hang heeft naar het kwade. Dit is uit te leggen in de veronderstelling dat het Kwaad voortkomt uit de vrijheid. Doordat het voortkomt uit de vrijheid, zal het Kwaad nooit uitgebannen kunnen worden (Kant noemt dit het radicale Kwaad wat Hannah Arendt later verder heeft uitgewerkt) en heeft de mens die voor het Goede heeft gekozen de taak voor zich om de onophoudelijke strijd aan te gaan tegen het Kwaad dat in zichzelf zit.
Het derde en vierde deel gaan over de institutionalisering van het geloof als een godsdienst. Hierbij wordt de doorsnee auteur meestal betrapt op vooringenomenheid waarbij een bestaande christelijke stroming wordt verdedigd omdat de auteur toevallig tot die club behoort. Bij Kant moeten alle christelijke stromingen eraan geloven. Er is geen enkele christelijke stroming die Kant kan toe-eigenen. Kants eigen christendom is een nieuwe combinatie van stromingen. Het kan het beste bestempeld worden als een soort verlicht christendom: de Rede staat altijd boven de Openbaring. Bovendien hamert Kant erop dat enkel en alleen de morele intentie zaligmakend is (deze conclusie is natuurlijk enkel mogelijk als men de menselijke psychologie van de vorige delen accepteert, wat niet elke christelijke stroming doet).
Het eerste en tweede deel zal elke Kantiaan in vervoering brengen. Het derde en vierde deel is de concretisering hiervan en is daarom minder spannend, maar desalniettemin interessant om te vergelijken met de bestaande christelijke stromingen.
November 20, 2024
Su visi贸n de la religi贸n se entrelaza con su 茅tica deontol贸gica y se entiende a partir de su epistemolog铆a trascendental.
Kant entiende la religi贸n como Religi贸n racional pura; alej谩ndola de cualquier contingencia hist贸rica o doctrinal, que pueden ser creencias pero no religi贸n. Todo ello muy relacionado a su teor铆a pol铆tica cosmopolita; pero una comunidad pol铆tica o religiosa no vale nada sin una comunidad 茅tica constituida por una "Religi贸n" natural, racional y pura, es decir, por los valores morales de la Raz贸n universal humana y por tanto <>. Precisamente en esta ley de Dios escrita en los corazones vemos perfectamente la influencia cristiana latente 鈥� y que 茅l mismo realmente no niega, puesto que celebra la religi贸n cristiana al mismo tiempo que la quiere esquilmar completamente de cualquier culto separado de las m谩ximas de la raz贸n pr谩ctica.
En este sentido su visi贸n es muy compleja, me llamaron especialmente la atenci贸n sus consideraciones sobre Cristo 鈥揳unque no lo nombra nunca鈥� como una figura que a la vez que funda un buen punto de partida para la religi贸n moral, no debe ser exactamente seguido como ejemplo debido a su naturaleza divina, pues esto confunde a los hombres en cual es su verdadera tarea respecto a Dios.
Curioso tambi茅n la manera en la que legitima a la idea Dios bajo la raz贸n pr谩ctica, como una especie de fin en la religi贸n. Se podr铆a investigar m谩s a fondo en s铆 realmente este fundamento en la idea de Dios para la raz贸n pr谩ctica es realmente necesario. Un Dios que no se legitima en la metaf铆sica, del que no podemos saber nada 驴No podr铆a ser tambi茅n eliminado de la raz贸n pr谩ctica, no es ya nada m谩s que un sedimento cultural y filos贸fico? 驴De que manera es realmente necesaria la idea de Dios para la Religi贸n racional de Kant?
Mi lectura no ha sido excesivamente profunda por lo que no creo entender al completo todos sus razonamientos, y tampoco dar una respuesta lo suficientemente fundamentada a las preguntas que he planteado.
Kant entiende la religi贸n como Religi贸n racional pura; alej谩ndola de cualquier contingencia hist贸rica o doctrinal, que pueden ser creencias pero no religi贸n. Todo ello muy relacionado a su teor铆a pol铆tica cosmopolita; pero una comunidad pol铆tica o religiosa no vale nada sin una comunidad 茅tica constituida por una "Religi贸n" natural, racional y pura, es decir, por los valores morales de la Raz贸n universal humana y por tanto <>. Precisamente en esta ley de Dios escrita en los corazones vemos perfectamente la influencia cristiana latente 鈥� y que 茅l mismo realmente no niega, puesto que celebra la religi贸n cristiana al mismo tiempo que la quiere esquilmar completamente de cualquier culto separado de las m谩ximas de la raz贸n pr谩ctica.
En este sentido su visi贸n es muy compleja, me llamaron especialmente la atenci贸n sus consideraciones sobre Cristo 鈥揳unque no lo nombra nunca鈥� como una figura que a la vez que funda un buen punto de partida para la religi贸n moral, no debe ser exactamente seguido como ejemplo debido a su naturaleza divina, pues esto confunde a los hombres en cual es su verdadera tarea respecto a Dios.
Curioso tambi茅n la manera en la que legitima a la idea Dios bajo la raz贸n pr谩ctica, como una especie de fin en la religi贸n. Se podr铆a investigar m谩s a fondo en s铆 realmente este fundamento en la idea de Dios para la raz贸n pr谩ctica es realmente necesario. Un Dios que no se legitima en la metaf铆sica, del que no podemos saber nada 驴No podr铆a ser tambi茅n eliminado de la raz贸n pr谩ctica, no es ya nada m谩s que un sedimento cultural y filos贸fico? 驴De que manera es realmente necesaria la idea de Dios para la Religi贸n racional de Kant?
Mi lectura no ha sido excesivamente profunda por lo que no creo entender al completo todos sus razonamientos, y tampoco dar una respuesta lo suficientemente fundamentada a las preguntas que he planteado.
September 17, 2015
In his late age, Kant presents a final last word on religion, as seen from his phenomenonal system. It's kind of amazing that even though he was an old man when he wrote this, the church didn't try and kill him after he wrote it.
Despite his many pleas that he isn't writing about scripture, that this is best left to the experts in church, and he only uses this as an example for philosophy, Kant ends up writing a very damning view indeed on how religion fits in with everything else he's already written about; ethics, subjectivity to name two subject areas.
Kant basically proposes that reason itself is insufficient to account for religion. That God and ethics are beyond reason, although reason itself plays an important part in constituting the right path to religion. While he can't find any real natural state of man internally that is the root of good or evil, because man has free will, Kant does admittedly find that man can be evil if he chooses to be swayed by the opinions of others, to follow a sensuous path, to satisfy his own animal desires, or if he chooses to have dominion over others. In fact, Kant basically finds all forms of contingency to be evil; all ways of man to limit his focus to things in the here and now, the earthly pleasures, to be sure, but also in terms of religious rituals, in what he calls "historical faith"... that time tested ways of being faithful can be ways in which the very hierarchy of a religion can be antithetical to what ethics and morality is about.
When Kant talks about the role of the state, he means that we need an overarching state (of Being) in order to unify us, so we can be good neighbors. This seems right and fair. This primarily second point of view on us, the small other, is a way in which we can get along with one another. And yet this is not enough. He introduces a 3rd point of view, that is, religion, because we need universal principles that can objectively tell us where the boundaries of our relationship with our neighbors lie. That is to say, it's not enough for people to negotiate the boundaries of their own social interaction, people need a third position, one that supercedes the second point of view (but does not limit it or replace it) in order to have a true ethics. This point of view is religion itself.
