Why should a Christian concern him or herself with philosophy? I like the way Francis Schaeffer approaches this issue. He sees it as a mission to engage philosophy. C.S. Lewis felt that it was a worthy endeavor simply because bad philosophy should be challenged. I personally find that it keeps us in contact or in the conversation of current events. Often times it requires philosophical jargon go express theological realities. It is probably true that Christians reject philosophy because there is an intimidation factor or that it requires work (neither is an acceptable excuse considering the fact that the gospel is under philosophical attack almost constantly).
Sometimes when one studies philosophy one gets so caught up in a series of arguments that it is difficult to remember why one began to study a particular issue to begin with. This happens in theology as well. I recall in the book of Judges the Jews had to recall a border dispute to show their enemies why they had a righteous claim on certain land rights. If we never had to go the long way to do something godly we would have to scrap church business meetings all together. Sometimes the long road yields fruit that the shortest path could not have produced, i.e. 40 years in the wilderness.
No one tests the bounds of philosophical futility more than Immanuel Kant. He never crosses the line in my opinion, but he does come close. With Kant, one can find oneself thinking about a universe with just one hand in it to determine if there is inherent meaning in the physical makeup of the cosmos. If it were not for the enormity of the issue he was exploring and its implications it would be sinful to waste time chasing after such thoughts. Kant was a very crafty thinker and his thoughts had ramifications that still effect us today. I think it would almost be a sin not to explore some of the thoughts of these great thinkers, especially since they are likely the genesis of thoughts that have lead people astray from the truths of scripture for many years. The ironic think with Kant is that he was actually trying to defend Christianity, but some of the ideas he bought into had a catastrophic effect on the cerebral landscape of his time and beyond.
It will be work to critique Critique of Pure Reason but the fruits of this study will be worthy of our calling as Christians.
For someone who is new in philosophy, asking them to understand Kant first is sort of like asking a kid at his first swimming lesson to dive into the deep end of the pool without a life preserver. I will do my best to make this plain and clear but you may have to read this several times and post questions. Your efforts will be rewarded.
Critique of Pure Reason
Preface
Preface
What is cognition? It is the act or process of knowing something. Kant starts his preface with a pretty bold postulate, "There can be little doubt that all our cognition begins with experience." In the field of epistemology (how we know things) this is a statement that yields a dichotomy: first, Kant is making a statement about how much the world outside of our own minds effects what we know and how much the outside world imposes itself on our noetic equipment (our minds). This is classically known as externalism. Externalists believe that the outside world has a great effect on what we know. The opposite of externalism is internalism, which states that our noetic equipment is not effected by anything other than its self.There is a whole world of moderate positions between the two which I believe Kant falls into; we will revisit this issue again. The second part of the dichotomy is called Foundationalism. Foundationalists believe that our knowledge rests on foundations which are usually external to ourselves. What would qualify as a foundational belief to build ones epistemology upon? I believe the laws of logic qualify. Usually Foundationalists base their epistemology on external perceivable realities. No doubt, we will visit this again later.
Kant questions how one's cognitive abilities can be stirred into action without outside forces effecting our senses. I want to take a moment and mention that this could go down a very troubling avenue. If outside forces stir us into our cognitive processes it is going to be hard to escape some form of determinism. I'm not sure whether Kant is concerning himself with this at all, it could be one of his main points for all I know. We really need to stop and consider the consequences of this statement. If physical forces outside of my mind determine my thoughts, then I really have very little control over my own thoughts and what I believe. This is a big issue in philosophy known as doxastic voluntarism; how much control do I have over my own beliefs? Don't I have a duty to believe what is most rational within the knowledge I posses? This question sums up what is known as epistemic duties. If forces outside of my mind cause me to believe what I believe then my epistemic duties go no further than what I believe. A doxastic determinism caused my beliefs and my epistemic duties are to believe what ever it is that I believe because I had absolutely no control over what I believe. I suspect we will visit this again as well.
