Social Contract, Empiricism vs. Rationalism, and Kantian Philosophy
The social contract allows individuals to leave the state of nature to enter the marital status. There is a historical fact but a hypothesis that tells us how the State should be administered. The social contract means total submission of individuals to an authority which Kantian thinking about Hobbes but at the same time, it implies that the individual is co, ie, that no law can be adopted without his consent and that, therefore, the ruler has to make laws as if emanating from the general will, which approximates the thought of Kant to Rousseau.
Hobbes defends marital status and noted its features are: its purpose is social peace, the presence of legal and coercive power law can impose. And Rousseau defends the natural state, ie that they have rights and freedoms but not reciprocal, which is tantamount to not actually enjoy, only has the strength to defend itself, is freedom without law ./*/*/ */*/*/ Empiricism is the philosophical theory according to which the origin and limits of knowledge is sensory experience. The best known are empiricists Hobbes, Locke, Hume and Berkeley.
Rationalism is the philosophical doctrine that is not recognized as a source of knowledge rather than reason, refusing, therefore, revelation, faith and the senses. In the history of philosophy rationalism has a more limited meaning, beginning with s. XVII with the figure of the mathematician R. Descartes. It is interesting to compare empiricism and rationalism. According to the source of empirical knowledge is experience while for rationalism is the reason. According to rationalism from innate ideas progressing knowledge necessary and a priori. For empiricism the mind is like a “clean slate” and therefore, any idea that you can find in it comes from experience ./*/*/*/*/*/ for Freedom is a right Kant and Rousseau natural that belongs to each individual. Kant argues, therefore, positive political freedom, for which each individual becomes a legislator, that is, co-author of the laws of the State. At this point, Kant departs from Hobbes and approaches present the idea of self-legislation in the concept of “general will” of Rousseau. The ruler should legislate as if it were possible for the united will of the people to consent to the laws. The legal concept of freedom does not express civil disobedience, since Kant, like Hobbes, believed that submission to state power was a necessary condition for social order. To avoid excesses of the ruling Kant relies on its defense of freedom of expression.
This term belongs to the theory of knowledge. The reason serves to unify and universalize human knowledge, but through ideas that refer to real objects. For this reason, we need the practical use of reason to refer to the noumenon. If we try to explain the noumena from pure reason we fall into the transcendental illusion, since we can not apply to these categories. The conclusion he reaches is that knowledge Kant goes only to the phenomenal world, but the contents are entities designed metaphysical, of which we have no sensible expericencia are ideas without a real referent, ie, have no demonstrable empirical content . Therefore, the Transcendental Illusion metaphysical attempt to explain the contents through the sensibility and understanding, powers that belong to pure reason ./*/*/*/*/ On the subject of knowledge, theories so far talked only the object of knowledge (that I know). Kant gives a twist to this issue by observing that science advances and questions that the subject is also involved in the process of knowledge, ie, bringing his understanding of the objects, their integration into a mental set, a process considered an active process.From now on, the philosopher asks what mechanisms come into play to know and what we know, for it makes it a trial to reason and concluded that it has two purposes: pure reason (we know the phenomenon ) and practical reason (we know the ethical, metaphysical: the noumenon )./*/*/*/*/*/ autonomous moral law is universal and based on the duty for duty: Act as if the maxim of your actions could be erected by your will a universal law, therefore, is a formulation that has no specific purpose or particular aims to be a universal law guiding human behavior in all circumstances and under all conditions. Kant proposes the existence of a moral law independent of man, that every one by the imperative of their will can become a universal law (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you). Rather than defending Hume, Kant, the human being acts motivated by feelings, but by reason and ethics are known for formal (based on the categorical imperative) and autonomous (does not come due outside the moral law it’s created every human being).