# Kant and transcendentalism?



## sola_gratia (Aug 17, 2005)

When I started reading some of Kant's work I was told by someone that Kant inspired transcendentalism(ie, Emerson). Is this true? I haven't seen any big connections...

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by sola_gratia]


----------



## Laura (Aug 17, 2005)

Probably has something to do with Kant's introduction of innate ideas - from there the Transcendalists might have thought they had some sort of spark of the divine (they borrowed this idea from the Stoics, correct?), and instead of making the Rationalist mistake of trying to deduce God from some arbitrarily chosen first principle, they looked for him in nature and within themselves. Blegh. 

*interestedly awaits a better response*


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 17, 2005)

I would be hesistant to make a full connection. Kant's transcendental reasoning--if Christianized (sorry, that's crass, I know)--is very useful, especially to apologetics. However, and I see where Laura is going, I don't know if I would make the full connection. But making these connections is dangerous; it's kind of like saying theonomy = federal vision (think modal fallacy on that one).

But I understand why someone would ask this. I was thinking about it earlier this week.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 17, 2005)

Transcendentals ask what are the preconditions of intelligibility? In other words, for x to be the case, what must be true?

I haven't looked into the connection between innate ideas and Emerson.


----------



## Robin (Aug 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I haven't looked into the connection between innate ideas and Emerson.



J, you might wish to get around to this soon -- especially if you're using Kant in apologetics (? I don't know.) "Christianized" sources aiding Christian apologetics? What IS that? (Or, did I mis-read you?)

Meanwhile, here's some old class-notes:




> "Immanuel Kant was the paradigmatic philosopher of the European Enlightenment. He eradicated the last traces of the medieval world view from modern philosophy, joined the key ideas of earlier rationalism and empiricism into a powerful model of the subjective origins of the fundamental principles of both science and morality, and laid the ground for much in the philosophy of the 19th/ 20th centuries. Above all, Kant was the philosopher of human autonomy: the view that by the use of our own reason in its broadest sense human beings can discover and live up to the basic principles of knowledge and action without outside assistance, above all without divine support or intervention." Paul Guyer, "Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosopy" '98



Kant's ethical ideas are a logical outcome of his belief in the fundamental freedom of the individual as stated in his Critique of Practical Reason (1788). He did not regard freedom as the lawless freedom of anarchy, but rather as the freedom of self-government, the freedom to obey consciously the laws of the universe as revealed by reason. He believed that the welfare of each individual should properly be regarded as an end in itself and that the world was progressing toward an ideal society in which reason would "bind every law giver to make his laws in such a way that they could have sprung from the united will of an entire people, and to regard every subject, in so far as he wishes to be a citizen, on the basis of whether he has conformed to that will." In his treatise Perpetual Peace (1795) Kant advocated the establishment of a world federation of republican states. Kant had a greater influence than any other philosopher of modern times. Kantian philosophy, particularly as developed by the German philosopher Hegel, was the basis on which the structure of Marxism was built; the dialectical method, used by both Hegel and Karl Marx, was an outgrowth of the method of reasoning by "antinomies" that Kant used. German philosopher Johann Fichte, Kant's pupil, rejected his teacher's division of the world into objective and subjective parts and developed an idealistic philosophy that also had great influence on 19th-century socialists. 

Some contemporary research (in efforts to understanding the Enlightenment) include noting Kant's racial views:



> "Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites..." "The yellow Indians do have a meagre talent. The Negroes are far below them, and at the lowest point are a part of the American people." --- Immanual Kant, "Physical Geography"





Do ideas have consequences?

r.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 18, 2005)

I don't use ALL of Kant in apologetics. I see where he destroyed other brands of humanism and as such, I plunder the Egyptians. Kant asked the right questions, questions that unbelievers cannot answer--what are the preconditions for intelligibility?--but he answered him on his own autonomous basis.



> Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites..." "The yellow Indians do have a meagre talent. The Negroes are far below them, and at the lowest point are a part of the American people." --- Immanual Kant, "Physical Geography"



I thought I was reading Abe Lincoln for a moment.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites..." "The yellow Indians do have a meagre talent. The Negroes are far below them, and at the lowest point are a part of the American people." --- Immanual Kant, "Physical Geography"
> ...



 I KANT tell what you mean by that...


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 18, 2005)

And some of Kant's stuff isn't bad:

1)The brain applies 'space-time' predicates to thoughts (we can use this to argue against brute factuality). 

