Is Kantian Transcendental Idealism compatible with the scriptures?

[Thomas_Goodwin]

I hope you are well brothers and sisters. I was going through Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, not to gain any some sort of insight, and I was wondering what the general consensus of Kant is (only his epistemology). I have found some things I think were pretty bad, and some ideas of his I didn't discern a straight away with against the views of the scriptures.

 

[AT]

I was having similar questions lately . I was reading Sowell’s work on Marxism. He talks of the philosophy of materialism being foundational to Marx/Engels and Marxism and sort of compared it with idealism. That made me think whether those are (broadly speaking of course) the only two alternatives.

Also in Sproul’s book The Consequence of ideas, he talks of how Plato was an idealist of sorts. But he appends that with how he was a realist in the sense that he believed that ideas are not mere mental constructs or names (as Kantian idealists would propose I guess?) but real entities.

Are there only two options available? Is everyone some kind of materialist or idealists, falling somewhere in between?I’m sure we can’t track all the way with idealists but do we all hold to a form of idealism backed by Realism?

Hope I’m not stirring the pot. Looking to learn.

 

[RamistThomist]

Not really compatible. We have good evidence that a) the external world exists and b) not all of reality is reducible to it. People in the Kantian tradition (including his critic Hegel) weren't using Idea/Ideal in the way that Plato and Augustine did. Ideal for the Kantians meant it wasn't available to sense perception. Kant didn't mean that everything was ideal. Something that is ideal or transcendental means it is that by which we know other objects.

Plato meant by ideal (or better, form) the realm of the Forms. Think about the realm where right triangles exist.

When Sowell contrasted Idealism with Marxism he meant something like this. For Hegel, Geist precedes matter. Essence precedes existence. Marx said existence is first, and essence, if it exists at all, comes next.

To make matters even more confusing, when you see the Christian tradition use the term "transcendental," they mean something other than what Kant meant. A transcendental is a way to speak about being without that term being included in meaning (good, true, one).

 

[AT]

Not really compatible. We have good evidence that a) the external world exists and b) not all of reality is reducible to it. People in the Kantian tradition (including his critic Hegel) weren't using Idea/Ideal in the way that Plato and Augustine did. Ideal for the Kantians meant it wasn't available to sense perception. Kant didn't mean that everything was ideal. Something that is ideal or transcendental means it is that by which we know other objects.

Plato meant by ideal (or better, form) the realm of the Forms. Think about the realm where right triangles exist.

When Sowell contrasted Idealism with Marxism he meant something like this. For Hegel, Geist precedes matter. Essence precedes existence. Marx said existence is first, and essence, if it exists at all, comes next.

To make matters even more confusing, when you see the Christian tradition use the term "transcendental," they mean something other than what Kant meant. A transcendental is a way to speak about being without that term being included in meaning (good, true, one).

Thanks for that. Clear up a lot. So when people say Plato was an idealist, they mean something else other than Kantian idealism? If so who are the non-Kantian idealists? If not, what was Plato?

What are we?

Also are idealism and materialism the only two answers to the question of ultimate reality?

 

[AT]

Plato meant by ideal (or better, form) the realm of the Forms. Think about the realm where right triangles exist.

Ideal for the Kantians meant it wasn't available to sense perception. Kant didn't mean that everything was ideal. Something that is ideal or transcendental means it is that by which we know other objects.

Could you expand on these. We can’t perceive a realm where right triangles exist? How would Kant and Plato answer it differently?

What would be an example by a Kantian idealist of saying so and so is transcendental and thereby by this we know other objects? Is there where the accusation of Kantian is thrown at presups? Through the Scripture we know the transcendent God and thereby know other things? Or am I confusing the way transcendental is used in Kantian tradition to the way the word is properly used in the Christian tradition?

 

[RamistThomist]

Could you expand on these. We can’t perceive a realm where right triangles exist? How would Kant and Plato answer it differently?

What would be an example of saying so and so is transcendental and thereby by this we know other objects? Is there where the accusation of Kantian is thrown at presups? Through the Scripture we know the transcendent God and thereby know other things? Or am I confusing the way transcendental is used in Kantian tradition to the way the word is properly used in the Christian tradition?

You've only seen instances of a right triangle. You haven't seen the form of pure triangleness. That's, of course, if you follow Plato's line. Plato said our world is the shadowy copy of the true world of the eternal forms.

Kant wasn't interested in that. Take the concept of space or time. Have you ever seen or touched "space" or "time"? No. Yet, without space or time you really can't make sense of much of reality. That's what Kant was getting at.

