Both Kant and Hegel are German idealist philosophers, meaning their philosophy is based around the idea that human experience of the world is only a rough approximation of what actually exists.
Kant (1724 - 1804)I'm going to go through some of his key ideas.
A few core tenets of the philosophy outlined in The Critique of Pure Reason:
That every man is an "end in himself," and never to be treated as a "means to an end."
Taken literally, this would make it impossible to resolve any disputes which involve a conflict of people's interests. All of the opposing parties' desires would have to be taken into account, and this would make it impossible to make everybody happy. If you don't take it literally, you can, as Bertrand Russell claims, easily imagine that to say "every person is an end in themselves", is to say that these people have certain inalienable rights. This provides an ethical basis for a democracy, which is pretty awesome!
John Locke likes this.
Analytic and synthetic propositions
An analytic proposition is concrete in terms of logic; an analytical statement cannot be contradicted. E.g. 'The tall man is a man' is impossible to refute, unless you get precious about it and ask if the man is a hermaphrodite, a woman dressed as a guy or question whether he even exists at all. He isn't and he does. The statement proves itself.
A synthetic proposition is one which requires some experience outside of the statement to verify, e.g. 'It was sunny today.' You can't know that it was sunny as a fact unless there was some evidence to back this up, e.g. you went outside today.
Kant asserts, despite it being almost a contradiction of terms, that synthetic (needing experience) a priori (from logic) propositions exist – an example given is a child learning mathematics; once they have been told that 2 + 2 = 4 (A concept which requires them to believe the testimony of another – experience) they will understand the mechanics behind this by using their own logic. Kant argues that this comes from some inherent knowledge, which is not derived from experience.
The concept of a synthetic a priori proposition is essentially the underpinning for his idea of universal moral laws and ethical maxims. If you can observe something once then internalise the reasoning behind it and apply it rationally, then you've got a way to make morality scientific.
Duty
Duty is a crucial basis for morality – it's wrong to act in a way, regardless of any positive outcome, which is not derived from duty.
 |
| Please leave me alone. |
It's not enough to simply look as if you're doing the right thing. Even giving to charity could be considered as a bit iffy by Kant if the act of you giving is perhaps just to satisfy your conscience or maybe shake off that person with dreadlocks who has accosted you on the street with a change box and a petition.
Imperatives: two kinds
Hypothetical imperatives – 'You must do that, to achieve this outcome' - they are general rules which assume how you want to act, and are not necessarily good things 'in-themselves.' They only apply when certain conditions are met or required. Kant introduced the hypothetical imperative mainly just to contrast with his idea of the categorical imperative.
Categorical imperatives (much more important than that first one) – A certain action is objectively necessary, without regard to the end. The categorical imperative is synthetic and a priori.
'Act only according to a maxim by which you can at the same time will that it shall become a general law.' Or: 'Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law'
Kant illustrates this by saying that it is wrong to borrow money, as if everyone borrowed money there would be no money left to borrow. The same goes for theft and murder.
You have to act in a way that, when applied to another situation by anybody in the world, is still the 'right' action. It sounds like it makes sense. You wouldn't stab somebody in the face, because you wouldn't expect (or hopefully, you wouldn't want) everybody in the world to act in the same way. It's pretty much the old Golden Rule that we learn as children: 'treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.'
Not every example is so black and white: serious implications arise concerning suicide or euthanasia. The intended result of these actions may be an end to pain or a show of mercy; but in Kant's mind, the principle of the means which has brought this end is inexcusable. The action of killing, no matter the intention, has no virtue.
His idea of every action demanding a universally applicable maxim fails in that it gives a necessary, but not a sufficient criterion (test) of virtue.
As suggested above, to really assess a sufficient 'test of virtue' you would need to consider the effects of some actions, and not judge it based on the principle of the action itself (i.e. 'murder' always being wrong)
Theory of space and time - imposition of order
Objects of perception (things that we can see and feel) owe their existence partly to their external cause, and partly to our own 'perceptive apparatus.' Kant is saying that things as we perceive them are largely subjective.
Locke said that secondary qualities, such as colours, tastes and smells are subjective; Kant one-ups him and says that primary qualities are subjective too. While he accepts that sensations have causes (noumena) he says that perception (phenomena) has two parts - the sensation itself, and the imposition of order on the sensation through that mental apparatus of ours.
The imposition of order is the 'form' of the phenomenon; it is a priori according to Kant, and not dependent on experience.
A 'pure form' or 'pure intuition' is rare, and only found in two things: space and time. Pure forms are prerequisite to all other forms of understanding.
He offers four metaphysical arguments for the notion of space being a pure form, and they are as follows:
- Space is not an empirical concept, space is presupposed in referring sensations to something external = external experience is only possible through space.
- Space is a necessary presentation a priori, it underlies all external perceptions. It's impossible to imagine there is no space, but possible to imagine nothing in space.
- Space cannot be split - there is only one space. 'Spaces' are parts of a whole, not separate instances.
- Space is an infinite given magnitude, which holds in itself all parts of space - this is different from that of a concept, to a number of concrete instances.
