Descartes’ Philosophy and Kant’s Theory of Knowledge
Descartes’ Philosophy
Descartes discards part of a review of their knowledge and concludes that most of them are useless and baseless. According to Descartes, the reason is the same in all individuals; therefore, the diversity of opinions depends on driving the right way, i.e., the method. He thinks it is necessary to find a method that directly addresses the reason to avoid errors. This method consists of four rules:
- To accept as true only the obvious (which is presented clearly and distinctly).
- Perform analysis of problems.
- Go from the simple to the most complex.
- Review everything to omit nothing.
To avoid the vacuum of ideas, while proposing a provisional moral, ideas are true. This has a minimum of moral precepts to guide everyday behavior, the maximum:
- Follow the customs and laws of the country where you have found yourself.
- Constancy in actions.
- Altering your own desires rather than the order of nature.
Then, he decided to debug the knowledge through systematic doubt, which is a method of questioning everything to get something clear. First, he applied it to the sensitivity and discovered that it leads to deception; then, senses sometimes deceive us. After methodical doubt, he applies it to the imagination and comes to the imagination also leads to the obvious because sometimes dreams can be confused with reality. Finally, he applies it to the right. He supposes the existence of an evil genius who changes the mathematical truths; therefore, the reason may also lead to error. But he realizes that he must be some doubt and concludes that “Cogito Ergo Sum“. This is the first principle of his philosophy. With this statement, there can be doubt everything around him, but not thinking. Therefore the soul, which is in charge of thought, is more than the body.
- The question is rational knowledge: you cannot conclude that there is no thought. It shows that the soul produces the thought, taking a previous philosophy.
- This idea is clearly and distinctly, clear. You must now seek other claims to complete the rest of his theory since it only guarantees the internal reality.
Note that in his mind, the idea of perfection exists, but nothing is perfect, so this idea must have been made by someone perfect: God (this link is the second evidence).
- The proof of the existence of God comes from innate ideas, from the scholastic philosophy which seeks to deny.
After the field, he notes that it changes, but all that remains is the extension, which is the third truth of his philosophy. This means I have to deny a vacuum.
Descartes tries to mimic his theory of mathematics, who thinks he is the only science that leads to error. Truths from previous attempts to organize reality. For Descartes, the substance is what exists independently of others; therefore, there is only one substance, God, he calls Infinite Res. Then consider that there are two more substances which are independent in the world but depend on God: Res Cogitans (thought) and Res Extensa (extension). Descartes argues that human beings are beings composed of body and soul; the soul goes to the body and gives will and freedom. These substances come together to develop and communicate through the pineal gland.
Theory of Knowledge (Kant)
Kant addresses the problem of the possibility and limits of human knowledge that provides answers to the question, What can I know?
To understand Kant’s proposal, it is necessary to relate it to rationalism and empiricism, whose approaches are overcome.
Kant aims to solve the difficulties of rationalists and empiricists.
Rationalism considers the source of valid knowledge is the very reason; however, empiricism claims that all our knowledge comes from and it begins with sense experience.
Kant believes that these two aspects are a necessary condition but, individually, are not a sufficient condition to explain consciousness.
Kant’s position is summed with all our knowledge begins with experience, but not everything comes from experience.
Kant conceives of knowledge as a composition of two elements, which are matter and form. For Kant understands the given material, the sensory data, the item afterwards. By shape, what makes the subject, the a priori element, are also known as a priori conditions which are necessary, not from experience and differ from the empirical conditions that are particular and contingent.
This change introduced by Kant in the way of explaining the process of knowledge is known to the Copernican revolution. This is that instead of being the subject which is governed by the objects, is the object which governs the subject.
Linked to the problem of knowledge is in Kant’s question about the possibility of metaphysics as science. Kant accepts the rationalism consideration of metaphysics as the study of the three Cartesian substances but rejects the dogmatism that leads to rationalism. Against the rationalist dogmatism, Kant accepts Hume’s attitude but rejects criticism that leads to skepticism.
Kant seeks to show that scientific knowledge is necessary and justify how it is possible that knowledge.
- Critical is the study that the reason makes itself to establish its possibilities and limits.
- Reason is the set of cognitive abilities.
- Pure is opposed to empirical, means free of matter.
Comparison of Kantian Ethics with Other Ethical Theories
Pre-moral theories of Kant proposed are unethical materials against all of them; Kantian ethics is formal ethics. Materials are unethical because, according to Kant, they have content; we indicate an ultimate end of human actions and also show us how to get it.
For the Sophists, moral values are relative and conventional. Ethics were not purely material, although we showed the existence of two natural laws of human behavior: the pursuit of pleasure and mastery of the fittest.
Socrates, unlike the Sophists, if he believed in the existence of objective moral values and established a method to define rigorously: the maieutics.
Plato proposes a theory more clearly material ethics. It sets an ultimate goal of our actions and also explains how to reach that goal, where moral values are absolute and universal, where we embrace our individual and social behavior.
Aristotle, though not objectivist and relativist, if you have a material clearly moral theory. The final goal of our actions is happiness, and to reach it, we must solve a series of external come, follow a virtuous life, and engage, although not completely, in rational or contemplative life.
The theories as Epicureanism, Stoicism, and skepticism are material. Christianity also proposes ethical material.
The criticism that Kant would you make to emotivism Hume’s moral is not to support his theory that morality is material, but his proposal does not meet the basic requirements of all ethics, i.e., not is a rational and universal ethics, but is based on the validity of moral judgments in the irrational, feelings, and emotions.
Kant’s critique to all previous ethical currents is that to extract the contents of experience can never involve all the people, will never be universal, plus his commandments are conditional and are ethical in the conduct is dictated by external aspects of our personality to reason (desire?).
Kant’s Imperative
Kant aims to establish a universal ethics based on reason; ethics do not mean to indicate exactly what you have to do, but provide the general framework squaring or place where our behavior (the imperative).