 

[RamistThomist]

Thanks for that. Clear up a lot. So when people say Plato was an idealist, they mean something else other than Kantian idealism? If so who are the non-Kantian idealists? If not, what was Plato?

What are we?

Also are idealism and materialism the only two answers to the question of ultimate reality?

That's correct. Here are some non-Kantian idealists:

1. Hegel.
2. The whole British idealist school: FH Bradley, B. Bousanquett, McTaggart.

Sir Roger Scruton's A Short History of Modern Philosophy is very good on this point.

 

[AT]

What you say of:

Also are idealism and materialism the only two answers to the question of ultimate reality?

That's correct.

And do you mean to also say we (Christians) are non-Kantian idealists?

 

[RamistThomist]

What you say of:


And do you mean to also say we (Christians) are non-Kantian idealists?

I maintain that a good Christian mindset will be non-Kantian, but I don't presume on the religious state. And the converse certainly isn't true: non-Kantians aren't necessarily Christians.

 

[jwright82]

I hope you are well brothers and sisters. I was going through Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, not to gain any some sort of insight, and I was wondering what the general consensus of Kant is (only his epistemology). I have found some things I think were pretty bad, and some ideas of his I didn't discern a straight away with against the views of the scriptures.

Although I do agree with my brother Jacob I do feel some added comments is necessary. I do believe I saw no one refer Kant's ideals as categories of the mind, if I'm wrong please correct me, which of course function in a similar way to ideals but are not the same. An innate filter through which we categorize reality is not the same thing as "ideals" we recollect from somewhere and "know" reality. Mysticism is not not the same thing as transcendental idealism.
Now as far as being materialist or idealist, I've learned to be skeptical of "some" either or distinctions like this. My personal opinion is being a materialist/idealist or Hegel/Marx betrays the fact they're both the same, but different. They have to assume both to appear to be cogent. Marx had to talk about "Ideal" situations for his theory to work and Hegel had to "somehow" ground his theories in concrete reality to be applicable to everyday life, the parable of the master and slave. The only difference is what's primary, soul or matter.
Now how should we Christians take this? Should we pick one fruit out of the garden of common grace and make that "the only fruit available"?
No, we have the whole garden and it's the Lord's garden, we may pick and choose what works for his desired ends.
The Bible doesn't give exact instructions on how to do many things but broad principles to work from in wisdom. So no we are not Empricists, Rationalists, Irrationalists, or Idealists. We are Christians.

 

[RamistThomist]

I do believe I saw no one refer Kant's ideals as categories of the mind, if I'm wrong please correct me, which of course function in a similar way to ideals but are not the same.

Yes. I implied that but I didn't make it clear.

 

[AT]

Also are idealism and materialism the only two answers to the question of ultimate reality

Or rather are they two ends of a spectrum?

 

[AT]

My personal opinion is being a materialist/idealist or Hegel/Marx betrays the fact they're both the same, but different. They have to assume both to appear to be cogent. Marx had to talk about "Ideal" situations for his theory to work and Hegel had to "somehow" ground his theories in concrete reality to be applicable to everyday life, the parable of the master and slave. The only difference is what's primary, soul or matter.

This confused me. Not your post but how differently idealism can be used:
1) to talk of what’s primary- in that case Marx was no idealist. In this sense idealism and materialism are used as antonyms.

Or
2) in opposition to realism; in which sense Marx was as idealist as they come.

And realism likewise could mean two different things:
1) in opposition to nominalism
2)in opposition to idealism(in the second sense)

Am I right in summarising this as such? Is this distinction valid?

 

[AT]

I do believe I saw no one refer Kant's ideals as categories of the mind, if I'm wrong please correct me, which of course function in a similar way to ideals but are not the same.

So in Kant, they don’t exist but are just categories of the mind? Whereas in Plato ideals exist in an eternal realm?

 

[jwright82]

Yes. I implied that but I didn't make it clear.

Fair enough. I assumed as much.

 

[jwright82]

So in Kant, they don’t exist but are just categories of the mind? Whereas in Plato ideals exist in an eternal realm?

Yes. But thats the rub, do they exist or are they just categories in the mind? Is space real? Is there really 3 feet of space between two tables or not? I would say these categories are what we use, BTW wherever they came from, are useful to making sense out of reality.

 

[jwright82]

This confused me. Not your post but how differently idealism can be used:
1) to talk of what’s primary- in that case Marx was no idealist. In this sense idealism and materialism are used as antonyms.

Or
2) in opposition to realism; in which sense Marx was as idealist as they come.

And realism likewise could mean two different things:
1) in opposition to nominalism
2)in opposition to idealism(in the second sense)

Am I right in summarising this as such? Is this distinction valid?

