Immanuel Kant’s Philosophy: Epistemology, Ontology, Ethics, and Politics
Epistemology
Next, we will relate the philosophy of Immanuel Kant with that of his predecessors. To do this, we will refer to the following fields of study: epistemology, ontology, ethics, and politics. Kant’s 18th century era was dominated by two trends: Rationalism (primacy of reason in the foundation of knowledge) and Empiricism (experience is the origin and limits thereof). Kant overcame these two theories and defended transcendental idealism. Thus, knowledge comes from experience, although the subject modifies the object that it captures (this uses *a priori* formal conditions – space/time). Kantian philosophy also exceeded the criticism of Hume’s principle of causality, illustrated by the example of the billiard ball (if it is the first time we witnessed a game of pool, nothing will allow us to anticipate that the shock of ball 1 with ball 2 will move the second). Thus, Kant says that the subject itself can know us beforehand because his faculty of mind has *a priori* categories “substance” and “causality”.
As we have seen, Kant defends doxa (experience) and episteme (reason). This position is shared by Milesians, Pluralists, Socrates, and Aristotle. Instead, Descartes (rationalist) defends the importance of reason, like Parmenides and Plato. Moreover, Hume said that knowledge only depends on experience/doxa, a position analogous to that of Heraclitus and the Sophists. In addition, Scholasticism defends faith as a way to know the truths revealed by God (St. Augustine, St. Thomas). Finally, you might want to comment that Kant is objectivist (we can reach the absolute truth), as are rationalists (“reason can do anything”), Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, and the pre-Socratics. Meanwhile, empiricists and sophists are relativistic (everyone has their truth) and skeptical (you cannot get the absolute truth). Note the difference about the term “Idea” between Kant (concept of reason about objects that cannot be perceived) and Plato (“templates” of the entities that we perceive in the sensible world).
Ontology
In ontology, Kant called noumenon the being itself (not yet been picked up by experience). In contrast, Plato’s Ideas – and Aristotle’s – are Being (particular entity). Moreover, the Kantian transcendental Ideas are three (God, the world, and the soul), a position analogous to the thought of Descartes (there are three substances: res infinite – God, res extensa – all things, and res cogitans – the thinking subject). Instead, Plato argues that it is the Idea of Good, and Aristotle’s is the Prime Mover Divine (cause of movement). Finally, we should stress the difference between realism (the object modifies the subject – passive – creating in his mind a true image) and idealism (the subject – active – modifies the object).
Ethics
Changing pace, Kantian ethics is opposed to the others. Thus, it is universal, as it includes maxims extended to any individual (others describe specific objectives); formal and autonomous, as it does not describe any supreme good and the individual decides how to act (others are material and heteronomous “there is a supreme good and guide us to achieve”). Therefore, Kant’s ethics includes mandates or categorical imperatives (do not act for any purpose), while the rest of the ethical imperatives are presented as scenarios (our desire is to get something). Moreover, the categorical imperatives are derived from reason. In this sense, Kant opposes Hume’s moral emotivism (feelings determine our behavior) and the moral intellectualism of Socrates (who knows only virtue can be virtuous). Finally, you might want to comment on the difference in the notion of happiness between Kant (depends on subjective interests) and Aristotle (objective: to reach it requires a theoretical life).
Politics
As for politics, Kant says that in the state of nature, human beings have a “double nature”: we are irrational (we are guided by desires) and at the same time morally good. Thus, motivated by duty, we consider it necessary to establish a “social contract” that allows the creation of a Civil State (ensuring security and freedom). In it, the individual would act as co-legislator (therefore only required to obey the laws that have been adopted with their consent). Hobbes also says that the natural state is characterized as “perpetual war”, but to settle the contract, security is achieved (though each individual gives up his freedom). Rousseau, by contrast, argues that in the state of nature “individuals live a peaceful life, but the emergence of private property creates greed and injustice,” so the contract would ensure the creation of a just state (laws would be adopted by “popular will” – similar to Kant).
The type of government advocated by each author is different. Thus:
- Kant proposes the Republic (representative).
- Rousseau, Direct Democracy (government of all, the general will).
- Hobbes, the Absolute Monarchy (provides protection).
Thus, we see how the first two bet on a separation of powers (executive, legislative, and judicial – Rousseau; legislative and executive – Kant) while the latter stands supreme. Finally, we must note that Kant, Rousseau, Hobbes, and St. Pierre fought for legal peace, while other authors like Machiavelli, St. Augustine, or St. Thomas supported the just war.
Kant’s Republic and Modern Representative Democracy
In the mid-eighteenth century, amid a Europe dominated by the absolute monarchy and enlightened despotism, Kant dared to propose an alternative government system, which differed markedly from any other view that prevailed: the Republic. In this regime, the representativeness of citizens is a fundamental approach. Thus, there is a power to draft laws, with the consent of the individuals who make up the State, which they identify with.
Almost three centuries later, Europe has adopted as a unique and viable model of representative democracy, eminently similar to Kant’s Republic. Since the elections in 1977, our country has had a Parliament and separation of powers. However, the question arises: do our representatives and senators really represent us? Should we rethink the dubious system of representation that makes up the Constitution? In Spain, people do not directly elect the parliamentarians. In any case, we choose between different political groupings. Thus, since the time of giving consent to a law, they are driven by party discipline, forgetting the electorate they represent. Moreover, the involvement of citizens in issues that affect the state is virtually zero. Thus, the recourse to referenda (as in other countries – Switzerland) and signature-gathering mechanisms are not exempt from many requirements and legal obstacles.
In this regard, we as citizens do not act in “co-legislation”, contradicting the proposal of Kant. Furthermore, the current mechanism of representation is of doubtful reliability because it does not fully reflect the popular will. The most flagrant example is found in recent regional elections. So the second match in the number of votes won two seats less than the third, let alone the unbalanced distribution of deputies among the islands. These are circumstances evidencing the distance between the deputies and senators (representatives) and the people (represented). It may be necessary to dust off the old political theories of Kant. We would be surprised by its enormous utility in the 21st century.