Dennis Hackethal’s Blog
My blog about philosophy, coding, and anything else that interests me.
Why People Like Kant – and Why They’re Wrong
I finally understand why some people like Immanuel Kant’s ideas. His Critique of Pure Reason is indecipherable, so I’ve been wondering for a while why anyone in their right mind would appreciate it. How can you appreciate something you don’t understand?
Reading Ayn Rand, founder of Objectivism, I’ve learned many things. And I’ve finally learned the reason. To understand Kant’s influence, consider the historical background. He became influential when, in the wake of the renaissance, it looked like reason might win the age-old battle against faith and force. But Kant did not want reason to win over faith. Instead, he wanted peace between the two; he wanted them to coexist. So he assigned the material world to science, the moral world to “the heart”; and he demoted philosophy to the role of arbiter between the two, explains Rand. He effectively separated science and morality. This separation laid the groundwork for later developments such as scientists building nuclear weapons for Soviet Russia and horoscopes being broadcast over television. Overall, Kant significantly contributed to the corruption of reason in favor of faith and mysticism in the past ~200 years since his death.
In other words, Kant’s ideas have had a terrible effect on the world. Why did they ever have a chance to begin with? Rand cites Friedrich Paulsen, a “devoted Kantian”. He published his book Immanuel Kant, His Life and Doctrine in 1898, roughly 100 years after Kant published his critiques:
There is indeed no doubt that the great influence which Kant exerted upon his age was due just to the fact that he appeared as a deliverer from unendurable suspense. The old view regarding the claims of the feelings and the understanding on reality had been more and more called in question during the second half of the eighteenth century. . . . Science seemed to demand the renunciation of the old faith. On the other hand, the heart still clung to it. . . . Kant showed a way of escape from the dilemma. His philosophy made it possible to be at once a candid thinker and an honest man of faith. For that, thousands of hearts have thanked him with passionate devotion.
A “man of faith” cannot be “honest” because there is no honesty without reason, aka truth-seeking. Nor could such a man be a “candid thinker” because faith, by definition, is the negation of critical thought. There’s a more fitting name for a man of faith: he’s a fool.
Consider the key objectivist insight that reason and faith cannot be mixed (which is why the “suspense” is “unendurable”); that any attempt to mix them anyway automatically favors faith over reason. So by demoting philosophy to the role of arbiter between the two, Kant castrated philosophy. But he seemed to make it possible to have your cake and eat it, too. And that’s why people liked him, and still like him. He absolved them from the responsibility of choosing between faith and reason, between ignorance and knowledge – and from the guilt they felt for not having made the choice.
Nobody can make that fundamental, existential choice for you. Not Kant, not anyone else. Either drown in mysticism or fight for the primacy and absolutism of reason. Mysticism can only win by default – if you prefer not to think about whether to think or not to think, you’ve already chosen the former. Reason, on the other hand, can only win by a sustained effort. The age-old conflict between knowledge and faith ends either in death or in a resounding, uncompromising, unconditional victory for reason.
To be sure, most people are not familiar with the backstory or with Kant, but they don’t need to be to appreciate him. They can simply absorb their evasions from their cultural background, which Kant has molded:
No, most people do not know Kant’s theories, nor care. What they do know is that their teachers and intellectual leaders have some deep, tricky justification—the trickier, the better—for the net result of all such theories, which the average person welcomes: “Be rational, except when you don’t feel like it.”
Consider what could have been if Kant’s ideas never had. Consider what people accidentally confess when they admit to appreciating them. It’s like they’re flashing a warning sign: ‘Danger! I’m irrational! Stay away!’
References
This post makes 1 reference to:
- Post ‘The Injustice of Pacifism’
There is 1 reference to this post in:
What people are saying
Hearts thanked him, not heads! lol
Reply
Brother, everything you're saying here is complete nonsense. Your favorite philosophers are thoroughly Kantian. (Popper and Rand I assume)
You seem to be getting your ideas of Kant from Rand. But Rand simply was not a good reader of Kant. For example in her For the New Intellectual, all she does is smear Kant with a bunch of mischaracterizations: Kant doesn't say the phenomenal world isn't real, he doesn't say that it's a distortion, he doesn't say that our concepts are delusions, he doesn't reject the norm of objectivity, he doesn't say that our concepts cannot deal with metaphysical issues of existence, he doesn't say the noumenal world is "real reality" nor "superior truth", he doesn't negate consciousness, he doesn't say that our consciousness is not valid, and he doesn't say the things we perceive don't exist. Rand is unequivocally wrong here. For someone familiar with Kant, seeing someone making him be the enemy reason is as bizarre as someone considering Popper to be an inductivist. It only makes sense if you've never read them in a sufficiently careful manner.
Let's just take one of your examples here, in where you claim "On making room for faith at the expense of reason". Kant here is not saying one needs to give up reason in favor for faith. He is criticizing arguments for the existence of God, or non-existence, or arguments for the world always existing, or having a beginning, by demonstrating in his Critique that reason alone cannot demonstrate these things. Knowledge requires evidence as well, not reason alone. (Consider Popper's view that hypotheses also require crucial empirical tests). Another way to put it is that he thinks things like Ontological arguments cannot do the work they wish to do, but he nevertheless believes in God but not by reason. He is not arguing for faith at the expense of reason. You're completely misunderstanding Kant.
It is not an exaggeration to say that one of the main chief concerns of The Critique of Pure Reason is a defense of objectivity. You have him exactly backwards!
(Also, your hostility to faith is rather surprising for a Popperian, given that Popper believed Reason was a form of faith.)
Reply
In your opening paragraph, you say Rand was “thoroughly Kantian”.
Then, you claim that she was “not a good reader of Kant”, that she “smear[ed] Kant with a bunch of mischaracterizations”, and that she was “unequivocally wrong” about him.
Which is it?
Reply
Brother what??
You can be a bad reader or someone but accidentally agree with them nevertheless. Given that Rand got Kant almost exactly backwards every-time, and she uses Kant as a foil, then it should be no surprise she is unwittingly Kantian. If I get Popper exactly backwards, make him the premier champion of inductivism, and I use him as a foil, ie, I argue against inductivism. I am both thoroughly Popperian in my view of inductivism, and a horrible reader of Popper.
Surely you know this is obvious, there is no "which is it". In fact, this response of yours reeks of trying to "gotcha" someone and I find that deeply distasteful. Won't engage further. Happy new year tho
Reply