No not exactly. Marx was a student of Hegel and so saw the world in not only dialectical terms, but problems working themselves out, in concrete reality (history), but to some ideal goal. Hegel saw it all as "God" working" himself in history for whatever end. Both had "idealistic" and "materialistic" tendencies in their thought.
Both had the same goal and similar methods but different ends,, does that make sense (i don't want to be confusing)?

 

[Schoolman]

Neither idealism nor materialism represent all reality.

Idealism is the monistic fallacy.
Materialism is the monistic fallacy.

Separately, they make the dualist fallacy.

The truth is the impossible fact that the ideal resides in the material as a unified, unseparate self, the miracle of life and intimation of the Divine.

Christians are neither materialists nor idealists. Instead we acknowledge truth that when God blew into the Adam’s brow life’s wind, he became a living self.

 

[Schoolman]

Here is something fun I wrote a few weeks ago fitting this new thread.

Marxist Eschatology
The final stage of antitheist history.

Definitions–

1. Monism is the view that there is but one basic substance of reality.
2. Dualism is the view that there are two basic and separate factors of existence.
3. Idealism is the monism that consciousness is the one substance of reality, and all perceptions, including those of matter, physical things, or “body,” are illusions.
4. Materialism is the monism that matter is the one substance of reality, and all appearances or resemblances, including those of consciousness, ideals, or “spirit,” are due to material causes.
5. A phenomenon is the appearance of a real object.
6. A metaphor is a resemblance to a real object.

Marxist presuppositions–

1. Materialism → consciousness is but a phenomenon of matter.
2. Materialism is the one, true religion.
3. Dualism → the materialist people is distinct from an idealist people.
4. Messianism → in the final stage of history, people inherit their reward.
5. The messianic age, the final stage of history, is coming to pass.

ACTION: DUALIST DIALECTIC
(Marxist “dispensationalism”)

Axiom: Historical dualism is the view that there are two factors of history.
Presupposition: In this case, those two factors are the materialist people and an idealist people.

Thesis: The materialist people, the first factor, inherit the earth.
Antithesis: The idealist people, the second factor, inherit the earth.
Synthesis: The materialist people inherit the material world, whereas an idealist people inherit an ideal world.

Conclusion–

Dual messianism: In the final stage of history, the materialist people are coming to rule the material world and an idealist people will be out.

REACTION: MONISTIC DIALECTIC
(Marxist “preterism”)

Axiom: Historical monism is the view that there is but one causal factor of history.
Presupposition: In this case, that causal factor is the attainment of the final reward, inheriting the earth.

Thesis: At the final stage of history, the material people inherit the material world.
Antithesis: At the final stage of history, an idealist people inherit metaphors of a spiritual world.
Synthesis: The materialist people are inheriting the material world, whereas an idealist people are inheriting metaphors.

Conclusion–

Dual messianism: In the final stage of history, the materialist people possess the material world and an idealist people are out.

Synopsis–

1. Each polar, dialectical construct presupposes the monistic fallacy.
2. The materialist people inherit the earth at the final stage of history.
3. An idealist people lose everything at the final stage of history.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I was going to silently pass over this discussion, but providentially, I arrived just today at Polanus's full discussion of Platonic ideas, so I might as well add my two cents. First, some doctrine of divine ideas is inherent in reformed theology, because reformed theology teaches that God created all things according to his purpose. So there you have something outside creation, God's purpose, and deriving from it, created things. Jacob mentioned earlier that ideas are things that exist, but not materially, such as right angles, and there is an active debate, which Polanus references, about whether this or the doctrine I mentioned of ideas being archetypes of creation in the mind of God was Plato's true conception of ideas. Polanus states that Plato's conception was the latter, the Christian conception of ideas, and apparently a few church fathers argued similarly, with Justin Martyr being a dissenting voice.

 

[jwright82]

Here is something fun I wrote a few weeks ago fitting this new thread.

Marxist Eschatology
The final stage of antitheist history.

Definitions–

1. Monism is the view that there is but one basic substance of reality.
2. Dualism is the view that there are two basic and separate factors of existence.
3. Idealism is the monism that consciousness is the one substance of reality, and all perceptions, including those of matter, physical things, or “body,” are illusions.
4. Materialism is the monism that matter is the one substance of reality, and all appearances or resemblances, including those of consciousness, ideals, or “spirit,” are due to material causes.
5. A phenomenon is the appearance of a real object.
6. A metaphor is a resemblance to a real object.

Marxist presuppositions–

1. Materialism → consciousness is but a phenomenon of matter.
2. Materialism is the one, true religion.
3. Dualism → the materialist people is distinct from an idealist people.
4. Messianism → in the final stage of history, people inherit their reward.
5. The messianic age, the final stage of history, is coming to pass.