What's interesting about this book is that Kant is speaking about something beyond the boundaries of what he can speak about. The limits of reason on religion is that reason itself can only service religion, it cannot define it. Instead, Kant uses this tool of reason to demonstrate (conclusively or not, up to you) how corrupt our faith can get, how "beside the point" everything can be. If God and religion are beyond us, and that's something that seems obvious, then we can only adhere to the strictest purest point of worship, to follow the guidance of religion for its own sake. He says this pretty clearly... and it may as well be from the Bhagavad Gita: 1) do your duty (with no thought of the fruits of labor) and 2) love everyone else as your self...
With this, he lists false conclusions that corrupt these two principles. For instance, while reason is instrumental to sorting out sensuous (visible) distractions, reason itself cannot run the show, for it cannot replace the binding that religion and God can afford us, to each of us individually, and to all of us collectively.
In this sense, this book is built on the same principles of intangible, inexpressibles such as his Critiques are; understanding which cannot be expressed but through the sensuous, for example. Or the legislative law of desire, which also cannot be expressed but through the sensuous. In each, but especially here, Kant seems to say that the way to have a taste of the completeness of Being lies solely in reasoning that directs us towards a sublime. Like as in Critique of Judgement, we turn our attention outwards, towards a position in the suprasensible that cannot be felt through ecclesiastical faith, unlimited and non-contingent (unlike historical doctrine).
If anything this makes Kant a kind of neo-Plato.
Overall I thought the book was well written (or at least also, well translated). In particular, Kant writes these long sentences because he's being very particular. He needs to outline what that particularity is, so he asks that we keep one thought in our head, while he detours it with examples, and asides. Then, we can return to the idea that has transgressed itself, and continue on (Hegel does this in extreme). So if you can get used to his unadorned language, his lengthy sentences and his complex but very specific thought, you'll find that this book isn't so hard to read. Kant is thorough too. He has a slight sense of humor but its always in service of this dogmatic reason, getting to the edge of what can be thought. This time, to bring us to the font of religion itself, right on God's doorstep.
Despite his many pleas that he isn't writing about scripture, that this is best left to the experts in church, and he only uses this as an example for philosophy, Kant ends up writing a very damning view indeed on how religion fits in with everything else he's already written about; ethics, subjectivity to name two subject areas.
Kant basically proposes that reason itself is insufficient to account for religion. That God and ethics are beyond reason, although reason itself plays an important part in constituting the right path to religion. While he can't find any real natural state of man internally that is the root of good or evil, because man has free will, Kant does admittedly find that man can be evil if he chooses to be swayed by the opinions of others, to follow a sensuous path, to satisfy his own animal desires, or if he chooses to have dominion over others. In fact, Kant basically finds all forms of contingency to be evil; all ways of man to limit his focus to things in the here and now, the earthly pleasures, to be sure, but also in terms of religious rituals, in what he calls "historical faith"... that time tested ways of being faithful can be ways in which the very hierarchy of a religion can be antithetical to what ethics and morality is about.
When Kant talks about the role of the state, he means that we need an overarching state (of Being) in order to unify us, so we can be good neighbors. This seems right and fair. This primarily second point of view on us, the small other, is a way in which we can get along with one another. And yet this is not enough. He introduces a 3rd point of view, that is, religion, because we need universal principles that can objectively tell us where the boundaries of our relationship with our neighbors lie. That is to say, it's not enough for people to negotiate the boundaries of their own social interaction, people need a third position, one that supercedes the second point of view (but does not limit it or replace it) in order to have a true ethics. This point of view is religion itself.
What's interesting about this book is that Kant is speaking about something beyond the boundaries of what he can speak about. The limits of reason on religion is that reason itself can only service religion, it cannot define it. Instead, Kant uses this tool of reason to demonstrate (conclusively or not, up to you) how corrupt our faith can get, how "beside the point" everything can be. If God and religion are beyond us, and that's something that seems obvious, then we can only adhere to the strictest purest point of worship, to follow the guidance of religion for its own sake. He says this pretty clearly... and it may as well be from the Bhagavad Gita: 1) do your duty (with no thought of the fruits of labor) and 2) love everyone else as your self...
With this, he lists false conclusions that corrupt these two principles. For instance, while reason is instrumental to sorting out sensuous (visible) distractions, reason itself cannot run the show, for it cannot replace the binding that religion and God can afford us, to each of us individually, and to all of us collectively.
In this sense, this book is built on the same principles of intangible, inexpressibles such as his Critiques are; understanding which cannot be expressed but through the sensuous, for example. Or the legislative law of desire, which also cannot be expressed but through the sensuous. In each, but especially here, Kant seems to say that the way to have a taste of the completeness of Being lies solely in reasoning that directs us towards a sublime. Like as in Critique of Judgement, we turn our attention outwards, towards a position in the suprasensible that cannot be felt through ecclesiastical faith, unlimited and non-contingent (unlike historical doctrine).
If anything this makes Kant a kind of neo-Plato.
Overall I thought the book was well written (or at least also, well translated). In particular, Kant writes these long sentences because he's being very particular. He needs to outline what that particularity is, so he asks that we keep one thought in our head, while he detours it with examples, and asides. Then, we can return to the idea that has transgressed itself, and continue on (Hegel does this in extreme). So if you can get used to his unadorned language, his lengthy sentences and his complex but very specific thought, you'll find that this book isn't so hard to read. Kant is thorough too. He has a slight sense of humor but its always in service of this dogmatic reason, getting to the edge of what can be thought. This time, to bring us to the font of religion itself, right on God's doorstep.
September 7, 2023
Very good stuff, shame he got censored by The Man鈩笍
November 4, 2011
I still remember the refreshing feeling I had when I first read Kant in my Philosophy class on Ethics at the University of Wisconsin. We had just finished reading the utilitarian ethics of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, so the approach of Kant's categorical imperative seemed much more reasonable in comparison. That said, I am not now nor have I ever been a follower of Kant's ethics, but they are preferable to some ethical principles.
It was with this in mind, and a little reading in Kant since then, that I took up Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone as part of a class on enlightenment literature at The Basic Program of the University of Chicago. This book too is refreshing in its rational approach to morality. And while I am not convinced by his argument that it is morally reasonable to "act as if there be a God" I could follow his arguments for that approach to morality. The book provides an argument consistent with The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and is worth reading for all interested in ethics and Kant.
It was with this in mind, and a little reading in Kant since then, that I took up Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone as part of a class on enlightenment literature at The Basic Program of the University of Chicago. This book too is refreshing in its rational approach to morality. And while I am not convinced by his argument that it is morally reasonable to "act as if there be a God" I could follow his arguments for that approach to morality. The book provides an argument consistent with The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and is worth reading for all interested in ethics and Kant.
Want to Read
March 21, 2010Recommended by in .
January 2, 2013
Essential reading for any ethic modules/degrees
March 27, 2017
Oh, philosophy! Such an illumination. This is a book that gives you goosebumps and you should read only books like these.
