The Link between Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and Descartes Discourse on Method
The Link between Kant’s Critique of
Pure Reason and Descartes Discourse on Method
According
to Rene Descartes reason is mankind’s most universal shared endowment,[1] it is the only thing which
makes us men and distinguishes us from animals. [2] Given this, why did Kant
have to critique reason? It is must be stated that Kant did not critique
reason, but pure reason which leads to dogmatism. For Kant, pure reason alone when
detached from sensory experience can provide us with no genuine knowledge whatsoever. Kant couldn’t have
critique reason because that would be an extreme of which his philosophy sets
out to rectify. Bearing in mind that Kant was instructed in the tradition of
Leibnizian rationalism[3], he brings to light in his
philosophy that man has the potentiality to attain knowledge. In other words,
for Kant, knowledge is possible. This was however the very opposite of the
Skeptist who argues that the capacity to know lies beyond the realm of man.
More so, Kant was also aware that there was much extremism in philosophy. Hence,
Kant’s declared rigorous aim is the scientific foundation and justification of
any future metaphysics as “the science of the principles of all knowledge a priori and of all knowledge which
follows from these principles.[4] In view of this, Kant after reading Hume’s
empiricism brings in a revolution as Descartes did. Thus, it can be said that
Descartes and Kant approaches to traditional philosophy was revolutionary.[5] Kant met Descartes epistemologically. In fact,
while Descartes grasps the principle of subjectivity as rex cogitans-thinking thing, Kant sees it as a self relating
subject that attains absolute self consciousness. By
this, it means that Kant and Descartes share something in common in the course
of carrying out their revolutionary pursuit.
This however does not necessarily mean that
Kant affirms all that Descartes wrote. What it does mean is that there is a
link between both philosophers. This
link is the fact that they both make man’s mind, the “I” with his knowing
capacities of which the skeptist doubt the centre of their philosophical world
views.[6] More so, like Descartes; Kant sees
mathematics as the model of knowledge, and he uses mathematical judgments as
examples of synthetic a prior knowledge. For instance, I can know prior to
experience that 5*5=25 is a universal and necessary truth. Like Descartes, Kant
refers to his works as critical philosophy not in the negative sense that
rejects everything, but on the other hand, he meant a philosophy “to sort or so
sift out”[7] every extremes. Thus he’s
goal which was to set out the legitimate claims of reason and filter out all
groundless or claims that can be put to doubt was very similar to that of
Descartes, which is the solidification of epistemic claim that the skeptist
that cannot doubt.
Moreover,
while Descartes in his Discourse on
Method prize reason as the only source of attaining knowledge, and also
that which men shared universally. Kant though affirms reason as source of
knowledge did not stop there. He was quite aware of the danger of a single
story. By a single story, Chimamanda[8] explains that a story
though true but is incomplete. Thus, for Kant, Descartes is right in his
assertion of reason as source of knowledge, but it is not all by which we know.
For Kant, reason alone could not account for the whole story. In view of this,
Kant opens his work, Critique of Pure
Reason with these words: “there can be no doubt that all our knowledge
begins with experience.[9]” With these words, there
is no doubt that Kant conceives experience also as source of knowledge. But he
was aware that the world of experience alone was the spectre of Humean
scepticism.[10]
Kant understands that a dichotomy as created by Descartes and Hume between
reason and experience will only give a single story and not a complete story.
The problem with single story is not that they are untrue, but they are
incomplete. Thus, to avoid this, he add
immediately to his already assertion concerning experience in these words, “but
though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow
that it all arises out of experience,[11]” thus indicating that
there was still a need for some of the rationalism of Descartes. Thus, he achieved what he called Copernican
revolution in philosophy by turning the focus of philosophy from metaphysical
speculation about the nature of reality to the nature of the subject; the mind.
Kant differs from its predecessors such as Descartes and Leibniz by claiming
that rationalists’ pure reason can discern the shape, but not the content of
reality.[12]
[1] Descartes Discourse on
Method and Meditations, Trans. By Laurence J. Lafeur (U.S.A, New Jersey:
Prenticse-Hall, Inc., 1952), p.4.
[2] Descartes Discourse on
Method and Meditations, Trans. By Laurence J. Lafeur (U.S.A, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952), p. 5.
[3] Lawhead William, The voyage of Discovery: A Historical
Introduction to Philosophy, 2nd Ed. (U.S.A:Wadsworth Thomson
Learning, 2002), p. 326.
[4] See. Herring
Herbart, Cartesian and Kantian Revolution in Philosophy http://www.unipune.ac.in/snc/cssh/ipq/english/IPQ/21-25%20volumes/23%2001%20&%2002/PDF/23-1&%202-1.pdf (Accessed November, 23rd 2015)
[5] See. Herring Herbart, Cartesian and Kantian Revolution
in Philosophy http://www.unipune.ac.in/snc/cssh/ipq/english/IPQ/21-25%20volumes/23%2001%20&%2002/PDF/23-1&%202-1.pdf (Accessed November, 23rd 2015)
[6] See. Herring Herbart, Cartesian and Kantian Revolution
in Philosophy http://www.unipune.ac.in/snc/cssh/ipq/english/IPQ/21-25%20volumes/23%2001%20&%2002/PDF/23-1&%202-1.pdf (Accessed November, 23rd 2015)
[7] Lawhead William, The voyage of Discovery: A Historical
Introduction to Philosophy, 2nd Ed. (U.S.A:Wadsworth Thomson
Learning, 2002), p. 327.
[8] See- Chimamanda Ngozi
on the Danger of a Single Story, http:/thewirtelife.com/chimamanda-ngozi-adichie/
(Accessed November, 23rd 2015).
[9]Kant Immanuel, Critique
of Pure Reason, (New York: Anchor Books, 1966), p. 1.
[10] Lawhead William, p.
326.
[11] Kant Immanuel, Critique
of Pure Reason, p. 1.
[12] See-Kant Critique of
pure Reason Summary, http://www.thr-philosophy.com/kant-critique-pure-reason-summary
html (Accessed November, 23rd
2015).
Comments
Post a Comment