ACTION: DUALIST DIALECTIC
(Marxist “dispensationalism”)

Axiom: Historical dualism is the view that there are two factors of history.
Presupposition: In this case, those two factors are the materialist people and an idealist people.

Thesis: The materialist people, the first factor, inherit the earth.
Antithesis: The idealist people, the second factor, inherit the earth.
Synthesis: The materialist people inherit the material world, whereas an idealist people inherit an ideal world.

Conclusion–

Dual messianism: In the final stage of history, the materialist people are coming to rule the material world and an idealist people will be out.

REACTION: MONISTIC DIALECTIC
(Marxist “preterism”)

Axiom: Historical monism is the view that there is but one causal factor of history.
Presupposition: In this case, that causal factor is the attainment of the final reward, inheriting the earth.

Thesis: At the final stage of history, the material people inherit the material world.
Antithesis: At the final stage of history, an idealist people inherit metaphors of a spiritual world.
Synthesis: The materialist people are inheriting the material world, whereas an idealist people are inheriting metaphors.

Conclusion–

Dual messianism: In the final stage of history, the materialist people possess the material world and an idealist people are out.

Synopsis–

1. Each polar, dialectical construct presupposes the monistic fallacy.
2. The materialist people inherit the earth at the final stage of history.
3. An idealist people lose everything at the final stage of history.

Nice synopsis. I think my particular point was that, and your synopsis was very informative BTW, (I love the Vossian eschatology in your argument), materialists and idealists both betray themselves by holding to an ideal worked out in a concrete reality. The rational/irrational dialectic of van til seems to apply.

 

[jwright82]

I was going to silently pass over this discussion, but providentially, I arrived just today at Polanus's full discussion of Platonic ideas, so I might as well add my two cents. First, some doctrine of divine ideas is inherent in reformed theology, because reformed theology teaches that God created all things according to his purpose. So there you have something outside creation, God's purpose, and deriving from it, created things. Jacob mentioned earlier that ideas are things that exist, but not materially, such as right angles, and there is an active debate, which Polanus references, about whether this or the doctrine I mentioned of ideas being archetypes of creation in the mind of God was Plato's true conception of ideas. Polanus states that Plato's conception was the latter, the Christian conception of ideas, and apparently a few church fathers argued similarly, with Justin Martyr being a dissenting voice.

There's quite a bit about this that I don't know for sure. So I don't think it meant the same thing as Jscob.

 

[AT]

No not exactly. Marx was a student of Hegel and so saw the world in not only dialectical terms, but problems working themselves out, in concrete reality (history), but to some ideal goal. Hegel saw it all as "God" working" himself in history for whatever end. Both had "idealistic" and "materialistic" tendencies in their thought.
Both had the same goal and similar methods but different ends,, does that make sense (i don't want to be confusing)?

To be honest, I'm quite confused with the terms being used. But it is not because of what you said, which I think I understand. This isn't necessarily related to this thread here. But here goes.

In this article, Dr. Jordan Cooper contrasts realism and nominalism. They are opposites. He defines them both and I understand. https://credomag.com/article/what-exactly-is-protestant-scholasticism-and-why-does-it-matter/

In this transcript, Dr. Scruton contrasts realism with idealism. They are opposites. I understand this as well. http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/roger-scruton-alternatives-to-idealism/

Q: Now realism is not being used to mean the same thing in these two instances, is it?

And then in Sowell's work on Marxism, he contrasts materialism and idealism. He distinguishes idealism and materialism in the popular sense and the philosophical sense. He defines philosophical materialism and philosophical idealism. The philosophical idealist is one whos holds that "our pereptions and ideas are the ultimate reality that we can know, and the material world is only an inference from these perceptions." "Idealism in the philosophical sense is essentially idea-ism, a belief in the primacy of ideas. The varieties of philosophical idealism range from Platonic "forms" which provide the patterns that material objects only imperfectly copy, to John Stuart Mill's theory that history is only an outward expression of the general progression of the human mind."

Q: Idealism is not being used by Sowell in the same way Scruton is addressing it in the above transcript, is it?

And so my post, post #13, was not seeking to object to any assertion you made, but I was rather seeking clarity on the way these terms are used often differently. This was my understanding on reading Sowell. So my query was whether I was right in making those distinctions.

Since you explained Sowell's work above, @RamistThomist thoughts? have I read him right?

