Actually, what is called faith? If we don't discuss it now, in fact, there is none. Now that God is dead, Nietzsche talked about God being dead, let alone here. There is nothing, you can still say that there is faith, only the ridiculous people in TV dramas. I have faith.
And faith is a problem, but Kant has drawn a territory for faith. He wants to limit reason and leave a territory for faith.
Why leave territory for faith?
The first Kant, he already knew that under the impact of the Enlightenment, faith had been compressed into a dead end. We cannot reason about faith now, faith is to some extent reasoning. Sorry, if I can't make sense of it, it's superstition, ignorance, and it's not legal. But Kant and his elders know, believe, that you cannot have any reason for this thing, he has no reason, it is a personality, it is the kind of thing that transcends any doubt.
The entire weapon of Enlightenment rationalism, he would say, 'If you cannot reason, it means you are superstitious and should not have it.'. Kant confidently states here that there are also things that reason cannot do. Who will do the remaining things that cannot be done?
Then it's faith.
Of course, how to view faith is still a big issue that is not easy to solve. Kant's conclusion from his analysis of the cognitive function of reason is indeed a bit shocking. We cannot know the essence of things. What we discover in possible experience and prove through a priori philosophical method, we cannot know anything.
Our knowledge is strictly limited to the way the world must appear to us, and our metaphysics about non sensory entities is itself constrained by categories such as causality, materiality, and so on.
However, Kant said that the problem lies in the fact that they are conditions for the possibility of experience, and we can only apply them to general experience, not to things themselves, such as ways of leaving our experiential world. We cannot even say that the world itself is time and space, and we cannot bring our spontaneity into the realm of experience as a way of existing in itself. Because they are clearly generated by us, and we use them for intuitive purposes.
Therefore, on the one hand, Kant's position can be viewed from both sides. On the other hand, some people believe that Kant is materialistic and denies our knowledge about God. Kant's position should be positive. However, you may not know that Kant did not believe that knowledge is everything in every aspect. Just because knowledge cannot know God does not mean that God has no value.
We cannot know God, nor can we conclude from propositions that God has no value. This is illogical, as the premise of reasoning is that we cannot know God, therefore God has no value. Only things we can know have value, and we cannot know things without value. There are many things in the world that are not objects of knowledge, such as family relationships, which are not objects of knowledge. The phrase 'I love you' is not a descriptive statement or a normative statement. But is he meaningless? Is this sentence nonsense?
It's not nonsense, how to divide it? Kant wants to tell us that in the past, we simplified Kant's treatment. He believed that God was not an object of knowledge, as if consciousness Kant proved that he was a materialist position. His God had no meaning to Kant, and because Kant had been persecuted by the church for speaking about religion in class, he was not allowed to attend classes, in order to prove that Kant was materialistic.
Not necessarily, Kant precisely proved that under the rationalist cultural trend of modern times, modernity ultimately boils down to a rationalist culture. And in terms of rationalism, we need to make it clear that the first two words of rationality are "tools". The culture of instrumental rationality, of course, if you talk about faith, is indeed like being three tenths shorter than others. It seems a bit unreasonable from the beginning. I have no reason, I am useless, and I cannot explain a reason. You cannot deduce it with logic.
However, Kant apologized locally and said that we need to leave a space for faith. It is not a matter of recognition, but a matter of human thought. For Westerners, Kant's conclusion is difficult, why?
For thousands of years, we have believed that humans can know God and have knowledge of God, especially in theology. What is theology?
Theology is the knowledge of God. Now you suddenly say that there is no God. For God, we only have faith, emotional things, and no knowledge. Westerners cannot accept it. So, many people believe that Kant, including figures like Harman and Jacobi, is a worse form of skepticism than Hume, who only doubts our knowledge. He now doubts our most fundamental things, which is a more thorough skepticism. However, if he is different from skepticism, he is a different kind of skepticism. Although he boldly asserts that we cannot know things themselves, that is, things in themselves, he also boldly asserts that behind all human experience is human spontaneity, and the experience produced is that inevitability.