October 19, 2023
賲賳 賰賳丕 氐睾丕乇 賵 賳丨賳 賳毓賷卮 丕夭丿賵丕噩賷丞 毓噩賷亘丞 賳丨亘 丕賱丿賷賳 賵 賳賰乇賴 丕賱丿賷賳 賵 賱丕 賳毓乇賮 賲丕 賴賵 丕賱爻亘亘 賮賷 匕賱賰 亘毓囟 丕賱丕丨賰丕賲 賳卮毓乇賳丕 亘丕賱丿賷賳 賵 亘毓囟 丕賱兀丨賰丕賲 賳卮毓乇 亘丕賱賴賲
丕毓鬲賯丿 賰鬲丕亘 賰丕賳胤 丕賱丿賷賳 賮賷 丨丿賵丿 丕賱毓賯賱 賷賮爻乇 鬲賱賰 丕賱馗丕賴乇丞 丕賱睾乇賷亘丞 賵 丕賱毓噩賷亘丞 匕賱賰 丕賱卮賵賯 賵 賱丕 卮賵賯 賱賱丿賷賳 , 賱賰賳 賳丨賳 賮賷 丕賱兀氐賱 賱丕 賳丨亘 丕賱丿賷賳 賮賷 匕丕鬲賴
丕賷 丕賱賯乇丕賳 丕賵 丕賷鬲 賰鬲丕亘 賲賯丿爻 乇丕丨 丕鬲賰賱賲 毓賳 丕賱賯乇丕賳 丕賵 丕賱丨丿賷孬 丿丕賲賳賷 賰賳鬲 爻賳賷 賮賷 丕賱賲丕囟賷 , 賲丕 賳丨亘賴 賮賷 丕賱丿賷賳 賴賷 丕賱丕丨賰丕賲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞
賴賷 丕賱鬲賷 鬲卮乇毓賳丕 亘丕賱鬲毓丕賱賷 賵 丕賱丕丿賷丕賳 賲賳 賲賲賷夭丕鬲賴 鬲賵丕噩丿 賳氐賵氐 賰孬賷乇丞 鬲丨鬲賵賷 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷 廿匕丕 丕賱亘丨孬 丕賱匕賷 賷卮毓乇賳丕 亘丕賱乇噩賮丞 賵 丕賱賳卮賵丞 賴賷 丕賱賮囟賷賱丞 賮賷 匕丕鬲賴 賵 丕賱丿賷賳 賴賳丕亍 賮賯胤 毓亘乇 毓賳 亘毓囟 丕賱兀噩夭丕亍 賱賰賳 賱賵 賱丕丨馗鬲 夭賷丕丿丞 賳噩丿 賮賷 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀丨賷丕賳 賳丨亘 亘毓囟 丕賱賲賱丨丿賷賳 賵 丕賱賰賮丕乇 毓賱賶 賯賵賱丞 丕賱賲爻賱賲賷賳 賵 賳卮毓乇 亘賳賮爻 丕賱丨爻 丕賵 丕賱賳卮賵丞 賲丕 丕賱爻亘亘 責 丕賳賴 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 丕賱賮丕囟賱丞 賲賳 噩丿賷丿 賳丨賳 賰亘卮乇 噩賵賴乇賳丕 丕賵 胤亘賷毓鬲賳丕 賳亘丨孬 毓賳 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賱賲丕匕丕 賳丨亘 爻賷乇丞 賲丨賲丿 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賲丿乇爻丞 賵 賱丕 賳丨亘 爻賷乇丞 賲丨賲丿 亘丕賱賰丕賲賱 , 丕賱爻亘亘 丕賳 賲丕 賷鬲賲 鬲丿乇爻賷賴 賵 賳丨亘賴 賱賷爻 賲丨賲丿 賮賷 匕丕鬲賴 賱賰賳 丕賮毓丕賱賴 賵 丕賱賮囟丕卅賱 賵 氐亘乇賴 毓賱賶 丕賱賲卮乇賰賷賳 賵 丕賱禺 賲賳 丕賱賮囟丕卅賱 丕賱賲噩賷丿丞 賵 賳丨亘 丕賱賲爻賷丨
丕賷囟丕 賮賷 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 亘爻亘亘 丕賱賮囟賷賱丞 , 廿匕丕 亘丨孬 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳 賴賵 丕賱丕禺賱丕賯 賱賷爻 毓賳 丕賱丿賷賳 , 賮丕賱氐賱丕丞 賴賷 賮毓賱 賲賳丕賮賯 賰賱 丕賱賳賮丕賯 賴賷丕 賮賯胤 鬲丨丕賵賱 丕賳 鬲馗賴乇 丕賳 丕賱卮禺氐
賮丕囟賱 賷丨丕賵賱 丕賳 賷毓亘乇 毓賳 賮囟丕卅賱賴 亘丕賱睾賳丕亍 賱賴匕丕 賷賳賮乇 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳 禺丕氐丞 丕賱卮丕亘 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賳賮丕賯 賮賷 丕賱睾丕賱亘 , 賲賷夭丞 丕賱氐賱丕丞 賴賷 賮賷 丕賱賲爻噩丿 鬲噩賲毓 丕賱賳丕爻 賲毓 賷毓囟賴賲 丕賱亘毓囟 賵 丕賱氐賱丕丞 鬲爻賲丨 亘胤亘賷毓丞 毓噩賷亘丞 丕賳 鬲賰爻乇 丕賱丨丿賵丿 丕賱噩爻丿賷丞 賷賵賲 賷氐胤賮 丕賱賲氐賱賷賷賳 賵 賵 賳丨亘 氐賱丕丞 丕賱毓賷丿 亘爻亘亘 鬲噩賲毓賳丕 賰亘卮乇 賮賷 賲賰丕賳 賵丕丨丿 賵 丕賳 賳賮毓賱 賳賮爻 丕賱丕賮毓丕賱
賳毓鬲賯丿 丕賳賴 鬲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賮囟賷賱丞 賱賰賳 噩毓賱賴 丕噩亘丕乇賷丞 賵 賴丿賮賴 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷 賮賯胤 丕賱禺賵賮 賲賳 丕賱賱賴 賷賮爻丿 丕賱禺賱賯 賱賴匕丕 鬲噩丿 亘毓囟 丕賱賲爻賱賲賷賳 賵 賲丕 亘丕賱睾 賱賵 賯賱鬲 丕賰孬乇賴賲 丕賳噩爻 丕賳賵丕毓 丕賱亘卮乇 賵 丕賯亘丨賴賲 , 賵 鬲噩丿 賲賳 賷丐賲賳 亘丕賱賯乇丕賳賷丞 賴賵 賲賳 丕賮丕囟賱 丕賱亘卮乇 賴匕丕 丕賱匕賷 賯丕賱 爻賵賮 賷丐賲賳 亘丕賱亘賯乇丕賳賷丞 賵 賷乇賯毓 賴賵 亘丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 卮禺氐 賮丕囟賱 噩丿丕 賱丕 賷乇賷丿 丕賳 賷鬲亘毓
丕賱賯亘丨 賵 丕賱卮乇 , 賵 賴賳丕亍 賷賳賰卮賮 噩丕賳亘 賲賴賲 丕賳 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賷毓賱賲 亘胤賷毓鬲賴 賲丕 賴賷 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賱賴匕丕 賴賵 賷乇賮囟
丨鬲賶 丕賱賲爻賱賲 賵 賴賵 賲賵賱賵丿 賲爻賱賲 賵 賷毓鬲賯丿 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賳丕爻 丕賳賴 賷賲丕乇爻 丕賱丿賷賳 賵 丕賱賮囟賷賱丞 賵 賷鬲亘毓賴 賷亘丿丕 賷卮賰 毓賳丿賲丕 賷鬲毓丕乇囟 丕賱丿賷賳 賲毓 丕賱丕禺賱丕賯 亘卮賰賱 氐丕乇禺 噩丿丕 賵 賲爻鬲睾乇亘 , 丕賵 賷丨孬 丕賱丿賷賳 毓賱賶 丕賱賰乇丕賴賷丞 丨鬲賶 賱卮禺氐 賴賵 賷丨亘賴 賲孬賱 賮賳丕賳 丕賵 睾賷乇賴 丕賵 賱丕毓亘 賰賵乇丞 賴賳丕亍 丕賱毓賯賱 賷亘丿丕 賷丨爻 亘丨賯丕乇丞 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱匕賷 丕賲乇賴 亘丕賱賰乇丕賴賷丞 賯丿