 

[AT]

I was going to silently pass over this discussion, but providentially, I arrived just today at Polanus's full discussion of Platonic ideas, so I might as well add my two cents. First, some doctrine of divine ideas is inherent in reformed theology, because reformed theology teaches that God created all things according to his purpose. So there you have something outside creation, God's purpose, and deriving from it, created things. Jacob mentioned earlier that ideas are things that exist, but not materially, such as right angles, and there is an active debate, which Polanus references, about whether this or the doctrine I mentioned of ideas being archetypes of creation in the mind of God was Plato's true conception of ideas. Polanus states that Plato's conception was the latter, the Christian conception of ideas, and apparently a few church fathers argued similarly, with Justin Martyr being a dissenting voice.

This is very interesting. So according to Polanus, "God's purpose" is the eternal realm, and this material world is a shadowy copy of God's purpose?

I kind of lost you at "ideas being archetypes of creation in the mind of God ". What do you mean by this?

 

[AT]

Definitions–

1. Monism is the view that there is but one basic substance of reality.
2. Dualism is the view that there are two basic and separate factors of existence.
3. Idealism is the monism that consciousness is the one substance of reality, and all perceptions, including those of matter, physical things, or “body,” are illusions.
4. Materialism is the monism that matter is the one substance of reality, and all appearances or resemblances, including those of consciousness, ideals, or “spirit,” are due to material causes.
5. A phenomenon is the appearance of a real object.
6. A metaphor is a resemblance to a real object.

Helpful. Thank you.

 

[Charles Johnson]

This is very interesting. So according to Polanus, "God's purpose" is the eternal realm, and this material world is a shadowy copy of God's purpose?

There is not an "eternal realm" distinct from the mind of God. God alone is eternal, and in his mind he had a plan and purpose for all the he would create and work in creation, which we can call his "ideas". But according to the doctrine of divine simplicity, the mind of God and ideas of God are not really distinct in essence from God himself. We may make a rational distinction between them, but they are not actually different in essence.

I kind of lost you at "ideas being archetypes of creation in the mind of God ". What do you mean by this?

An archetype is the form (type) after which something else is formed, like the model painted by a painter. Before God ever made a tree, he had an idea of what a tree should be, an archetype of a tree, in his mind, and his created tree perfectly reflects this archetype, because God is a creator of perfect skill.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Realist? Idealist? How about just being a Christian?

 

[RamistThomist]

Realist? Idealist? How about just being a Christian?

However we answer that question shapes what we believe about God. Realism is the usual fallback Christian view. It makes the most sense of God's attributes and ideas in His mind. Idealism is dangerous (if not just wrong). Jonathan Edwards was an idealist of sorts and it played havoc upon many doctrines he held.

 

[jwright82]

To be honest, I'm quite confused with the terms being used. But it is not because of what you said, which I think I understand. This isn't necessarily related to this thread here. But here goes.

In this article, Dr. Jordan Cooper contrasts realism and nominalism. They are opposites. He defines them both and I understand. https://credomag.com/article/what-exactly-is-protestant-scholasticism-and-why-does-it-matter/

In this transcript, Dr. Scruton contrasts realism with idealism. They are opposites. I understand this as well. http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/roger-scruton-alternatives-to-idealism/

Q: Now realism is not being used to mean the same thing in these two instances, is it?

And then in Sowell's work on Marxism, he contrasts materialism and idealism. He distinguishes idealism and materialism in the popular sense and the philosophical sense. He defines philosophical materialism and philosophical idealism. The philosophical idealist is one whos holds that "our pereptions and ideas are the ultimate reality that we can know, and the material world is only an inference from these perceptions." "Idealism in the philosophical sense is essentially idea-ism, a belief in the primacy of ideas. The varieties of philosophical idealism range from Platonic "forms" which provide the patterns that material objects only imperfectly copy, to John Stuart Mill's theory that history is only an outward expression of the general progression of the human mind."

Q: Idealism is not being used by Sowell in the same way Scruton is addressing it in the above transcript, is it?

And so my post, post #13, was not seeking to object to any assertion you made, but I was rather seeking clarity on the way these terms are used often differently. This was my understanding on reading Sowell. So my query was whether I was right in making those distinctions.

Since you explained Sowell's work above, @RamistThomist thoughts? have I read him right?

I'm sorry if I was confusing. What I meant was Marxists and idealists have in common is that they both start with ideas and then move in different directions. Their metaphysics are opposite but since they have the same starting problem they have the same logical problems.

 

[AT]

I'm sorry if I was confusing. What I meant was Marxists and idealists have in common is that they both start with ideas and then move in different directions. Their metaphysics are opposite but since they have the same starting problem they have the same logical problems.

Not at all brother. It wasn’t because of your posts. You’re have been very clear. Hope you understood the question I had?