Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer - Seminar Paper

Kant 1724-1804
Immanuel Kant is regarded as the greatest of modern philosophers and was the founder of German Idealism. He lived in East Prussia and led an academic but uneventful life, despite living through the Seven Years’ War and the French Revolution. Kant was educated in the Wolfian version of Leibniz’s philosophy however he later abandoned it under the influence of Rousseau and Hume. Hume’s criticism of causality was said to have awakened Kant from his “dogmatic slumbers”, however Hume was more of an opponent for Kant to prove wrong, whereas the influence of Rousseau was more profound. Although he left his mark as a great philosophical mind, Kant’s earlier works were more concerned with science than they were with philosophy.
Kant’s most important publication is “The Critique of Pure Reason”, the purpose of which is to prove that although our knowledge cannot transcend (go beyond) our experience, some of our knowledge is a priori (before/without sensory experience). Kant makes a distinction between four propositions which must be understood in order to make sense of the rest of his theory:
1) Analytic Propositions – True by definition/necessarily true e.g. a triangle has three sides
2) Synthetic Propositions – Propositions we know only through experience, not necessarily true e.g. Tuesday was a wet day. However Kant, unlike previous philosophers, states that not all synthetic propositions are known only through experience.
3) Empirical Propositions – Only known through sensory perception, either our own or of another whose statement we accept e.g. facts of history and geography and the laws of science.
4) A priori Propositions – Known before experience, although they may be stimulated by experience they have another basis e.g. geometry and basic arithmetic such as 2+2=4, although a child may be first be explained the principle by putting two lots of two objects together to make four objects, it is not necessary to have a physical example or objects for it to be true.
Hume proved that the law of causality is not analytic, Kant accepted the fact that it is synthetic but stated that it is a priori. The question of how can something be both synthetic and a priori is the main theme of “The Critique of Pure Reason”. Kant states that the outer world only causes sensation, it is our mind which orders it in terms of time and space and supplies the concepts by which we understand our experience. The “things in themselves” which cause our experience are unknowable, they are not in time or space, nor are they substances and they cannot be described by our general concepts which Kant refers to as “categories”. Space and time are subjective and they are part of how we perceive things, so what we experience will be dealt with in terms of the geometry and science of the time. For example if you always wore blue tinted glasses you would see the world in varying shades of blue. So since you always wear “spatial spectacles” in your mind you will always see everything in terms of space. Geometry is a priori because it must be true in all we experience, but we have no reason to suspect that the same is true of the things in themselves which we do not experience. Space and time are not concepts or “categories” by which we understand our experience, they are intuitions. Kant lists the twelve a priori categories, grouping them into four sets of three:
1) Quantity – unity, plurality, totality
2) Quality – reality, negation, limitation
3) Relation – substance and accident, cause and effect, reciprocity
4) Modality – possibility, existence, necessity
The categories are subjective in the same sense space and time are. They are applicable to our experience but that does not mean that they apply to the things in themselves. A large part of the “Critique of Pure Reason” goes towards illustrating the fallacies which can arise from applying space and time or the categories to things which are not experienced. Kant states that when we attempt to do this we will find ourselves faced with “antinomies” which are mutually contradictory statements which both can apparently be proved – a thesis and an antithesis. One of the antinomies Kant gives:
Thesis – The world has a beginning in time and is limited in regards to space
Antithesis – The world is infinite in regards to time and space
This part of Kant’s “Critique” was  great influence to Hegel, who’s philosophical theories I shall explain later on.

In another section of Kant’s “Critique” he goes on to demolish all purely intellectual proofs of Gods existence. Kant recognises three proofs of Gods existence by pure reason; ontological proof, cosmological proof and the physico-theological proof. The ontological proof states that God is the “the most real being “and existence is a predicate of a being, therefore God must exist. Kant objects to this and stated that existence is not a predicate. The cosmological proof states that if anything exists then an absolutely necessary being (God) must exist, I know I exist, therefore an absolute necessary being must exist. Kant states that the last section of this proof is identical to the ontological argument so falls under the same criticism. The physico-theological proof states that the universe shows order which is evidence of purpose, however Kant states that this only enough evidence to suggest an architect, not a creator, therefore cannot quantify as an argument for the existence of God. Kant later provides his own reasons for belief in God in “The Critique of Practical Reason”. He states that God, freedom and immortality are the three ideas of reason, but reason alone is not enough prove they are true. The importance of these ideas is practical and connected with morals. Kant’s argues that the moral law demands justice (happiness in proportion to virtue), only providence (a protective force) can insure this and it has clearly not been insured in this life, as it is possible for those who act without virtue to be happier than those who do. Therefore there must be a God and an afterlife, and there must also be freedom because otherwise there would be no such thing as virtue.