賷賰乇賴 亘毓囟 丕賱賳丕爻 亘爻亘亘 賴賵 賷毓賲賲 亘賰賱賲丞 賰丕賮乇 丿丕禺賱 賯賵賯毓丞 賱賰賳 丕賱毓賯賱 賷噩丿 賳賮爻賴 賵 賴賵 賷乇賶 賲賵賴亘丞 卮賷亍 丕賵 毓賯賱賷丞 卮禺氐 賷賳噩匕亘 賱賴 賮胤乇賷丕
亘爻亘亘 賲賱賰丞 丕賱禺賱賯 毓賳丿賴 賵 賴匕賷 胤亘賷毓丞 賮丕囟賱丞 , 丕賱丿賷賳 丕毓鬲賯丿 丕賵 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 賵 禺丕氐丞 丕賱賯乇丕賳 賰鬲亘 賮賷賴 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賮囟賷賱丞 賵 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丿賵丕賮毓 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 丕賱賳噩爻丞
賳丨賳 賱丕 賳賲賳毓 賲賳 賯乇丕丞 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 賱賰賳 賷噩亘 丕賳 賷兀禺匕 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳 賲賳賴 賰賱 卮賷亍 賷丨孬賴 毓賱賶 丕賱禺賷乇 賵 丕賳 賷賳鬲賯丿 賰賱 賯亘賷丨 賱丕 丕賳 賷賱睾賷 賲賱賰丞 丕賱毓賯賱 毓賳丿賴
賵 爻氐亘丨 賲噩乇丿 賯胤賷毓 賰爻賵賱 賵 賲賳丕賮賯 賷亘丨孬 毓賳 乇囟丕亍 丕賱噩賲丕毓丞 賱賴匕丕 丕爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱丿賷賳 賮賷 丨丿賵丿 丕賱毓賯賱 賵 賲丕 丕噩賲賱 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱匕賷 賷卮乇毓 丕賱丕禺賱丕賯 賵 賷賯賷賲 丕賮毓丕賱賳丕 丿丕禺賱 賲賳馗賵賲丞 氐丕乇賲丞 賲賳胤賯賷丞 賱丕 鬲夭賵睾 賲賴賲丕 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱馗乇賵賮 賰鬲丕亘 賲賴賲 噩丿丕 賵 丕毓鬲賯丿 賷噩亘 丕賳 賷丿乇爻 賮賷 丕賱丿賵賱 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賴賵 賵 賰鬲丕亘 丕爻亘賷賳賵夭丕
丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 賳丨鬲丕噩 賲孬賱 鬲賱賰 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱鬲賷 鬲噩毓賱 丕賱囟賲賷乇 賷賳賴囟 賲賳 噩丿賷丿
丕毓鬲賯丿 賰鬲丕亘 賰丕賳胤 丕賱丿賷賳 賮賷 丨丿賵丿 丕賱毓賯賱 賷賮爻乇 鬲賱賰 丕賱馗丕賴乇丞 丕賱睾乇賷亘丞 賵 丕賱毓噩賷亘丞 匕賱賰 丕賱卮賵賯 賵 賱丕 卮賵賯 賱賱丿賷賳 , 賱賰賳 賳丨賳 賮賷 丕賱兀氐賱 賱丕 賳丨亘 丕賱丿賷賳 賮賷 匕丕鬲賴
丕賷 丕賱賯乇丕賳 丕賵 丕賷鬲 賰鬲丕亘 賲賯丿爻 乇丕丨 丕鬲賰賱賲 毓賳 丕賱賯乇丕賳 丕賵 丕賱丨丿賷孬 丿丕賲賳賷 賰賳鬲 爻賳賷 賮賷 丕賱賲丕囟賷 , 賲丕 賳丨亘賴 賮賷 丕賱丿賷賳 賴賷 丕賱丕丨賰丕賲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞
賴賷 丕賱鬲賷 鬲卮乇毓賳丕 亘丕賱鬲毓丕賱賷 賵 丕賱丕丿賷丕賳 賲賳 賲賲賷夭丕鬲賴 鬲賵丕噩丿 賳氐賵氐 賰孬賷乇丞 鬲丨鬲賵賷 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷 廿匕丕 丕賱亘丨孬 丕賱匕賷 賷卮毓乇賳丕 亘丕賱乇噩賮丞 賵 丕賱賳卮賵丞 賴賷 丕賱賮囟賷賱丞 賮賷 匕丕鬲賴 賵 丕賱丿賷賳 賴賳丕亍 賮賯胤 毓亘乇 毓賳 亘毓囟 丕賱兀噩夭丕亍 賱賰賳 賱賵 賱丕丨馗鬲 夭賷丕丿丞 賳噩丿 賮賷 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀丨賷丕賳 賳丨亘 亘毓囟 丕賱賲賱丨丿賷賳 賵 丕賱賰賮丕乇 毓賱賶 賯賵賱丞 丕賱賲爻賱賲賷賳 賵 賳卮毓乇 亘賳賮爻 丕賱丨爻 丕賵 丕賱賳卮賵丞 賲丕 丕賱爻亘亘 責 丕賳賴 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 丕賱賮丕囟賱丞 賲賳 噩丿賷丿 賳丨賳 賰亘卮乇 噩賵賴乇賳丕 丕賵 胤亘賷毓鬲賳丕 賳亘丨孬 毓賳 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賱賲丕匕丕 賳丨亘 爻賷乇丞 賲丨賲丿 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賲丿乇爻丞 賵 賱丕 賳丨亘 爻賷乇丞 賲丨賲丿 亘丕賱賰丕賲賱 , 丕賱爻亘亘 丕賳 賲丕 賷鬲賲 鬲丿乇爻賷賴 賵 賳丨亘賴 賱賷爻 賲丨賲丿 賮賷 匕丕鬲賴 賱賰賳 丕賮毓丕賱賴 賵 丕賱賮囟丕卅賱 賵 氐亘乇賴 毓賱賶 丕賱賲卮乇賰賷賳 賵 丕賱禺 賲賳 丕賱賮囟丕卅賱 丕賱賲噩賷丿丞 賵 賳丨亘 丕賱賲爻賷丨
丕賷囟丕 賮賷 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 亘爻亘亘 丕賱賮囟賷賱丞 , 廿匕丕 亘丨孬 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳 賴賵 丕賱丕禺賱丕賯 賱賷爻 毓賳 丕賱丿賷賳 , 賮丕賱氐賱丕丞 賴賷 賮毓賱 賲賳丕賮賯 賰賱 丕賱賳賮丕賯 賴賷丕 賮賯胤 鬲丨丕賵賱 丕賳 鬲馗賴乇 丕賳 丕賱卮禺氐