The word "stir" is a bit ambiguous, but Kant emphasizes experience so much that it seems likely "stir" means "cause" rather than "influence" or "nudge".
Kant feels that the objects of the world do two things. First, they bring about presentations. The word "presentations" would seem to imply that our senses may be imperfect and so the objects can only be manifested as presentations rather that univocal (exactly the same) copies in our minds of what is actually in the world (this is an educated guess). Secondly, they begin a process in our minds. This process is an effort to understand by comparing these presentations and either make connections or clear divisions. An example of a connection would be making historical connections such as the Treaty of Versailles to World War II; an example of a division might be the difference between a rock and a ball or how the Civil War was different from the Vietnam War. These collective impressions are called experiences. According to Kant we must have experiences in order to have cognitions, therefore experiences precede cognitions. So far this is Externalism; forces outside of our minds are critical to how and what we think.
Kant stresses that all cognition begins with experience, but if we think that all cognition is a result of experience then we are being too hasty. What does he mean? He is saying that while the initiative of thought may be experience the preceding thoughts are the result of the thoughts before them. So the way this may play out is one has an experience which causes a thought which causes a thought. The direct agent for one thought is not always experience but the ultimate cause is experience. Now, Kant has not avoided doxastic determinism because experience would still set noetic events in motion. When we have experiences it is possible that our minds supply thoughts into those impressions and distinctions between the two can become foggy. The way this can be conceived is to imagine that our minds have a data base of information stored in them. When we have an experience it sets our minds in motion and we add to those thoughts other thoughts from our data base, and how one distinguishes between the two can be murky. These stored thoughts are still subject to externalism for they arrived by experiences as well and then were stored.
If there is a cognition separate from experience (this would be internalism), according to Kant, it is not easy to determine and he admits ignorance on this issue. If there are cognitions separate from experience that are unprompted they are called a priori cognitions. Cognitions based in experience are called posteriori cognitions.
A priori cognitions are an ambiguous area for Kant and because of this the full meaning of the question of whether they exist at all is yet to be determined. Kant acknowledges that there are universal laws of logic; he insists that we come to these through experience. So, we have experiences and we may add to those experiences with a priori cognition, which is available to us through universal laws of logic which we also gained (Kant actually says "borrowed") through experience. Kant offers an illustration: "if someone has undermined the foundation of his house, we say that he would have known a priori that the house could cave in, i.e., he did not have to wait for the experience of its actually caving in. And yet he could not have known this completely a priori. For he did first have to find out through experience that bodies have weight and hence fall when their support is withdrawn."
Kant stresses that when he is referring to a priori he is not indicating that which is independent of certain experiences, but rather absolutely independent of all experience. If there are a priori cognitions that are completely independent from all experiences then they are to be considered pure. Kant grants an example that the notion "every change has its cause" is an a priori proposition, but it may not be considered pure because the entire concept of change only comes about through experience.
Let's summarize:
1) Cognition arrives through experience
2) Not all cognition arrives through experience
3) Some cognition arrives through previously stored cognition and interacts with cognition that is sparked by experience
4) If there is cognition that is separate from experience then it is called a priori
5) there are laws of logic
6) even a priori cognition that borrows from the laws of logic is rooted in experience
7) therefore, there is no pure a priori cognition
It is important to keep in mind that while Kant was a Theist he has done a great disservice to Theism by inviting the notion that the only mind that matters is the mind of man. We can not maintain that God received knowledge through experience. Given our current discussion of God and time, the Atemporalist has a good argument that shows that notions like a priori knowledge could never apply to God for he is not subject to time to begin with. Can not this God give man pure a priori knowledge? I say yes, if God so chooses thus.
Proverbs 8:22-27 (wisdom says) "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth, before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there."
