Immanuel Kant’s Philosophy: Ethics, Knowledge, and Reality
Immanuel Kant’s Moral Philosophy
Kant posits that within humans, there exists a moral conscience, a moral law that compels us to question how we should act. This is the realm of practical reason, which concerns itself not with what things *are* (the domain of pure theoretical reason), but with how they *should be*. Practical reason’s function is to investigate the principles governing human action.
While pure reason forms judgments, practical reason, as we will see, formulates imperatives—commands that must be universal, necessary, and synthetic *a priori*. These are categorical imperatives. This imperative is also formal and autonomous, encompassing the core features of Kantian ethics.
A Universal and Formal Ethic
Kant proposes an ethic applicable to all individuals at all times—a universal ethic. This ethic must be formal, not material, unlike previous ethical systems. It contains no substantive content, such as happiness or pleasure as goals. It does not dictate *what* we should do, but rather *how* we ought to act. It is autonomous; no external authority can dictate our behavior, as that would render it heteronomous. Furthermore, it is categorical, not hypothetical; it does not posit scenarios like “if you desire this, then you must do that,” as this would limit its universality, making it valid only for those seeking that specific goal.
Goodwill and Duty
The determining factor of an action’s goodness is the will’s submission to reason (goodwill). Acting ethically means acting out of duty. Duty serves as the criterion for judging the goodness or badness of our actions. Kant identifies three ways of acting:
- Acting *against* duty: For instance, a merchant charging exorbitant prices to customers. This action is contrary to duty.
- Acting *according to* duty: The same merchant refrains from charging exorbitant prices to retain customers.
- Acting *from* duty: The merchant does not charge exorbitant prices because it is their duty. This is the only morally valuable behavior, as it is not motivated by selfish reasons but by obedience to duty.
Each individual has, inscribed within their consciousness, the knowledge of their duty.
Formulations of the Categorical Imperative
Kant provides several formulations of his categorical imperative:
- “Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
- “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”
Freedom and the Postulates of Practical Reason
Moral experience, acting out of respect for duty, implies freedom, a fundamental tenet of ethics. Without freedom, moral conduct would be impossible. The world and God are the two postulates of practical reason, as demonstrated in his theory of knowledge.
Kant’s Three Fundamental Questions
Humans desire and need to know. Kant poses three fundamental questions:
- What can I know? (Addressed in the *Critique of Pure Reason*)
- How should I act? (Addressed in the *Critique of Practical Reason*)
- What may I hope? (Addressed in the *Critique of Judgment*)
These three questions can be reduced to one: What is man?
While practical reason establishes the foundation of all morality, pure reason is the foundation of scientific knowledge.
Kant’s Theory of Knowledge
Modern philosophy (rationalism and empiricism) grappled with the problem of human knowledge, offering conflicting perspectives. Rationalism asserted that the only valid knowledge, science, is derived from reason. Reason was seen as the origin, value, and limit of all knowledge, dismissing the reliability of the senses. Empiricism, conversely, maintained that experience, what we perceive through the senses, is the sole source of true knowledge, its value, origin, and limit.
Reconciling Rationalism and Empiricism
Kant sought to resolve this philosophical dilemma by asserting that all knowledge must originate from experience, from sensory perception, but that not all knowledge is reducible to experience. Without this distinction, science would be impossible. The starting point is the validity of science, exemplified by Newtonian physics, which was based on experience (contingent and particular) yet formulated laws with universal and necessary value. He examines the conditions that make science possible, concluding that scientific laws are possible when reason and experience work in tandem.
The Structure of the *Critique of Pure Reason*
The *Critique of Pure Reason* comprises three parts:
- The Transcendental Aesthetic: Examines *a priori* synthetic judgments in mathematics. Space and time are *a priori* conditions of our sensibility that enable mathematics and science.
- The Transcendental Analytic: Explores *a priori* judgments in physics and the categories.
The Role of Reason and Experience in Knowledge
Knowledge is constituted by what we receive from experience through our senses and what our reason provides. Reason is not passive in knowledge acquisition but plays an active role. Knowledge based on experience pertains to particular things: I see this chair or this tree. Consequently, it cannot yield universal principles necessary for science. The physics of Galileo or Newton originates from experience, the observation of individual cases, multiple variables (Heraclitus), but requires something more—universal laws, universal concepts (Parmenides)—that do not derive from experience. These are pure concepts or categories, of which there are twelve.
Understanding and Categories
In addition to experience as a source of knowledge, we possess understanding, whose function is to spontaneously produce pure concepts or categories. These categories serve to unify the impressions we receive from experience and generate universal laws. There are twelve such categories. For example, the concept “orange” unifies the impressions we receive when we see an orange: color, size, shape, taste, etc. Knowledge is produced by the understanding, which is active.
Synthetic *a priori* Judgments
Science consists of judgments that are synthetic *a priori*. Synthetic judgments are those whose predicate is not contained within the subject and convey new information, unlike analytic judgments where the predicate is included in the subject. For example:
- A square has four sides. (Analytic) The predicate “four sides” is included in the subject “square” because a square, by definition, has four sides.