Kant’s system on ethics is explained in his “Metaphysic of Morals” and this where he establishes the “Categorical Imperative”. Moral worth only exists where a man acts entirely from a sense of duty, not where a duty has been prescribed to them or they do it for their own self-interest. Only rational beings are capable of following moral law by their will. The moral law is known as a command of reason and the formula for the command is an “imperative”. There are two types of imperative, the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. With the hypothetical imperative the end drives the means, you must do A if you want to get B. This will be familiar and is used commonly for example with children, you must eat your veg if you want to go out and play. The categorical imperative states that an action is objectively necessary without regards to any end, you must do A. The categorical imperative is also synthetic a priori and is the basis of Kant’s moral theory. So as a guide to moral action “you must act only according to a maxim which you can at the same time will to become a universal law” for example stealing is immoral because if everyone were to steal there would be no such thing as property, there is a contradiction in conception. When establishing a maxim there is no consideration for its intended effect, virtue doesn’t depend on whether you meant well or not. Kant also establishes that every man is an end in himself and we must treat them this way, which means you could not create a maxim in which you manipulate or lie to anyone.
The most important part of “The Critique of Pure Reason” is Kant’s doctrine of time and space. Kant begins with the well-established concept that our sensations have causes which he refers to as “noumena” (the things in themselves). What appears to us in our perception, which Kant refers to a “phenomena”, comes in two parts; the “sensation” which is due to the object, and that which is due to our subjective apparatus which he calls the “form of phenomenon”. The form of phenomenon is not a sensation so it is not dependent upon environment, it is always the same no matter where you are because it is a priori in the person.
To prove that space and time are a priori Kant has two forms of arguments, the metaphysical and the transcendental. There are four metaphysical arguments regarding space and they are taken from the nature of space and time:
1) Space is not empirical, it is presupposed in referring sensations to something external. External experience is only possible through the presentation of space, I perceive different objects as being in different places.
Russell’s Criticism: Kant fails to give a reason why my perception arranges and orders the sensations as it does. For example if the eyes and the mouth exist separately as things in themselves, with no connection to one another, then why are they always arranged in the same order.
2) Space is a necessary a priori intuition which underlies all our perceptions. It is possible to imagine nothing in space but it is not possible to imagine there is no space.
Russell’s Criticism: Russell denies that it is possible to imagine an absolutely empty space.
3) There is only one space, what we call “spaces” are parts, not instances.
Russell’s Criticism: If you take a relational view of space this argument becomes invalid as neither “space” or “spaces” can survive as an applicable term.
4) Space is an infinite given magnitude.
Russell’s Criticism: Modern astronomers state that space is not infinite but it circulates like the surface of the globe.
The transcendental argument concerning space is derived from geometry, which Kant claims is known a priori, although it is not deducible from logic alone. The objects of sense must obey geometry because geometry is concerned with our way of perceiving, and therefore we cannot perceive otherwise.
Russell’s Criticism: There are two branches of geometry; pure geometry which is concerned with deducing consequences from axioms without concern to whether they’re true, and geometry as a branch of physics which is an empirical science. The first is a priori but is not synthetic and the second is synthetic but not a priori, which puts an end to the transcendental argument.

The arguments regarding time are essentially the same but geometry is replaced with arithmetic on the basis that counting takes time.
Kant’s concept of the “thing in itself” was seen as a difficult element in his philosophy so was abandoned by his immediate successors.

Hegel 1770-1831
Hegel’s philosophy was the peak of the movement in German philosophy which was started by Kant, who he often criticised. Hegel had a great influence not only in Germany but also in America and Great Britain towards the end of the nineteenth century. His philosophy of history had a profound effect on political theory. In his later life Hegel was a patriotic Prussian who held great respect for the state.