Before there were any things for one to experience wisdom was there. This passage is also speaking of Jesus, but the point for our look at Kant is that there is a mind that matters beyond man's. Notice that Kant expected us to understand his propositions regardless of whether the question of pure reason could be answered. This implies that there are things all people should know, because there is a law of logic that sets the parameters for what is knowable in the first place. So, we have a diversity of people with a diversity of experiences which all know the exact same thing, namely, the laws of logic. Kant admitted to a universal law of logic, how did that get there? This law does not change regardless of man's experiences. C.S. Lewis did this subject well for he establishes that miracles can occur if the uniformity of cause and effect can be shown to be violated. The laws of logic do just this because there is no cause within the universe for them and yet we use them all the time. We can avoid the problem of doxastic determinism because the laws of logic violates cause and effect. What is fascinating is that we can't even approach the laws of logic with questions like, "what causes them?" because they are static so nothing dynamic can cause them. The human brain (not to be confused with "mind") is dynamic, all material things are dynamic. The real question is "what sustains them?" Only an immutable mind can sustain them that is not subject to the dynamic principles of the universe and yet interacts with it. Romans 1 would seem to imply that God has embedded certain knowledge about particular things concerning himself that does not require experience, but rather is "built into" our cognitive abilities a priori. Although, these passages could assume that man is having the experiences he needs to possess knowledge off God, but I think this would assume Kant's assumption that man's brain and mind are the same thing (this gets into mind/body dualism which is an entirely different treatment which we will look at later and I will tie into these issues). This, along with Proverbs 8, seems to imply that there is such a thing as pure, a priori cognition. I am not saying that Kant is completely wrong but I am skeptical toward his position. How is Kant not completely wrong? Because man is limited and while we do have varying degrees of experience we still experience the laws of logic. What is important to remember is that these laws of logic exist whether humanity experiences them or not.
Kant questions how one's cognitive abilities can be stirred into action without outside forces effecting our senses. I want to take a moment and mention that this could go down a very troubling avenue. If outside forces stir us into our cognitive processes it is going to be hard to escape some form of determinism. I'm not sure whether Kant is concerning himself with this at all, it could be one of his main points for all I know. We really need to stop and consider the consequences of this statement. If physical forces outside of my mind determine my thoughts, then I really have very little control over my own thoughts and what I believe. This is a big issue in philosophy known as doxastic voluntarism; how much control do I have over my own beliefs? Don't I have a duty to believe what is most rational within the knowledge I posses? This question sums up what is known as epistemic duties. If forces outside of my mind cause me to believe what I believe then my epistemic duties go no further than what I believe. A doxastic determinism caused my beliefs and my epistemic duties are to believe what ever it is that I believe because I had absolutely no control over what I believe. I suspect we will visit this again as well.
The word "stir" is a bit ambiguous, but Kant emphasizes experience so much that it seems likely "stir" means "cause" rather than "influence" or "nudge".
Kant feels that the objects of the world do two things. First, they bring about presentations. The word "presentations" would seem to imply that our senses may be imperfect and so the objects can only be manifested as presentations rather that univocal (exactly the same) copies in our minds of what is actually in the world (this is an educated guess). Secondly, they begin a process in our minds. This process is an effort to understand by comparing these presentations and either make connections or clear divisions. An example of a connection would be making historical connections such as the Treaty of Versailles to World War II; an example of a division might be the difference between a rock and a ball or how the Civil War was different from the Vietnam War. These collective impressions are called experiences. According to Kant we must have experiences in order to have cognitions, therefore experiences precede cognitions. So far this is Externalism; forces outside of our minds are critical to how and what we think.
Kant stresses that all cognition begins with experience, but if we think that all cognition is a result of experience then we are being too hasty. What does he mean? He is saying that while the initiative of thought may be experience the preceding thoughts are the result of the thoughts before them. So the way this may play out is one has an experience which causes a thought which causes a thought. The direct agent for one thought is not always experience but the ultimate cause is experience. Now, Kant has not avoided doxastic determinism because experience would still set noetic events in motion. When we have experiences it is possible that our minds supply thoughts into those impressions and distinctions between the two can become foggy. The way this can be conceived is to imagine that our minds have a data base of information stored in them. When we have an experience it sets our minds in motion and we add to those thoughts other thoughts from our data base, and how one distinguishes between the two can be murky. These stored thoughts are still subject to externalism for they arrived by experiences as well and then were stored.
