¡¡º£Æü¤Ï¥«¥ó¥È¡£¥«¥ó¥È¤Îů³Ø¡ÊĶ±ÛÏÀŪǧ¼±ÏÀ¡Ë¤È¡¢Äê¸ÀÌ¿Ë¡¤Ë¤è¤ëÆ»ÆÁů³Ø¡¦ÎÑÍý³Ø¤Ë¤Ä¤¤¤Æ¤Þ¤È¤á¤é¤ì¤Æ¤¤¤ë¤â¤Î¤ò¥á¥â¡£
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), a native of Koenigsberg in Prussia, was educated at Koenigsberg University, which became famous as a center of philosophy through his long tenure its faculty. Kant had been profoundly influenced by the works of Leibniz, Newton, and Hume, as well as (to a lesser degree) by Rousseau, Voltaire, and the British Deists and Intuitionists. Publication of his
Critique of Pure Reason in 1781 initiated a new era in philosophical thought.
His most significant writings, in addition to the
Critique of Pure Reason, were his
Critique of Practical Reason (1788),
Critique of Judgment (1790),
Prolegomena to Every Future System of Metaphysics (1793),
Religion within the Limits of Pure Reason (1784),
Fundamental Principles of Metaphysics of Morals (1785), and
Eternal Peace (1795). The first three works developed the foundations of his philosophy, expounding his transcendental method as applied to epistemology (in the
Critique of Pure Reason), ethics (in the
Critique of Practical Reason), and aesthetics (in the
Critique of Judgment).
All three critiques analyze the
a priori aspects of the mind, i.e., mental functions prior to sense experience. Kant realized that it would be necessary, first, to explore the nature of the mind itself, and second, to trace the connections between its
a priori nature and its
a posteriori sense impressions in order to unite or synthesize these two aspects of mental activity.
Kant's Epistemological Problem.
In his
Critique of Pure Reason Kant delved into the fundamental epistemological question, "How are
a priori synthetic judgments possible?" In other words, how can we explain the possibility of scientific knowledge, or, more precisely, that relationship between cause and effect which enables the mind to grasp scientific truths?
It will be recalled that David Hume had negated the laws of causation as unverifiable be means of sense experience, reducing cause-effect relationships to the status of mere habitual assumptions. Kant was unable to cope with the Humean problem on the basis of Cartesian Rationalism, but he was inspired by Leibniz¡Ç reference to the human mind as an active process, as something more than sense impressions. The idea that the intellect possesses a character and powers of its own, he felt, would enable him to prove that scientific laws, particularly the Newtonian laws he admired, are valid demonstrable truths. His analysis divided the process of attaining knowledge into three stages: (1) the transcendental aesthetic; (2) the transcendental analytic; and (3) the transcendental dialectic. Instead of choosing between the Rationalist view that knowledge is derived from innate ideas and the Empiricist view that its source is sense experience, Kant analyzed the nature of the act of knowing, and he concluded that both the mind endowed with
a priori perceptions and the sensory impressions must unite tu yield scientific (or valid) knowledge.
Moral law.
The main purpose of Kant¡Çs system of ethics was to formulate moral laws as those necessary and universal objects of the human will which must be accepted as valid for everyone. Kant concluded that there are moral laws which he described as the
categorical imperative, constituting moral commands which every person is bound to obey irrespective of the particular circumstances confronting him. The individual must will to obey the moral law without exception. Right is right and must be done even under the most extreme conditions. ¡ÈLet justice be done though the heavens fall.¡É
We know what is morally right
a priori, by intuition, without having to consider practical circumstances. Indeed, the facts in a situation have no bearing upon the moral law, which must govern all conduct despite either the consequences which may follow from obeying the law or the conditions under which it is obeyed. The moral law does not depend upon what we want, desire, like, or love; it is a statement of what we
ought to will. Kant asserted that ¡ÈI ought¡É implies ¡ÈI can¡É; if the categorical imperative obligates the will to obey a moral command, it must necessarily follow that the individual has the power to carry out the obligation. What is not within one¡Çs power to do, can never be a moral obligation.
Nature of the Categorical Imperative.
The moral command which every person has the duty to obey --- the categorical imperative --- allows of no exceptions. It is universal, so that whatever is morally right for one person to do, is right for all, and whatever is morally wrong for him is wrong for all. Kant¡Çs maxim is a philosophical version of the Golden Rule: ¡ÈAct only on that maxim whereby you can at the same will that it should become a universal law.¡É
Consider an example of the categorical imperative. It might seem wise or prudent to break a promise because other people might be harmed if you kept your promise. But do you have a moral right to break a promise? Not according to Kant¡Çs categorical imperative, for that principle states that your action must be universally applicable, and surely you would not wish everyone to have the moral right to break promises whenever he so desires. It is therefore your duty to keep your promise, just as you would expect others to keep their pledges. The categorical imperative is a moral law binding upon every person so that what is right for one is right for all humanity: you must ¡Èact as if the maxim from which you act were to become your will a universal law of nature.¡É
(W. S. Sahakian,
Outline-History of Philosophy.)
¡ÚÅö¥¦¥§¥Ö¥í¥°¤Î2010ǯ6·îʬ¤Î¹ç·×¥¢¥¯¥»¥¹¿ô¡§21702¡Û