Comparing Kant's Irrationalism And Religion
Kant, Irrationalism and Religion
Abstract
Kant is a philosopher, which dealt with human recognition. He has been considered as an irrationalist. Many philosophers think that he used the irrationalism to justify the trust in religion and to protect the religion from the science. In this paper I shall take a view to the philosophy of Kant on recongition and to the question if Kant is an irrationalist or not.
Did he use the irrationalism to protect the religion from science?
This paper shall show that Kant wasn’t an irrationalist, but he simply tried to determine the limitations of the recognition and to distinguish between what we recongize and what we simply believe.
His philosophy of recognition didn’t aim at protecting the …show more content…
He was not a skeptic who saw the world as mere sensory appearance, but quite the contrary he was prompted to write this book as a response to the skepticism of David Hume. Kant aims to determine whether it can reach a metaphysical knowledge, and if so whether it can be arranged in a science and what its limits are. The main aim of th Pure Critique is to demonstrate how the answers to these questions can be achieved, provided that the subject is reviewed under a new angle. Kant 's own words regarding this are: "“This attempt to alter the procedure which has hitherto prevailed in metaphysics by completely revolutionizing it . . . forms indeed the main purpose of this critique. . . . It marks out the whole plan of the science, both as regards its limits and as regards its entire internal structure” (Kant,2002). “The critique of pure reason . . . will decide as to the possibility or impossibility of metaphysics in general, and determine its sources, its extent, and its limits—all in accordance with principles. . . . I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied” (Kant, …show more content…
First they need to contain any existence as such, so they must be universal and necessary. For example, let 's look at a judgment of metaphysics in the first part: “everything has a cause”. We cannot allow any exception to this judgment. The opposite of it would be contradictory. Let 's see a judgment that belongs to the metaphysics of the second part: “the universe is eternal". Even this judgment does not allow exceptions. This means that any empirical judgment is not metaphysical. They are a priori, but are they
Abstract
Kant is a philosopher, which dealt with human recognition. He has been considered as an irrationalist. Many philosophers think that he used the irrationalism to justify the trust in religion and to protect the religion from the science. In this paper I shall take a view to the philosophy of Kant on recongition and to the question if Kant is an irrationalist or not.
Did he use the irrationalism to protect the religion from science?
This paper shall show that Kant wasn’t an irrationalist, but he simply tried to determine the limitations of the recognition and to distinguish between what we recongize and what we simply believe.
His philosophy of recognition didn’t aim at protecting the …show more content…
He was not a skeptic who saw the world as mere sensory appearance, but quite the contrary he was prompted to write this book as a response to the skepticism of David Hume. Kant aims to determine whether it can reach a metaphysical knowledge, and if so whether it can be arranged in a science and what its limits are. The main aim of th Pure Critique is to demonstrate how the answers to these questions can be achieved, provided that the subject is reviewed under a new angle. Kant 's own words regarding this are: "“This attempt to alter the procedure which has hitherto prevailed in metaphysics by completely revolutionizing it . . . forms indeed the main purpose of this critique. . . . It marks out the whole plan of the science, both as regards its limits and as regards its entire internal structure” (Kant,2002). “The critique of pure reason . . . will decide as to the possibility or impossibility of metaphysics in general, and determine its sources, its extent, and its limits—all in accordance with principles. . . . I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied” (Kant, …show more content…
First they need to contain any existence as such, so they must be universal and necessary. For example, let 's look at a judgment of metaphysics in the first part: “everything has a cause”. We cannot allow any exception to this judgment. The opposite of it would be contradictory. Let 's see a judgment that belongs to the metaphysics of the second part: “the universe is eternal". Even this judgment does not allow exceptions. This means that any empirical judgment is not metaphysical. They are a priori, but are they