If there is a cognition separate from experience (this would be internalism), according to Kant, it is not easy to determine and he admits ignorance on this issue. If there are cognitions separate from experience that are unprompted they are called a priori cognitions. Cognitions based in experience are called posteriori cognitions.
A priori cognitions are an ambiguous area for Kant and because of this the full meaning of the question of whether they exist at all is yet to be determined. Kant acknowledges that there are universal laws of logic; he insists that we come to these through experience. So, we have experiences and we may add to those experiences with a priori cognition, which is available to us through universal laws of logic which we also gained (Kant actually says "borrowed") through experience. Kant offers an illustration: "if someone has undermined the foundation of his house, we say that he would have known a priori that the house could cave in, i.e., he did not have to wait for the experience of its actually caving in. And yet he could not have known this completely a priori. For he did first have to find out through experience that bodies have weight and hence fall when their support is withdrawn."
Kant stresses that when he is referring to a priori he is not indicating that which is independent of certain experiences, but rather absolutely independent of all experience. If there are a priori cognitions that are completely independent from all experiences then they are to be considered pure. Kant grants an example that the notion "every change has its cause" is an a priori proposition, but it may not be considered pure because the entire concept of change only comes about through experience.
Let's summarize:
1) Cognition arrives through experience
2) Not all cognition arrives through experience
3) Some cognition arrives through previously stored cognition and interacts with cognition that is sparked by experience
4) If there is cognition that is separate from experience then it is called a priori
5) there are laws of logic
6) even a priori cognition that borrows from the laws of logic is rooted in experience
7) therefore, there is no pure a priori cognition
It is important to keep in mind that while Kant was a Theist he has done a great disservice to Theism by inviting the notion that the only mind that matters is the mind of man. We can not maintain that God received knowledge through experience. Given our current discussion of God and time, the Atemporalist has a good argument that shows that notions like a priori knowledge could never apply to God for he is not subject to time to begin with. Can not this God give man pure a priori knowledge? I say yes, if God so chooses thus.
Proverbs 8:22-27 (wisdom says) "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth, before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there."
Before there were any things for one to experience wisdom was there. This passage is also speaking of Jesus, but the point for our look at Kant is that there is a mind that matters beyond man's. Notice that Kant expected us to understand his propositions regardless of whether the question of pure reason could be answered. This implies that there are things all people should know, because there is a law of logic that sets the parameters for what is knowable in the first place. So, we have a diversity of people with a diversity of experiences which all know the exact same thing, namely, the laws of logic. Kant admitted to a universal law of logic, how did that get there? This law does not change regardless of man's experiences. C.S. Lewis did this subject well for he establishes that miracles can occur if the uniformity of cause and effect can be shown to be violated. The laws of logic do just this because there is no cause within the universe for them and yet we use them all the time. We can avoid the problem of doxastic determinism because the laws of logic violates cause and effect. What is fascinating is that we can't even approach the laws of logic with questions like, "what causes them?" because they are static so nothing dynamic can cause them. The human brain (not to be confused with "mind") is dynamic, all material things are dynamic. The real question is "what sustains them?" Only an immutable mind can sustain them that is not subject to the dynamic principles of the universe and yet interacts with it. Romans 1 would seem to imply that God has embedded certain knowledge about particular things concerning himself that does not require experience, but rather is "built into" our cognitive abilities a priori. Although, these passages could assume that man is having the experiences he needs to possess knowledge off God, but I think this would assume Kant's assumption that man's brain and mind are the same thing (this gets into mind/body dualism which is an entirely different treatment which we will look at later and I will tie into these issues). This, along with Proverbs 8, seems to imply that there is such a thing as pure, a priori cognition. I am not saying that Kant is completely wrong but I am skeptical toward his position. How is Kant not completely wrong? Because man is limited and while we do have varying degrees of experience we still experience the laws of logic. What is important to remember is that these laws of logic exist whether humanity experiences them or not.
