# Kant's Categorical Imperative



## Repre5entYHWH (Apr 27, 2009)

from what i understand of Emmanuel Kant is that he did not believe that humans have innate knowledge, so how does his categorical imperative fit his aposterori viewpoint? it seems inconstant


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Apr 27, 2009)

From what I recall -- it has been awhile since I was forced to read the _Critique_ -- Kant taught that human beings, in order to think/learn anything at all about the world (_a posteriori_), must presuppose certain concepts: namely, _space_ and _time_. These may be 'true' or may be merely mental constructs; we do not know. He called these concepts "_a priori synthetic_." Again, _a priori_ synthetic concepts are just the necessary presuppositions behind _a posteriori_ knowledge. We need them to know things.

If I am not mistaken, this framework is at work (sort of, anyway) with the Categorical Imperative, this moral principle being synthetic _a priori_. In order to find out whether act X is moral or immoral (something we should do or should not do) -- or, more to the Kantian point, whether a moral statement is true or false -- we need the Categorical Imperative.

Kant makes my head hurt...


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 27, 2009)

Hi:

Nathan laid it out correctly. Space and Time are intuitions of the intellect which Kant claims are apriori. However, they are only constructions of the intellect which are imposed upon empirical (aposteriori) sensations received by the person. Consequently, not only are there no innate ideas, but the sensations which we receive from reality are subject to the interpretative framework of the mind.

In other words, man is blind because he sees, he is deaf because he hears. The objects of reality are filtered though the intuitions of the mind. Thus, man can know nothing because all reality is interpreted by the brain.

Kant claims that the Categorical Imperative, "So act that you would will the maxim of your action to become a universal law," is the only apriori idea. However, such a proposition is subject to interpretation! It is more of an assertion on his part than a provable fact.

Now that all of our heads are spinning:

Blessings!

Rob


----------



## Repre5entYHWH (Apr 27, 2009)

... wasn't he saposed to be a great contribution to philosophy? .... that just sounds lame... wouldn't it follow that his ideas for philosophy would be subjective and only the way they are because of the way HE interprets reality? and wouldn't that still undermine the categorical imperative because if we thought of certain morals as universal's and it sounds like he doesnt think universals exist than it's pointless to ask if a certain law is universally applicable.... ouch my head


----------



## Grymir (Apr 28, 2009)

Kant is to philosophy as Barth is to theology.

Kant was easy to dissect once you got beyond his apriori/posteriori false dicotomy. His Categorical Imperative, "So act that you would will the maxim of your action to become a universal law," made the freewillers seem like downright determinists.


----------

