On Immanuel Kant

I first encountered Immanuel Kant at nineteen years of age. I read him then, and read him several times thereafter. Contrary to popular opinion that Kant is complicated, I found him quite simple to break through, leaps and bounds simpler to read than Martin Heidegger.

Immanuel Kant often receives acclaim as one of the greats of the 18th century, and his “Critiques” are what I’d recommend anyone as the books that define his thought. If Kant is to be remembered for anything, it is that he resolves the impasse between rationalism (Descartes, Leibniz) and empiricism (Locke, Hume).

Kant refutes the assumption that our knowledge conforms to objects. He conjectures, instead, that objects conform to our cognitive faculties. While arriving at that conclusion, Kant states that space, time, and categories (causality, substance) are a priori forms imposed by the mind, not derived from experience.

In his Critique of Pure Reason—which can be understood to be discussing theoretical philosophy, a domain that tackles “what is”, touching topics like science, metaphysics, and the limits of cognition, Kant distinguishes phenomena—appearances structured by mind, from noumena—things-in-themselves, which he suggests are unknowable. Kant conjectures that synthetic a priori judgments, like causality and mathematics, are only possible because they stem from the mind’s structure. Kant uses the transcendental deduction, antimonies, and paralogisms in an attempt to limit reason so as to save it from dogmatism and skepticism.

In his Critique of Practical Reason, or what can also be called his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals—which can be understood to be discussing moral philosophy, a domain that tackles “what ought to be”, toughing topics like morality and action, Kant conjectures that morality is autonomous, grounded in reason alone—not in empirical inclinations or divine command. Kant also states what he refers to as the categorical imperative, and he further suggests that the categorical imperative divided in two—“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” and “Treat humanity always as an end and never merely as a means”—demands treating people as ends-in-themselves. Kant also conjectures that freedom is noumenal self-legislation, and that God and immortality are postulates required for moral coherence.

In his Critique of Judgement—which can be understood to be discussing aesthetics and teleology, Kant conjectures that beauty involves disinterested pleasure with subjective universality. He additionally suggests that the sublime reveals the mind’s supersensible power. Kant states that teleological judgement (seeing purpose in nature) connects theoretical understanding to moral ends.