Hegel (1770 - 1831)
He criticised Kant, and yet his entire doctrine could not have existed without its basis in Kant's work. Like Kant, he refused to see the world as a collection of separate parts, and instead spoke of ultimate and complete reality being found in 'The Whole.'Hegel inspired Karl Marx, who wrote the Communist Manifesto. The main inspiration for Marx was Hegel's dialectic - that of a thesis, an antithesis, and the product of the two (the synthesis) being formed from conflict or compromise.
From this talk about conflict and compromise, you can surmise that Hegel really loved a bit of war. The foundation of this in deeply seated in the disunity of his home Germany at the time; war was seen as a driving, uniting force and the tool that aids the delivery of change. He even said that he 'thinks everything important takes the form of war.'
In fact, most of Hegelian philosophy is based on the idea that change is the only thing you can ever be sure of; and, importantly, that this change is working towards some kind of resolution. But not necessarily an end. And not necessarily a 'good' resolution. The often cited and rather infuriating phrase "God works in mysterious ways" is Hegelian; it suggests that change, no matter how awful it may be, is the goal to which we should strive.
Charles Darwin's The Origin of The Species and the evidence for evolution contained within it resonated deeply with the philosophers at the time. Hegel's dialectic can almost be seen as evolution within a society; The Whole itself is seen as an organism, a complex system moving together for a common goal.
The Dialectic:
A dialectic is a triad of three ideas; the thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis. It assumes that every proposition has a subject and a predicate.
Hegel's example:
- "The Absolute is Pure Being" - Thesis
- "The Absolute is Nothing" - Antithesis
- "The Absolute is Becoming" - Synthesis
He also held that knowledge was a triadic movement:
- It begins with sense-perception of an object
- It moves on to skeptical criticism of the sense - this is purely subjective
- It culminates in self-knowledge - the subject and object are no longer distinct.
Here is where I start to get confused (well, it's not as if I wasn't before.) Bertrand Russell says: "This, of course, must be the case in Hegel's system, for the highest kind of knowledge must be that possessed by the Absolute, and as the Absolute is the Whole there is nothing outside itself for it to know."
Surely, self-consciousness arises from the comparison of one bodies self to its surroundings? If there are no surroundings, then how can it be self-conscious or even truly self-aware? Maybe I'm confusing the pop-culture, pseudo-psychological definition of 'self-conscious' with what Hegel and Russell really intended. I don't know. If someone could explain it to me, I would appreciate it.
Emphasis on logic
Hegel thought that the nature of reality could be deduced from the sole thought that reality must not be self-contradictory.
Here's a nice example to try and illustrate just what that's supposed to mean:
John is an uncle. The relationship of 'uncle' alludes to links to other people; aunts, nephews, brothers and sisters. It is not self-contained, it alludes to something outside of itself. Therefore, the universe could not be described as a uncle. It could not be the whole of reality.
Concerning reason, Hegel thought that: "Reason is the conscious certainty of being all reality."
This does not mean that a separate person is 'all reality'; in his separateness he is not quite real, but what is real in him is his participation in Reality as a whole.
Thought
Hegel claims that the best type of thinking has thoughts which are 'fluent and interfuse', meaning that the distinction between true and false becomes a bit blurred.
"Nothing is wholly false, and nothing that we can know is wholly true." This pessimistic view of human knowledge suggests, in a Descartes sort of way, that we don't know anything. In a Hume fashion, we can not conclusively confirm any fact. Never mind then.
As Russell explains it, "'We can know truth in a way that is false' - it happens when we attribute truth to some detached piece of information."
Hegel's seemingly casual attitude to truth and lies can be explained by his assertion that there is no other truth than that of The Whole and The Absolute - presumably, this means that everything contained within it, even if its a massive fib or a misconception, is the 'truth'.
The Absolute Idea, Spirit, and Freedom
"The Absolute Idea is pure thought thinking about pure thought." - Bertie Russell.
Hegel: "This unity is consequently the absolute and all truth, the Idea which thinks itself."
The Spirit is part of the Absolute, and Matter is its polar opposite. The essence of Matter is gravity; the essence of the Spirit is freedom. Matter is outside itself, the Spirit contains everything inside itself. He states that is the role of the Germans to develop the Spirit.
The Hegelian definition of 'freedom' is a bit off by anyone's standards. To him, there is no freedom without law; he even turns it around to say that 'wherever where is law, there is freedom.' Freedom, to Hegel, could mean little more than a right to obey the law. He's fairly certain that freedom isn't democracy, or a free press.
Well, you could have a 'free' press, so long as you don't publish anything that could put the government or the police into a position of contempt. Oh. Fair enough then Hegel.
Glorification of States and Nations
He believed that there is always a nation which carries the world through the current stage of the dialectic. He thought that at that point, it was Germany's mission to bear it.
Glorification of the state refers to an 'actually existing realised moral life' and is a doctrine which 'justifies every internal tyranny and every external aggression.'
He agreed with Rousseau's ideas about the 'general will' not encompassing and including the wills of every individual but instead reflecting the will of those in charge.
No comments:
Post a Comment