2)He put the hammer to natural theology (which allows for a more biblical apologetic)

3)Framing the debate in terms of transcendental categories has put unbelievers on the defensive. Yes, some parts of the TAG are hard to work out, I grant that, but the warrantability within the argument, especially among those more philosophically adept than I, is undeniably compelling--either in this life or the next.


----------



## Brian (Aug 18, 2005)

The Transcendentalists (TSD´s) were a group of men led by the likes of Emerson and Thoreau in a reaction against the Lockean empiricism (not rationalism, they´re different) that had overrun the American intellectual world in the early 1800´s. The Unitarian church and its school Harvard were enamored with empiricism and had become bastions for the idea. In reaction to this, the TSD´s looked to the transcendental philosophy of Kant, but even more so German Idealism (which was a large branch in offshoot from Kant´s _Critique of Pure Reason_). 

To be fair, Kant was much less reactionary and as critical as the TSD´s were, and much smarter as well. Here´s a good run down of much of the TSD thought (based off of Emerson´s work. This can be found many places on the web; I got it from Wikipedia):

1.	Respect for intuitions
2.	Withdrawal from labor and competition
3.	Pursuit of a critical, solitary lifestyle
4.	Consciousness of the disproportion between a person's faculties and the work provided for them.
5.	Repel influences
6.	Shun general society
7.	An appreciation for nature, specifically nature's symbolism
8.	Life in rural settings
9.	Work and play in solitude
10.	Have a passion for the extraordinary
11.	Not good for citizens or members of society 
o	Unwilling to bear their part of public and private burdens
12.	Childlike; joyous, affectionate, susceptible, more than average wish to be loved
13.	Make extreme demands on human nature
14.	Disappointed in humanity
15.	Sociable
16.	Lack private ends to their means
17.	United with every trait and talent of beauty and power
18.	Idealistic
19.	Admits the unreliability of the senses
20.	Respects the government only so far as it reinforces the law of their minds
21.	Reality originates from an "unknown centre" inside of themselves
22.	Accepts spiritual doctrine
23.	Do not share in public religious rites, enterprises of education, missions foreign or domestic, activism, or voting
24.	Essentially dead or paralyzed 
o	Even though their participation in society is out of character, they choose to participate as dissidents
25.	Reject routine, because there is not much virtue in it
26.	Constantly waiting for a high command
27.	Lovers and worshippers of society
28.	Disdain for organized education
As you can see, there is more to this in German Idealism than transcendental philosophy per se, though there are obviously going to be connections.

Though some may disagree with this, the idea that there is a "œdivine spark" in all is not so much from the Stoics (as this was not held by all the Stoics, btw), but rather derived from the heavy influence of Eastern mysticism that often invaded their resources.

If we wish to exploit anything in Kant (which I think is possible, he did have some good things to say), anything useful inherent to Kant can be found in a better framework in Merold Westphal and Van Til.

Like so much of philosophy, I believe the fundamental problem with Trancendentalism is (its hard to narrow it down to one, there is so many) that they, like Kant before them, could not correctly balance the noumenal/phenomenal. If one does not hold these two in tension/balance, you are bound to overemphasize one to the loss of the other. The irony of TSDism is that by emphasizing the transcendental, it collapses and implodes, thus making everything "œcommon" and then "œunclean" (ÎºÎ¿Î¹Î½Î¿ÌÏ‚).


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 18, 2005)

This lecture on Kant in Context redefined awesome for me!


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 18, 2005)

Kant isn't worth reading.... falls in the "vain philosophy" category In my humble opinion


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Kant isn't worth reading.... falls in the "vain philosophy" category In my humble opinion



While I would agree with your ultimate conclusion (Kant is wrong because he grounded his philosophy on autonomous reason--which is what many in the evidential school do), he is not so easily dismissed and even the heathen get it right every now and then.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 18, 2005)

I'd just assume read David Hume if I wanted to read a good heathen than...


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I'd just assume read David Hume if I wanted to read a good heathen than...



Hume destroyed his own justification for knowledge. Kant tried to salvage it, unsuccessfully, but at the same time he asked certain "right questions" that have given Reformed apologists a deadly apologetic.