4 comments:
Hey Travis -- I am a little rusty (think old nails on the Titanic) on epistemology. But, I'm not sure I follow you on doxastic determinism. It seems to me that we cannot avoid the fact that our beliefs are determined. Of course, I am assuming a form of compatiblism here, but nevertheless that includes soft determinism. If our cognitive faculties are working properly, they would rightly submit to the laws of logic and rationality. Yet, I am a little leary of the way you said that the laws of logic violate cause and effect. Unless we posit that logic is part of the nature of God, logic must have been caused by God. Of course we could ride down Socrates' rollercoaster: is something good because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it is good. In other words, is logic a standard that God follows, or did God simply decree what is logical.
I don't know if Logic can be called part of the nature of God. I think it is separate and therefore "created." I would be willing to change that position, and I don't think this is germain to my point.
Either way, properly working cognitive faculties are somewhat determined by the laws of logic and rationality. Also, and this is important, improperly working cognitive faculties -- all of us must deal with this -- are determined as well because of the noetic effects of the fall. So, whether we are rightly beleiving or wrongly believing, those beliefs are determined in some meaningful way. I'd like to hear you thoughts on this...but, let me throw out there that I do not think this form of compatiblism or soft determinism means that our beliefs are not our own. Nor do I think that we are unable to accomplish our epistemic duties. Bottom line -- determinism seems to be unavoidable. Hit me back. -- Jason
"I am a little leary of the way you said that the laws of logic violate cause and effect. Unless we posit that logic is part of the nature of God, logic must have been caused by God." The laws of logic violate cause and effect in the naturalistic framework. Because the naturalist holds only to materialistic nominalism they can not afford for the laws of logic to be static in any way. We posit an immutable mind that generates or sustains these laws while the materialist has to claim that we generate them. The static nature of the laws of logic demonstrates the falsehood of their position because obviously our minds are not immutable.
As far as determinism, we have the possibility of doxastic volunteerism. The naturalist is stuck only with a determinism and yet behaves as if it were not so. I think if I had to defend determined versus free beliefs Blog Spot would have to create a new domain so I'll leave it at that.
I see what you are saying about the laws of Logic now. Our minds would have to be immuntable to generate logic. That's obviously not the case. Do you think that God created Logic or do you think it is part of his Nature? (I'm throwing out the option that Logic is some sort of standard that is greater than God.) -- Jason
P.S. We'll talk later about doxastic determinism. No need to create a new domain tonight.
I think that logic is part of his nature and that our use of the laws of logic demonstrates a way in which we bear his likeness. I find it interesting that the laws of logic have similar traits that God does and this makes me think that we are not talking about something outside of him at all, but rather a manifestation of his nature that is perceivable. Notice that the laws of logic must be omnipresent, they can exist in more than one mind at once or in all at once; they are immutable, if they could change then they would not be laws at all. If they reflect something about God then we can't say they were created perfect in that they can not be wrong or be added to or taken away from, but rather they are perfect because they reside within a perfect mind. This is not to say that they don't reflect perfection for we would not recognize them as laws if they were not reliable as they are, but it is important to keep in mind that I am not saying they are perfect APART from God. The only way they could be perfect is because of the perfect mind that they emanate from. If this seems like a flawed argument I may not be explaining it well, so let me know if you see a theological problem with this. Also, wisdom is never apart from morality. What I find interesting is that the laws of logic are very similar to the laws of morality, that God has allowed man to perceive morality in a very similar way to the laws of logic. Also, I can partake in the laws of logic as well as the laws of morality. When I do something wrong logically I am still partaking in the laws of logic, just in a flawed way. When I do something wrong morally I am partaking in the laws of morality, just in a flawed way. To be honest I am kind of spit balling here so if I just typed something heretical I will retract.
Post a Comment