Hegel in his two publications “Logic” holds a metaphysical outlook and argues that there is nothing completely real except “the whole” which he refers to as “the Absolute”, this contains his belief in the “unreality of separateness”. He describes the absolute as a “complex system” made up of parts. Apparently separate things are actually parts of the Absolute each containing a greater or lesser degree of reality. This also elicits a denial of the existence of time and space, as this would suggest separateness. Hegel claims that the real is rational and the rational is real, which seems to go hand in hand with the argument “what is, is right”, basically things are as they should be. He also maintains that nothing can be really true unless it is about Reality as a whole. This argument has a basis in traditional logic which assumes that every proposition has a subject and a predicate, it then follows to say that relations cannot be real as they involve two things not one. Only the parts which make up the Absolute can have relations, the Absolute cannot as there is nothing outside of it for it to have a relation to. The highest form of knowledge is that which is possessed by the Absolute as there is nothing outside of it for it to know. The Absolute Idea is pure thought thinking about pure thought as pure thought is maintained by the Absolute and there is nothing else for the Absolute to think about. Although as previously mentioned Hegel dismisses the existence of time, he instead describes it as an “illusion” generated by our inability to see the Absolute, and is the process of moving from the less to the more perfect.

This then moves us on to his “Philosophy of History”. Hegel believes that in every age one nation is responsible for carrying the world through the next stage of the dialectic. He is very focused on the glorification of the State which he describes as the “actually existing realised moral life”. The State is infinite and rational in itself, Hegel admitted that although there may be bad States these merely exist and have no true reality. Because Hegel makes the State an absolute in itself, this causes difficulty in maintaining the relationships between the different States, here he falls back on Hobbes’ war of all against all. Each State is independent and it is the duty of each citizen to uphold the independence and sovereignty of their State. Hegel is opposed to a world government as he believes war is a necessary and positive thing. However this conflicts with his metaphysical philosophy. His belief that there is more reality in the whole than the separate parts  explains his preference of a State over an anarchic collection of people, but it would then logically follow to say that he idealises a World State, however this is not the case.

Hegel believes that society should be as organic as possible and is opposed to the idea of a system of rights which allows individuals to do as they please unhindered by the State or by others. Hegel’s idea of freedom is similar to that of Kant’s, who argues that a free society is only possible when all men realise their moral duty to act under the categorical imperative, the “kingdom of ends”. This is an organic free society like Hegel’s however it differs in the fact that Kant’s is merely a philosophical concept whereas Hegel does believe that this organic society will eventually happen and is the goal of the dialectic.

For Hegel rights of a citizen are not universal or intrinsic, they differ throughout history and between states, what is right in one age may not necessarily be right in another. Rights are particular to certain parts of society and the moments in their evolution which the societies have reached. People must be forced to be free, the State must direct and shape its citizens in a way that is almost totalitarian. The liberal concept cannot work as it separates people from their natural human nature in ways that can be self-destructive, the State must take care of its citizens. Hegel believes that we are slowly moving towards this free organic society which rules in line with the true nature of people, but until this is achieved all existing states must be measured against this ideal. He believed that the Prussian State was the closest to reaching this rational and organic society.

Schopenhauer 1788-1860
Schopenhauer, unlike most philosophers, is a pessimist and believes in spiritualism and magic. His main publication “The World as Will and Idea” focuses on the will which he believes is primarily evil. Schopenhauer’s system of though is an adaptation of Kant’s, he maintains the concept of “the thing in itself” but he identifies our perception of our own body as being the will. According to Kant the difference between a good and a bad man is a difference in their surroundings of things in themselves and a difference in their choices. Their choices must belong to the real world, not to the phenomena, the phenomenon corresponding to choice is bodily movement. This is where Schopenhauer bases his belief that the body is the appearance of will.

Time and space belong only to phenomena, not to the thing in itself, therefore my will cannot be separated and is timeless. What I regard as my will is in fact the will of the whole universe, my separateness is merely an illusion. There is just one vast universal will.

This universal will is evil and is the source of endless suffering. It has no end, if it was ever reached then it would result in contentment, but it is man’s urge towards procreation which continues the cycle of constant suffering and death. Schopenhauer argues this is why shame is associated with sex. He claims that suicide is useless but never gives a full explanation as to why.

The cause of suffering according to Schopenhauer is the intensity of will, the less you exercise your will, the less you will suffer. A good man is he who manages to see the world truly and see everything is part of a whole. When he has this realisation he takes on the suffering of the whole world and his will turns away from life and from his own nature. The good man will practice chastity, poverty, fasting and self-torture in the aim of breaking down his own will. His aim is to get as close as possible to non-existence, without resorting to suicide. On the knowledge of God Schopenhauer states that when a man reaches the realisation of the whole they will see that what they believed to be God was in fact Satan, the evil omnipotent will.