賮丕囟賱 賷丨丕賵賱 丕賳 賷毓亘乇 毓賳 賮囟丕卅賱賴 亘丕賱睾賳丕亍 賱賴匕丕 賷賳賮乇 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳 禺丕氐丞 丕賱卮丕亘 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賳賮丕賯 賮賷 丕賱睾丕賱亘 , 賲賷夭丞 丕賱氐賱丕丞 賴賷 賮賷 丕賱賲爻噩丿 鬲噩賲毓 丕賱賳丕爻 賲毓 賷毓囟賴賲 丕賱亘毓囟 賵 丕賱氐賱丕丞 鬲爻賲丨 亘胤亘賷毓丞 毓噩賷亘丞 丕賳 鬲賰爻乇 丕賱丨丿賵丿 丕賱噩爻丿賷丞 賷賵賲 賷氐胤賮 丕賱賲氐賱賷賷賳 賵 賵 賳丨亘 氐賱丕丞 丕賱毓賷丿 亘爻亘亘 鬲噩賲毓賳丕 賰亘卮乇 賮賷 賲賰丕賳 賵丕丨丿 賵 丕賳 賳賮毓賱 賳賮爻 丕賱丕賮毓丕賱
賳毓鬲賯丿 丕賳賴 鬲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賮囟賷賱丞 賱賰賳 噩毓賱賴 丕噩亘丕乇賷丞 賵 賴丿賮賴 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷 賮賯胤 丕賱禺賵賮 賲賳 丕賱賱賴 賷賮爻丿 丕賱禺賱賯 賱賴匕丕 鬲噩丿 亘毓囟 丕賱賲爻賱賲賷賳 賵 賲丕 亘丕賱睾 賱賵 賯賱鬲 丕賰孬乇賴賲 丕賳噩爻 丕賳賵丕毓 丕賱亘卮乇 賵 丕賯亘丨賴賲 , 賵 鬲噩丿 賲賳 賷丐賲賳 亘丕賱賯乇丕賳賷丞 賴賵 賲賳 丕賮丕囟賱 丕賱亘卮乇 賴匕丕 丕賱匕賷 賯丕賱 爻賵賮 賷丐賲賳 亘丕賱亘賯乇丕賳賷丞 賵 賷乇賯毓 賴賵 亘丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 卮禺氐 賮丕囟賱 噩丿丕 賱丕 賷乇賷丿 丕賳 賷鬲亘毓
丕賱賯亘丨 賵 丕賱卮乇 , 賵 賴賳丕亍 賷賳賰卮賮 噩丕賳亘 賲賴賲 丕賳 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賷毓賱賲 亘胤賷毓鬲賴 賲丕 賴賷 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賱賴匕丕 賴賵 賷乇賮囟
丨鬲賶 丕賱賲爻賱賲 賵 賴賵 賲賵賱賵丿 賲爻賱賲 賵 賷毓鬲賯丿 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賳丕爻 丕賳賴 賷賲丕乇爻 丕賱丿賷賳 賵 丕賱賮囟賷賱丞 賵 賷鬲亘毓賴 賷亘丿丕 賷卮賰 毓賳丿賲丕 賷鬲毓丕乇囟 丕賱丿賷賳 賲毓 丕賱丕禺賱丕賯 亘卮賰賱 氐丕乇禺 噩丿丕 賵 賲爻鬲睾乇亘 , 丕賵 賷丨孬 丕賱丿賷賳 毓賱賶 丕賱賰乇丕賴賷丞 丨鬲賶 賱卮禺氐 賴賵 賷丨亘賴 賲孬賱 賮賳丕賳 丕賵 睾賷乇賴 丕賵 賱丕毓亘 賰賵乇丞 賴賳丕亍 丕賱毓賯賱 賷亘丿丕 賷丨爻 亘丨賯丕乇丞 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱匕賷 丕賲乇賴 亘丕賱賰乇丕賴賷丞 賯丿
賷賰乇賴 亘毓囟 丕賱賳丕爻 亘爻亘亘 賴賵 賷毓賲賲 亘賰賱賲丞 賰丕賮乇 丿丕禺賱 賯賵賯毓丞 賱賰賳 丕賱毓賯賱 賷噩丿 賳賮爻賴 賵 賴賵 賷乇賶 賲賵賴亘丞 卮賷亍 丕賵 毓賯賱賷丞 卮禺氐 賷賳噩匕亘 賱賴 賮胤乇賷丕
亘爻亘亘 賲賱賰丞 丕賱禺賱賯 毓賳丿賴 賵 賴匕賷 胤亘賷毓丞 賮丕囟賱丞 , 丕賱丿賷賳 丕毓鬲賯丿 丕賵 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 賵 禺丕氐丞 丕賱賯乇丕賳 賰鬲亘 賮賷賴 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賮囟賷賱丞 賵 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丿賵丕賮毓 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 丕賱賳噩爻丞
賳丨賳 賱丕 賳賲賳毓 賲賳 賯乇丕丞 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丿爻丞 賱賰賳 賷噩亘 丕賳 賷兀禺匕 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳 賲賳賴 賰賱 卮賷亍 賷丨孬賴 毓賱賶 丕賱禺賷乇 賵 丕賳 賷賳鬲賯丿 賰賱 賯亘賷丨 賱丕 丕賳 賷賱睾賷 賲賱賰丞 丕賱毓賯賱 毓賳丿賴
賵 爻氐亘丨 賲噩乇丿 賯胤賷毓 賰爻賵賱 賵 賲賳丕賮賯 賷亘丨孬 毓賳 乇囟丕亍 丕賱噩賲丕毓丞 賱賴匕丕 丕爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱丿賷賳 賮賷 丨丿賵丿 丕賱毓賯賱 賵 賲丕 丕噩賲賱 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱匕賷 賷卮乇毓 丕賱丕禺賱丕賯 賵 賷賯賷賲 丕賮毓丕賱賳丕 丿丕禺賱 賲賳馗賵賲丞 氐丕乇賲丞 賲賳胤賯賷丞 賱丕 鬲夭賵睾 賲賴賲丕 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱馗乇賵賮 賰鬲丕亘 賲賴賲 噩丿丕 賵 丕毓鬲賯丿 賷噩亘 丕賳 賷丿乇爻 賮賷 丕賱丿賵賱 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賴賵 賵 賰鬲丕亘 丕爻亘賷賳賵夭丕
丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 賳丨鬲丕噩 賲孬賱 鬲賱賰 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱鬲賷 鬲噩毓賱 丕賱囟賲賷乇 賷賳賴囟 賲賳 噩丿賷丿
May 3, 2020
Aussi profond que complexe.
Consid茅r茅 comme le fondateur du criticisme, Kant 茅tablit son jugement 脿 partir des saintes 茅critures pour mieux en faire ressortir les irrationalit茅s et proposer ainsi une croyance religieuse pure qui se fonde sur la raison.