In addition, this spontaneity is universal and not a property possessed by highly educated or noble individuals. It is a property of all human experience, which Kant referred to as universal self-consciousness. Kant called the world that appears to us the phenomenal world, and the world that is separated from our experience the ontological world. He transformed this distinction into a critique of traditional metaphysics.
The longest part of 'Critique of Pure Reason' is the transcendental dialectics, which aims to carry out the task. Transcendental dialectics actually tells us what kind of fallacies traditional metaphysics can lead to when it uses epistemological methods that use rational reasoning to argue about things that cannot be understood?
The so-called antinomy arises in this way. Therefore, for the problems of traditional metaphysics, Kant's approach is not to say that the previous practices were wrong, but to propose a new approach, but to say that the previous thinking was wrong. I completely cancel these problems, which cannot be solved. You must solve it according to traditional metaphysical methods, which will lead to second rate inversion. What does second rate inversion mean?
In terms of formal logic, there may be two answers to a question, one is the main question and the other is the opposite. For example, the universe is infinite and the universe is finite. According to the epistemological idea of common sense and logical thinking, only one of two propositions is correct, whether it is true that the universe is finite or infinite. One right, one wrong.
On the contrary, if we adopt traditional metaphysics and use epistemological methods to deal with things in themselves that cannot be known, we will lead to the fundamental fallacy of knowledge, which Kant said creates an illusion of knowledge. It is impossible to say that both propositions are right.
It's impossible. In this situation, it doesn't mean that your answer is wrong, but rather that your problem is wrong and your approach to solving it is incorrect. These problems are unsolvable, but they should be cancelled. These problems are fundamentally untenable. So, prior dialectics, of course Kant did not adopt any other approach. He followed the reasoning of the ship in dealing with such methods and then showed us what kind of fallacies it would lead to. This is mainly how Kant did it.
Kant's questions, raised by traditional metaphysics, are questions that should not be raised at all. The truth is simple: concepts only have meaning if they are related to possible experiences or serve as a priori condition for the possibility of experience. And God cannot be our experience at all, who has experienced God. For example, he is not our object of experience at all, and all the cognitive abilities we currently possess can only be applied to phenomena. Or in other words, it only applies to phenomena. If God is a phenomenon and our experience is okay, we can apply this method to God. The problem is that traditional metaphysicians also acknowledge that we cannot experience God, and no one has ever seen God. Therefore, God is not our object of experience. How can we apply this method to God.
When metaphysics attempts to use pure reason to describe what things themselves are, it is wrong. When people insist on understanding things that cannot be experienced without crossing the boundaries of possible experience, they commit the mistake of a priori illusion.
Traditional metaphysics believes that he can discuss this system in a coherent and consistent manner. Kant believed that we can only talk about certain items, but the more possible the boundaries of experience, the more it is not due to indulging in a fascinating illusion. On the contrary, Kant's profound insight lies in this. The nature of reason requires us to surpass the boundaries of possible experience in some way. If we want to understand our experience as a whole, we know that there is actually such a requirement to surpass the boundaries in our rational nature.
In fact, it cannot be surpassed, but within our rational nature, there is something that requires us to surpass. The mistake of viewing a priori fantasies in this way is not accidental, but determined by our rational nature. Intellect is the ability to follow principles or rules. Reason is the ability to connect those rules, and they support each other by providing proof based on reason. The most obvious use of reason in this regard is in constructing formal reasoning, such as like all people are going to die, Socrates is human, and Socrates is also going to die.
In such reasoning, the true premise always leads to the true conclusion, but reason alone cannot determine whether the premise itself is true or not. Ordinary people are dead, and reason alone cannot determine whether the premise is true or false. It can only be said that it is derived from something else. Therefore, rationality leads us to seek the basis and conditions for judgment.
This is the opposite, because in order to find conditions, one must pursue something unconditional in order to be considered successful. Conditional things mean that they are also constrained by other conditions, and they are also conditional. If you want to pursue them, the task cannot be completed. Therefore, the nature of reason is that if we want to pursue them, we will always pursue them unconditionally. He will definitely make us pursue the ultimate basis and conditions for judgment, which is inevitable. We need to search for something unconditional, which is a final basis, a basis without further basis.
网友评论