- Young people in my village drink beer. (Synthetic) “Drinking beer” is not inherent to “young people in my village,” so it imparts new information.
*A priori* judgments are not derived from experience but precede it and make it possible. The example of the square is *a priori*; we do not need to resort to experience, checking each case, to know it is true. An *a posteriori* judgment is one that comes from experience and is particular. The example of the young people in my village can only be verified as true through observation.
Therefore, necessary and valid judgments for the sciences are synthetic (they teach something new) and *a priori* (they are universal, necessary, and independent of experience). For instance, “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” is characteristic of physics. It is synthetic because the predicate is not included in the subject and conveys new information, and it is *a priori* because we do not need to verify it through experience on a case-by-case basis.
Phenomenon and Noumenon
What we perceive through experience is the phenomenon, and what lies beyond experience is the noumenon. We can only know phenomena, which originate from experience. All experience is given in space and time, which are empty frameworks where sensory perceptions are placed. They are *a priori* forms, pure intuitions of sensibility. The noumenon remains unknown. Everything we perceive occurs somewhere and at some time.
The Transcendental Dialectic and Metaphysics
The third part, the “Transcendental Dialectic,” seeks to demonstrate *a priori* synthetic judgments in metaphysics and determine whether metaphysics, therefore, is a science, a subject of scientific knowledge. Metaphysics, by definition, consists of *a priori* synthetic judgments; it deals with the noumenon, what lies beyond experience, beyond space and time, which are the conditions for knowledge. It seeks the unconditioned, rendering metaphysics impossible as a science.
The Objects of Metaphysics
The objects of metaphysics are the three substances of rationalism: the self, the world, and God. These substances are real but not objects of knowledge because they do not derive from experience. No one perceives the self, the world, or God but only particular things. These substances are thinkable but not knowable. They are ideals of reason, the third source of knowledge, and postulates of practical reason, as we saw earlier.
José Ortega y Gasset’s Philosophy of Life and Reality
All philosophers have pondered the origin and nature of everything, of reality. Ortega also addresses this question, identifying two positions that have persisted throughout the history of thought:
- Realism: Affirms the existence of an external world independent of us, prevalent among ancient philosophers.
- Idealism: Denies the existence of this external world and affirms the existence of the world as thought by the self, characteristic of modern philosophy.
The Coexistence of Self and World
Ortega critiques the limitations of both positions, asserting that ultimate reality is neither the existence of the world nor the existence of the self but the *coexistence* of the self with the world. This coexistence, Ortega terms “life.” Therefore, the fundamental reality for Ortega is life. The existence of a world without a thinking self is problematic, unknowable, but the existence of a self without a world to think is equally nonsensical. Thus, radical reality is the coexistence of the thinking self and the world thought by the self. We see that Ortega aligns with the vitalist current, like Nietzsche.
Life as Engagement and Concern
This fundamental reality, life, is the coexistence of the self with the world and the world with the self. We encounter ourselves in the world, engaged in something. We are concerned with what is in the world, and the world is something that concerns us. This also entails an awareness that we are alive. Life is also free decision, a project within circumstances, encompassing the past, present, and future; it is history. Without life, there is nothing. Life is the most indisputable fact, even preceding thought, contrary to Descartes’ assertion. It is not “I think, therefore I am,” but rather “I am alive, therefore I think.”
Circumstance and Perspective
Life, with its characteristics, constitutes circumstances. This circumstance is essential to life. “I am myself and my circumstance; if I do not save it, I do not save myself.” To live is to live within a circumstance.
Reality is, therefore, a matter of principle, but also of perspective. This life is multifaceted; reality has multiple meanings, it is perspectival, presented from different viewpoints. Each perspective is one among the plurality of existing perspectives. Every human being lives in the real world, in their world, making it possible for them to be themselves. The only way to approach the reality of the world is by multiplying perspectives and acknowledging this irreducible multiplicity.
Ortega’s Theory of Knowledge
Philosophy is constitutionally necessary to the intellect, to life, and life is lived, experienced. The most fundamental task of understanding is philosophizing. Humans have historically employed reason to understand reality, which was static, to know objects. However, this is no longer sufficient because humans are not objects but living, pulsating beings, constantly being made and unmade. Humans elude reason like “water through a basket.” Ortega proposes a vital, historical reason capable of grasping human life, which is its history. “Man has no nature, but history.” Everyone has a life plan; we are concerned with our future to understand both our past and our present. If we embrace this plan and immerse ourselves in it, our being is perfected. If we turn our backs on it, our existence will remain empty. By knowing our history and our future, we can understand our present.
Ideas, Beliefs, and Generations
Ortega distinguishes between what is inherent to us and what we are compelled to choose among ideas and beliefs. Beliefs are the “legacy” left by society, stemming from the course of history. Ideas, in contrast, “are” ours, and we can choose and use them to solve the problems that life presents us.
Another key concept is Ortega’s notion of generation. Generations are groups of people, different societies with a shared vision for the future, who guide our lives along a dynamic path in pursuit of a common project.
“The Revolt of the Masses”
In *The Revolt of the Masses*, Ortega examines the concepts of mass and elite in the new society of the 20th century.