芦听La hauteur de son g茅nie est 脿 la mesure d鈥檜n style d茅sesp茅rant, de phrases sans fin ; Emmanuel Kant est pourtant accessible 脿 tous ceux qui, philosophes ou non, se donneront la peine de surmonter leur r茅pugnance et le sentiment que ce n鈥檈st pas 茅crit pour eux.听禄
Consid茅r茅 comme le fondateur du criticisme, Kant 茅tablit son jugement 脿 partir des saintes 茅critures pour mieux en faire ressortir les irrationalit茅s et proposer ainsi une croyance religieuse pure qui se fonde sur la raison.
芦听La hauteur de son g茅nie est 脿 la mesure d鈥檜n style d茅sesp茅rant, de phrases sans fin ; Emmanuel Kant est pourtant accessible 脿 tous ceux qui, philosophes ou non, se donneront la peine de surmonter leur r茅pugnance et le sentiment que ce n鈥檈st pas 茅crit pour eux.听禄
April 27, 2020
Bir 艧eyi ilahi bir emir olarak tan谋madan 枚nce 枚dev olarak bilmem gereken din ise do臒al dindir.
November 30, 2022
Kant鈥檚 1793 鈥淩eligionsschrift鈥� has been one of his more popular books due to its simple nature. This work concerns 鈥渢he relationship of religion to human nature鈥� and is more Theological and Exegetical in nature than Philosophic. It is inherently Epistemological, as Kant strove to fix both Natural science and Theology by keeping them both in their respective dialectal parameters. Living through the heart of the Enlightenment, Kant observed the Epistemological problems brought about by One-World Newtonian Mechanical Reductionism and the bad counter-reactions that Protestant apologists made. Like Hegel, Kant wants to restore faith as the "guardian of the speculative mysteries". He criticizes the church nearly as much as the Materialistic Rationalist camp.
On a personal level, Kant was raised in a Pietist Lutheran family, and was almost a Deist himself. He was a Christian apologist, but hated organized religion and did not maintain any religious practices himself and was part of no religious community. Salvation, to Kant, is synonymous with living a moral life. He rejects outward spiritual practice, is very anti-Catholic, anti-miracles and any practice which is mystical in nature including, oddly enough, prayer. Some biographers have commented that the simple-minded clergy and theologians of his day were mind-numbingly below Kant鈥檚 intellect, which developed an understandable disdain for attending church and listing to their drivel. Still, you see a very explicitly Luthern understanding the Scripture and the use of it, so he did not fall far intellectually from his Lutheran roots. He is very anti-clergy, which is in keeping with the Lutheran Pietist movement which emphasized strongly individualism and oftentimes denounced the need for church entirely.
He holds faith to be extremely individualistic, as a movement of the mind towards a categorical moral standard. Naturally, this cuts out any kind of communal spiritualism or need for a church community and certainly any institution. He uses Luther鈥檚 metaphysical position of claritas scriptura to establish an even more radical and individualistic version of Sola Scriptura. He defines faith very narrowly as: 鈥淔aith (as a habitus, not as an actus) is the moral way of thinking of reason in believing that which is inaccessible to theoretical knowledge. It is therefore the persistent principle of the mind, that which is a condition for the possibility of the highest moral end.鈥�
He holds a typical Aristotelian-Medieval Anthropology reminiscent of Augustin鈥檚 Original Sin, in keeping with Luther, but understands it within his Transcendental Moral framework. For being a Rationalist鈥檚 Rationalist, he is quote comfortable with mysteries. For example, he holds Divine Election and Free Will as perfectly compatible in a mystical antinomy, in contrast to Luther鈥檚 heavy emphasis on Predestination and denunciation of the concept of Free Will. He sees the fallen nature of man as the result of libertarian Free Will, a disconnect between the "Moral-legislating World Originator" and the individual鈥檚 choice to live according to the Imperative.
Kantian Roots of Jungian Archetypes
In several of his works, Kant muses about Christ being the apotheosis of a primordial Archetype, what the founder of Analytic Psychology, Carl Jung, would call the 鈥淎rchetype of Self-Consciousness鈥� which resides in the Collective Unconscious. He does not consider the biological or genetic factors in the creation of the 鈥渟upersensous substrate鈥� but gets close:
鈥he Son of God, if we imagine that divinely minded man, as the archetype for us.. in the appearance of the God-man there is not what comes to mind or can be known through experience, but the archetype lying in our reason, which we subordinate to the latter (because so much can be perceived from his example, being found according to that), actually the object of saving faith, and such faith is one with the principle of a life pleasing to God.
Hegel would go on to call this apotheosis of the Hero Myth archetypically manifest in Christ as a 鈥淯niform Plurality鈥� (Gleichf枚rmige Pluralit盲t鈥�). Kant鈥檚 Moral Teleological apologetic model, which Hegel developed further into a line of thought called Kanto-Hegelian Ontotheology, relies on these intrinsic rational archetypes:
Moral teleology, on the other hand, which is no less firmly founded than physical teleology, but rather deserves preference because it is based a priori on principles inseparable from our reason, leads to what is required for the possibility of a theology, namely, to a definite concept of the supreme cause, as a world cause according to moral laws, consequently to such a cause as satisfies our moral final purpose: for which nothing less than omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.
His apologetic model has limits, Kant admits. The Immortality of the Soul, free will and the existence (Dasein) of God are all empirically unprovable but are postulates of Rationality itself. These a priori realities of 鈥減ure philosophy, i.e. Metaphysics, are necessary for Reason and the application of Reason to the material work, i.e. science, to exist at all.
Kant is arguing against Secular and Protestant tendencies to commit Futurism- that is, seeing beliefs as independent and formless from it鈥檚 predecessors. Jung argues the same thing- that the Hero myth which the Christian claim is rooted in originates from an elemental Psychic state, genetically universal to all humans. Hegel recognized this same fact in his Lectures on Religion: "The idea of the Incarnation, for example, runs through all religions. Such general concepts also assert themselves in other spheres of the Geist." Because it is biological, it is universal and has manifested in many forms across human history and in virtually all cultures. It is the ideological manifestation of human physiology; the dramatized representation of the emergence of human consciousness itself. The ancient archetypical death-and-resurrection Hero Archetype (the 'good dream' as St. Lewis put it)- is rooted in emergent biology and expresses itself in the deepest levels of unconscious psychology.
Specifically, the conceptualization of Christ is rooted in the Egyptian Sun-god Horus, which was a reworking of the Mesopotamian deity Marduk (who could 'speak magic words') which made it鈥檚 way through the Roman iteration of Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, into Christianity. Conversely- the word 'Satan' evolved from the word Seth, the Egyptian god of Chaos. Yet the assumption that this makes the Christian claim of the Incarnation of the Theanthropos 'not true' or simply a myth like any other is itself rooted in the Nominalistic assumptions within the Western Rationalist Religion, particularly modernism. Ironically, this Modernist and post-modernist argument is itself religious dogma.
Jung makes the case that the emergent biological roots of the Hero-Myth make the story of Christ more than merely factually or historically true; it is super-rational, truer than true: the highest form of truth possible. Newman phrased this as "Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ, a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness". In other words, Consciousness contains both objective and subjective truth; the biologically ingrained Hero Myth is not an illusion of the mind, but a precept of the truest true. This primordial story only incarnated fully one time in human history across all cultures and religions. The Universal only Particularized, the Multiplicity met the Singularity, the All became the One, the unknowable became knowable and the Infinite was made manifest through Finite form only once. And nothing could be more meaningful than the Divine becoming Human because Meaning itself exists at the intersection of the Particular and the Universal. He is the discrimination of composite natures; unitemporal and eternal, unique and universal, supernatural and natural simultaneously.