Granted, its like choosing between stricknine and cyanide.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> its like choosing between stricknine and cyanide.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 18, 2005)

I would like to compliment Hume on destroying the epistemological foundation for natural law, also known as "Hume's Gap." How do you go from "what is" to "What ought to be"? Logical propositions have truth value; commands do not.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 18, 2005)

Well I had friends at Liberty that were all gung-ho over Decartes because he believed in God, and somehow they cannot fathom how shallow his approach to epistemology is-- Why is his theorem about the existence of God so special? It's shallow.

Sometimes it seems everyone becomes a whimsical philosopher after taking some college survey class... and becomes wise in his own wisdom... even some students at Regent Law were beholden to Charles Darwin's philosophy of law (i.e. legal positivism, legal realism, etc.)


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Well I had friends at Liberty that were all gung-ho over Decartes because he believed in God, and somehow they cannot fathom how shallow his approach to epistemology is-- Why is his theorem about the existence of God so special? It's shallow.
> 
> Sometimes it seems everyone becomes a whimsical philosopher after taking some college survey class... and becomes wise in his own wisdom... even some students at Regent Law were beholden to Charles Darwin's philosophy of law (i.e. legal positivism, legal realism, etc.)



do you know how descartes died?


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I would like to compliment Hume on destroying the epistemological foundation for natural law, also known as "Hume's Gap." How do you go from "what is" to "What ought to be"? Logical propositions have truth value; commands do not.



You're very well-read in Hume or at least no the substance of his philosophy.... good point...


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> do you know how descartes died?



i think he froze to death in the castle of some swedish princess he was tutoring


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...




He was at a cocktail party and someone asked him if he wanted a drink. He replied, "I think not."


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Thank you, but not as well as I should be. I have a weak philosophical background. I am trying to make up for that with various lectures, histories of philosophy and a really awesome _Dictionary of Philosophy_, ed by Thomas Mautner.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 18, 2005)

I always heard Descartes contracted pneumonia after accepting an invitation to tutor Queen Christina of Sweden, and he wasn't resiliant enough to the rigours of the cold Swedish climate or the drafty castle of the royals-- so he died. Hence, my tongue-in-cheek response-- he "froze to death."


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I always heard Descartes contracted pneumonia after accepting an invitation to tutor Queen Christina of Sweden, and he wasn't resiliant enough to the rigours of the cold Swedish climate or the drafty castle of the royals-- so he died. Hence, my tongue-in-cheek response-- he "froze to death."



I was making a joke, too. I am going to bed now.


----------



## sola_gratia (Aug 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> He was at a cocktail party and someone asked him if he wanted a drink. He replied, "I think not."


----------



## sola_gratia (Aug 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



I agree, those were my intentions when I started studying philosophy, and I have actually discovered that a lot of my thinking was unbiblical.


----------



## Robin (Aug 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Brian_
> Like so much of philosophy, I believe the fundamental problem with Trancendentalism is (its hard to narrow it down to one, there is so many) that they, like Kant before them, could not correctly balance the noumenal/phenomenal. If one does not hold these two in tension/balance, you are bound to overemphasize one to the loss of the other. The irony of TSDism is that by emphasizing the transcendental, it collapses and implodes, thus making everything "œcommon" and then "œunclean" (ÎºÎ¿Î¹Î½Î¿ÌÏ‚).



Great point, Brian!   And a great post....meanwhile, this says it ALL about where our TSD heritage sends us:

SONG OF MYSELF 
Walt Whitman

I celebrate myself, and sing myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.

I loafe and invite my soul,
I lean and loafe at my ease observing a spear of summer grass.

My tongue, every atom of my blood, form'd from this soil,
this air,
Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and
their parents the same,
I, now thirty-seven years old in perfect health begin,
Hoping to cease not till death.

Creeds and schools in abeyance,
Retiring back a while sufficed at what they are, but never
forgotten,
I harbor for good or bad, I permit to speak at every hazard,
Nature without check with original energy.

........ he goes on and on and on about the splendours of his SELF!

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/s_z/whitman/song.htm

 Robin


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 19, 2005)

Paul Manta wrote,


A transcendental argument is simply a form of deduction, with the typical pattern: Only if p then q; q is true; therefore, p is true. As this form of argument appears in philosophy, the interest, and the difficulty, reside not in the movement from premises to conclusions, which is routine, but in the setting up of the major premises-that is, in the kinds of things that are taken as starting points. For example, Immanuel Kant tried to prove the principle of causality by showing that it is a necessary condition of the possibility of making empirically verifiable statements in natural science. (philosophical encyclopedia)

See favorite debate thread

X-;Y (because Y is the precondition for X)
X
:.Y


----------

