Philosophical Relationships with Kant’s Thought
Kant’s Philosophical Relationships
Like most philosophers, Kant’s philosophy presents characteristics that relate to the philosophical thoughts of other philosophers. Here, we explore these relationships.
Kant and Prior Philosophies
Kant differed from previous philosophical proposals, which assumed that knowledge is a process by which an individual grasps an object *as it is*. Kant proposed that the object adjusts to the mental structures of the subject to be known.
Kant and Hume
Kant’s theory addresses Hume’s principle of causality. Hume explained that ideas could not necessarily relate and lead to connections. Kant countered that, from *a priori* judgments, the subject can relate these ideas through reason. Kant stated that reading Hume “awoke him from his dogmatic slumber.”
Kant’s critique of metaphysics stems from the idea that metaphysical content cannot pass the test of experience. If the source of knowledge is in perceptions, there is no perception that corresponds to metaphysical ideas. Yet, Kant could not accept Hume’s skepticism about scientific laws. These are not, in Kant’s opinion, *a priori* but *a posteriori*, so they can only be probable and not necessarily true.
Hume’s emotivism and utilitarianism are the polar opposite of Kant’s approach. Kant, in his pursuit of universal reason, chooses objective, universal ethics, regardless of emotional and private interests. Reason moves us, and only reason can lead us to defend what is right. Without a universally shared concept of reason, we cannot have a concept of law that works for everyone.
Kant, Plato, and Aristotle
For Kant, to know, we must first understand the concept and then relate it to the manifestation of the noumenon (phenomenon), leading to knowledge. Plato believed that we already knew these things—the ideas—as they were implied in our soul. However, the reincarnated soul had forgotten, and so we learned; learning was a way for the soul to remember ideas.
Aristotle believed that we know through sensory experience; reality is what we perceive. Following this line, we can relate Kant’s “noumenon” to Plato’s “idea,” both symbolizing the essence of an entity. However, Plato’s ideas were outside the sensible world and the things they represented, while Kant’s noumenon was, in addition to its essence, the object itself.
Kant, Hobbes, and Rousseau
Regarding politics, Kant believed that man was evil by nature, and therefore, it was necessary to establish a social contract for peace. This idea was shared with Hobbes. However, they proposed different solutions. Kant believed it was better to establish a republican constitution where a representative decides what is best for the people, while Hobbes believed the best form of government was absolutism.
Rousseau opposes both, stating that man is good by nature, and therefore, the best form of government is democracy. For Kant, men could only be free if they were somewhat equal. Rousseau takes the universal character of the general will. The general purpose can only be universal since it derives from reason. Regarding the social contract, they do not share the same vision of man in nature: Kant focuses on selfishness and the unsocial sociability of humans, contrasting with Rousseau’s noble savage. The categorical imperative compels man to become a citizen. For both, the contract is the general form of cooperative social action. For Kant, this covenant is pure because it derives from the categorical imperative and does not restrict the freedom and sovereignty that each person has over himself.