Kant鈥檚 apologetics follow a similar track as Jung, only along moral lines instead of Psychological. Kant argues that the moral Atheist is incongruent to his own worship, for the very recognition of a Transcendental Good is also de facto a belief in God: "how will he [the atheist] judge his own inner purpose by the moral law which he actively worships?"
His aim here is to keep both natural science and theology within their respective dialectal parameters, and reconcile the antinomies of Newtonian Rationalism and Moral Teleology:
The Metaphysician of Konigsburg
1755 General Natural History and Theory of Heaven:
1764 Observations on the feeling of the beautiful:
1766 Dreams of a Ghost-Seer:
1783 Prolegomena to any future metaphysics:
1785 Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals:
1786 Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science:
1787 Critique of Pure Reason:
1788 Critique of Practical Reason:
1790 Critique of Judgment:
1793 Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason:
1795 Toward Eternal Peace:
1797 Metaphysics of Morals:
1798 The Dispute of the Faculties:
On a personal level, Kant was raised in a Pietist Lutheran family, and was almost a Deist himself. He was a Christian apologist, but hated organized religion and did not maintain any religious practices himself and was part of no religious community. Salvation, to Kant, is synonymous with living a moral life. He rejects outward spiritual practice, is very anti-Catholic, anti-miracles and any practice which is mystical in nature including, oddly enough, prayer. Some biographers have commented that the simple-minded clergy and theologians of his day were mind-numbingly below Kant鈥檚 intellect, which developed an understandable disdain for attending church and listing to their drivel. Still, you see a very explicitly Luthern understanding the Scripture and the use of it, so he did not fall far intellectually from his Lutheran roots. He is very anti-clergy, which is in keeping with the Lutheran Pietist movement which emphasized strongly individualism and oftentimes denounced the need for church entirely.
He holds faith to be extremely individualistic, as a movement of the mind towards a categorical moral standard. Naturally, this cuts out any kind of communal spiritualism or need for a church community and certainly any institution. He uses Luther鈥檚 metaphysical position of claritas scriptura to establish an even more radical and individualistic version of Sola Scriptura. He defines faith very narrowly as: 鈥淔aith (as a habitus, not as an actus) is the moral way of thinking of reason in believing that which is inaccessible to theoretical knowledge. It is therefore the persistent principle of the mind, that which is a condition for the possibility of the highest moral end.鈥�
He holds a typical Aristotelian-Medieval Anthropology reminiscent of Augustin鈥檚 Original Sin, in keeping with Luther, but understands it within his Transcendental Moral framework. For being a Rationalist鈥檚 Rationalist, he is quote comfortable with mysteries. For example, he holds Divine Election and Free Will as perfectly compatible in a mystical antinomy, in contrast to Luther鈥檚 heavy emphasis on Predestination and denunciation of the concept of Free Will. He sees the fallen nature of man as the result of libertarian Free Will, a disconnect between the "Moral-legislating World Originator" and the individual鈥檚 choice to live according to the Imperative.
Kantian Roots of Jungian Archetypes
In several of his works, Kant muses about Christ being the apotheosis of a primordial Archetype, what the founder of Analytic Psychology, Carl Jung, would call the 鈥淎rchetype of Self-Consciousness鈥� which resides in the Collective Unconscious. He does not consider the biological or genetic factors in the creation of the 鈥渟upersensous substrate鈥� but gets close:
鈥he Son of God, if we imagine that divinely minded man, as the archetype for us.. in the appearance of the God-man there is not what comes to mind or can be known through experience, but the archetype lying in our reason, which we subordinate to the latter (because so much can be perceived from his example, being found according to that), actually the object of saving faith, and such faith is one with the principle of a life pleasing to God.
Hegel would go on to call this apotheosis of the Hero Myth archetypically manifest in Christ as a 鈥淯niform Plurality鈥� (Gleichf枚rmige Pluralit盲t鈥�). Kant鈥檚 Moral Teleological apologetic model, which Hegel developed further into a line of thought called Kanto-Hegelian Ontotheology, relies on these intrinsic rational archetypes:
Moral teleology, on the other hand, which is no less firmly founded than physical teleology, but rather deserves preference because it is based a priori on principles inseparable from our reason, leads to what is required for the possibility of a theology, namely, to a definite concept of the supreme cause, as a world cause according to moral laws, consequently to such a cause as satisfies our moral final purpose: for which nothing less than omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.
His apologetic model has limits, Kant admits. The Immortality of the Soul, free will and the existence (Dasein) of God are all empirically unprovable but are postulates of Rationality itself. These a priori realities of 鈥減ure philosophy, i.e. Metaphysics, are necessary for Reason and the application of Reason to the material work, i.e. science, to exist at all.
Kant is arguing against Secular and Protestant tendencies to commit Futurism- that is, seeing beliefs as independent and formless from it鈥檚 predecessors. Jung argues the same thing- that the Hero myth which the Christian claim is rooted in originates from an elemental Psychic state, genetically universal to all humans. Hegel recognized this same fact in his Lectures on Religion: "The idea of the Incarnation, for example, runs through all religions. Such general concepts also assert themselves in other spheres of the Geist." Because it is biological, it is universal and has manifested in many forms across human history and in virtually all cultures. It is the ideological manifestation of human physiology; the dramatized representation of the emergence of human consciousness itself. The ancient archetypical death-and-resurrection Hero Archetype (the 'good dream' as St. Lewis put it)- is rooted in emergent biology and expresses itself in the deepest levels of unconscious psychology.
Specifically, the conceptualization of Christ is rooted in the Egyptian Sun-god Horus, which was a reworking of the Mesopotamian deity Marduk (who could 'speak magic words') which made it鈥檚 way through the Roman iteration of Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, into Christianity. Conversely- the word 'Satan' evolved from the word Seth, the Egyptian god of Chaos. Yet the assumption that this makes the Christian claim of the Incarnation of the Theanthropos 'not true' or simply a myth like any other is itself rooted in the Nominalistic assumptions within the Western Rationalist Religion, particularly modernism. Ironically, this Modernist and post-modernist argument is itself religious dogma.
Jung makes the case that the emergent biological roots of the Hero-Myth make the story of Christ more than merely factually or historically true; it is super-rational, truer than true: the highest form of truth possible. Newman phrased this as "Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ, a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness". In other words, Consciousness contains both objective and subjective truth; the biologically ingrained Hero Myth is not an illusion of the mind, but a precept of the truest true. This primordial story only incarnated fully one time in human history across all cultures and religions. The Universal only Particularized, the Multiplicity met the Singularity, the All became the One, the unknowable became knowable and the Infinite was made manifest through Finite form only once. And nothing could be more meaningful than the Divine becoming Human because Meaning itself exists at the intersection of the Particular and the Universal. He is the discrimination of composite natures; unitemporal and eternal, unique and universal, supernatural and natural simultaneously.
Kant鈥檚 apologetics follow a similar track as Jung, only along moral lines instead of Psychological. Kant argues that the moral Atheist is incongruent to his own worship, for the very recognition of a Transcendental Good is also de facto a belief in God: "how will he [the atheist] judge his own inner purpose by the moral law which he actively worships?"
His aim here is to keep both natural science and theology within their respective dialectal parameters, and reconcile the antinomies of Newtonian Rationalism and Moral Teleology:
Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and persistently the reflection deals with it: the starry sky above me, and the moral law within me. Both I must not seek and suspect as shrouded in darkness, or in exuberance, except my sight; I see them before me and connect them directly with the consciousness of my existence.
The Metaphysician of Konigsburg
1755 General Natural History and Theory of Heaven:
1764 Observations on the feeling of the beautiful:
1766 Dreams of a Ghost-Seer:
1783 Prolegomena to any future metaphysics:
1785 Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals:
1786 Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science:
1787 Critique of Pure Reason:
1788 Critique of Practical Reason:
1790 Critique of Judgment:
1793 Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason:
1795 Toward Eternal Peace:
1797 Metaphysics of Morals:
1798 The Dispute of the Faculties:
October 15, 2022
Det 盲r sv氓rt att betygs盲tta denna bok, fr盲mst f枚r att jag inte kunde tolka f枚rsta halvan av den. Ondskans rot i friheten och Kants f枚rslag p氓 hur trossamfund b枚r utformas f枚r att fr盲mja moralisk utveckling g枚r den andra halvan intressant och v盲rd att l盲sa dock.
Mitt tips: l盲s den p氓 engelska. Min svenska version var fr氓n 1927 (vilket kanske f枚rklarar dess sv氓rtydda natur)
Mitt tips: l盲s den p氓 engelska. Min svenska version var fr氓n 1927 (vilket kanske f枚rklarar dess sv氓rtydda natur)
Read
April 23, 2013Efter att ha l盲st Religionen inom det blotta f枚rnuftets gr盲nser 盲r det om枚jligt att inte se Kant som en teologisk t盲nkare. Gudsbegreppet 盲r antaget rakt igenom boken. Det 盲r mer vilken roll denna gud ska ha i relation till f枚rnuftet, sedesl盲ran och uppenbarelsen som Kant resonerar kring h盲r. Jag har inte l盲st hans tre "kritiker" och kommer s盲kert att g枚ra det n氓gon g氓ng fram枚ver, men jag 盲r glad att jag b枚rjade just h盲r, f枚r det s盲tter t.ex. hans kritik emot gudsbevis och andra religionskritiska tankar i en tydligare kontext. Det s盲tter 盲ven hans tankar kring f枚rnuftets begr盲nsningar i ett intressant sammanhang.
Man kan f氓 k盲nslan att "Gud" p氓 ett s盲tt 盲r ett bihang i Kants filosofi. Det 盲r inte helt klart hur han t盲nker sig Guds relation till etiken, eller jag f枚rstod den inte helt ska jag snarare s盲ga. Men samtidigt 盲r det tydligt att Kant beh枚ver ha en moralens h枚gsta f枚r att f氓 sin etik att g氓 ihop och jag h氓ller med honom d盲r. Kants kritik mot skrift-religion och uppenbarelse-religion 盲r v盲ldigt tydlig och det 盲r v盲l inte helt om枚jligt att det 盲r en direkt kritik (reaktion emot?) hans pietistiska skolg氓ng.
Man kan f氓 k盲nslan att "Gud" p氓 ett s盲tt 盲r ett bihang i Kants filosofi. Det 盲r inte helt klart hur han t盲nker sig Guds relation till etiken, eller jag f枚rstod den inte helt ska jag snarare s盲ga. Men samtidigt 盲r det tydligt att Kant beh枚ver ha en moralens h枚gsta f枚r att f氓 sin etik att g氓 ihop och jag h氓ller med honom d盲r. Kants kritik mot skrift-religion och uppenbarelse-religion 盲r v盲ldigt tydlig och det 盲r v盲l inte helt om枚jligt att det 盲r en direkt kritik (reaktion emot?) hans pietistiska skolg氓ng.
November 30, 2013
The chapter Kant is most known for (the first one on radical evil) is perhaps his best known where he takes a view similar to Hobbes' view of the state of nature, Hobbes' view being an ontologizing of violence. The only difference is Kant seems to think evil occurs in dispositions, and that this evil is magnified by society. So it left me wondering if Hobbes' Leviathan would really make any difference for Kant. Unique to Kant is he has an eschatology, and a surprisingly a high view of the church (highly reinterpreted in Kant's critical philosophy), distinct in its role from the state, functioning as a vehicle of to move human beings from the particularity of empirical faith to a religion of reason. For that reason the first chapter does not make much sense apart from the later chapters, at least I found it to be that way. I highly enjoyed the progression of argument, that footnotes alone were enjoyable to see Kant tease apart certain logical issues in his argument.
November 9, 2011
This book has been extremely influential to my faith. Kant rationalizes and justifies faith in this logical examination of something that is not easily rationalized.
This is a dense read but I find it to be a good counter to Nietzsche and some of the others who attacked and discounted religious thought.
This is highly recommended for anyone interested in theology and intellectual pursuits of truth.
This is a dense read but I find it to be a good counter to Nietzsche and some of the others who attacked and discounted religious thought.
This is highly recommended for anyone interested in theology and intellectual pursuits of truth.
April 14, 2019
,,醿戓儩醿犪儩醿⑨償醿戓儛醿� 醿涐儛醿犪儣醿愥儦醿樶儛 醿メ儠醿斸儳醿溼儤醿� 醿撫儛醿♂儛醿儳醿樶儭醿� 醿ａ儴醿曖償醿戓儭,醿涐儛醿掅儬醿愥儧 醿涐儛醿樶儨醿� 醿愥儬醿� 醿愥儞醿愥儧醿樶儛醿溼儴醿�,醿愥儬醿愥儧醿斸儞 醿♂儯醿氠儴醿�,醿犪儩醿涐償醿氠儤醿� 醿椺儛醿曖儞醿愥優醿樶儬醿斸儦醿愥儞 醿ａ儰醿犪儩 醿愥儧醿愥儲醿氠償醿戓儯醿氠儤 醿撫儛醿溼儤醿ㄡ儨醿ａ儦醿斸儜醿樶儭醿� 醿樶儳醿�. 醿愥儧醿樶儣 醿♂儛醿斸儬醿椺儩醿� 醿п儩醿曖償醿氠儤 醿戓儩醿犪儩醿⑨償醿戓儤醿� 醿炨儤醿犪儠醿斸儦醿� 醿撫儛醿♂儛醿儳醿樶儭醿� 醿┽儠醿斸儨醿ㄡ儤 醿儛醿犪儧醿濁儝醿曖儤醿撫儝醿斸儜醿� 醿犪儩醿掅儩醿犪儶 醿┽儠醿斸儨醿椺儠醿樶儭 醿掅儛醿ａ儝醿斸儜醿愥儬醿�,醿儩醿氠儩 醿愥儞醿愥儧醿樶儛醿溼儤 醿涐儺醿濁儦醿濁儞 醿儞醿ａ儨醿斸儜醿樶儭 醿儛醿氠儤醿� 醿戓儩醿犪儩醿⑨償醿戓儛醿� 醿涐儤醿償醿涐儯醿氠儤,醿�.醿� 醿愥儬醿� 醿♂儛醿め儯醿儠醿斸儦醿ㄡ儤醿曖償 醿儛醿涐儺醿撫儛醿犪儤,醿愥儬醿愥儧醿斸儞 醿涐儛醿樶儨醿� 醿掅儛醿ａ儧醿儩醿戓償醿♂償醿戓儤醿� 醿ａ儨醿愥儬醿樶儛醿溼儤.''
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.