Immanuel Kant

[JaMc]

I’ve been reading that, traditionally, Immanuel Kant’s writings have generally been viewed in a negative light by the Church. However, I’ve read his book on the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, and some of his writings on justice, and most of what I found seemed to be perfectly in line with Church teaching.

Is it some of Kant’s other writings with which the Church takes issue, or did I miss something in what I read?

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings JaMc,

Why is this posted in Traditional Catholicism, should it not be posted in the Philosophy sub-forum of Catholic Answers Forum?

Perhaps the answer to your question is what did you find that is not inline with the Church’s Teaching?

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[JaMc]

Greetings JaMc,

Why is this posted in Traditional Catholicism, should it not be posted in the Philosophy sub-forum of Catholic Answers Forum?

Perhaps the answer to your question is what did you find that is not inline with the Church’s Teaching?

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

I posted it here because most of the criticism comes from more “traditional” sources - Pope St. Pius X, Bishop Sheen, etc. If it should be in Philosophy, mods - please move this thread.

As for your second statement, that’s just it: I couldn’t find anything not in line with Church teaching in his writings that I read. The crticisms by St. Pius X and Bishop Sheen seem more general - they seem to say Kant was relativistic and atheistic, and I never saw anything of the sort in what I read. Other, mostly pre-Vatican II Catholic writers, express similar sentiments.

Therefore, either (a) I must be missing something in the books I read; or (b) the object of their criticism must be in Kant’s other works, so I was wondering which was the case.

 

[chipeto]

There is a great deal that can be said on this matter, and I don’t feel up to the attempt, but if you want a Catholic perspective on Kant, I would recommend Peter Kreeft’s Socrates Meets Kant.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Immanuel Kant is an excellent sleep aid.

 

[Patty23]

If you are aware of the foundation Kant’s philosophy, you will find out that his morality is based solely on practical reason. And that God’s existence cannot be proven but is necessary only to justify our morals. It’s like God is only needed to justify our belief in morals. He’s not really proving the existence of God in this regard, but he is demonstrating that there must be a God to justify morality. So practical reason in this regard is radically applied, a pragmatic need for the existence of God. Not really a pure motive or a consequence of pure reason. Hope this helps.

 

[Jim_Baur]

As far as I know, Kant does everything a priori.

He did not trust the senses, and therefore began his philosophy with ideas.

He did not start with the senses or sense knowledge.

He started with what he believe to be innate ideas and categories.

The traditional philosophy for the demonstration of God begins with sense knowledge.

If you do hold that sense knowledge works, then you cannot use the physical creation to demonstrate a designer or creator.

This is my limited understanding.

I am sorry for not being absolute about the post, but I did the best I could.

???

 

[theblindlead]

Kant attempted to create a philosophy that was not contingent upon there being a god. The church states that morality is impossible with out God. so while much of his work is in line with catholic teaching the church rejects it because it is not built upon GOD. I’m a philosophy major and that is as simple as i can explain it. Hope this helps

 

[Abba]

I’ve been reading that, traditionally, Immanuel Kant’s writings have generally been viewed in a negative light by the Church. However, I’ve read his book on the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, and some of his writings on justice, and most of what I found seemed to be perfectly in line with Church teaching.

Is it some of Kant’s other writings with which the Church takes issue, or did I miss something in what I read?

Hello JaMc,

I read Kant’s works many, many, moons ago. I have not reviewed nor refreshed nor cleared out some cobwebs as of yet. So, I should probably not comment but, I am anyway. Just off the top of my head, , I would like to say that I agree with you. I remember reading Kant’s work out of pure enjoyment on my way to work in the subway every morning and afternoon, I remember detecting that he had most certainly read and re-read and studied the Bible. It’s influence becomes evident in his writings. I remember thinking a couple of times as I read his works; oh, yeah, that is from such and such book and chapter of the Bible, e.g. the golden rule. I will admit, when I read Kant, I was living at the periphery of the Church and I was Catholic MY WAY. Now, that I, out of pure wisdom; stay close to the heart of the Church and have learned a lot of her teachings, I would have to read and revise his writings with my knew added knowledge of the teachings of the Church. Perhaps, there is a fundamental problem there.

I understand that one of the things he was reacting to was the approach of justifying faith with reason that had become a bit overwhelming and encouraged many to become Protestants. People considered that the justification of faith and focus by the scholastics with Greek philosophy was taking away the genuine value of faith and Sacred Scripture. That is that with their philosophical intellectual focus, the scholastics were making faith a product almost of a philosophical system. So, Kant put reason aside to justify faith, because he believed that faith was valid without justification of reason. I have to say that I agree with him. However, this may not be all that was cooking. I have to read what the problems are with Catholic theology and Kantian philosophy. Again, I have to review.

I like Kant. Maybe when my life slows down a bit, I will read his writings again. So many things to do and read…life is wonderful.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Kant attempted to create a philosophy that was not contingent upon there being a god. The church states that morality is impossible with out God. so while much of his work is in line with catholic teaching the church rejects it because it is not built upon GOD. I’m a philosophy major and that is as simple as i can explain it. Hope this helps

Yes, this is correct. Immanuel Kant suggested that morality alluded to God’s existence, but did not prove it outright. One aspect that the Church would like about Kant is that it is deontological, so it encourages acting out of duty rather than using people as a means to an end.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, this is correct. Immanuel Kant suggested that morality alluded to God’s existence, but did not prove it outright. One aspect that the Church would like about Kant is that it is deontological, so it encourages acting out of duty rather than using people as a means to an end.

HisCritique of Teleological Judgment redresses the balance!

 

[levinas12]

There is a problem with Kant. He set up a divide, a chasm between phenomena (things-for-us) and noumena (things-in-themselves). Traditionally, philosophy has sought to understand things-in-themselves, i.e., things as they “really really” are. By restricting science to phenomena, Kant thought he could make room for free will, God, even an afterlife. But all this came at a high cost. Truth itself became jeopardized.

I realize that this is a simplification. Kant’s noumenon as interpreted, e.g., by Levinas, opens up a new realm beyond “being” as understood by Aristotelian metaphysics. This realm is radically “exterior” to our individual consciousness. It cannot be conceptualized, and is not subject to our control.

Under this interpretation, Kant’s noumenon “transcends” metaphysics. It’s interesting that, in both Kant and Levinas, it is the ethical dimension that opens the new realm. Although Kant had an inkling that persons fall into the new realm, it was Levinas who thematised radical alterity. Each person is now located outside of metaphysical categories. According to Levinas, we can “experience” persons through their “faces” but we cannot “know” them if “know” means to comprehend the Platonic eidos, the Aristotelian form, the universal common to many particulars … because there is no universal here. This “experience” of another person is immediately given but not comprehended. An argument could be made that Kant, in his other two critiques dealing with practical reason (morality) and teleological judgment (aesthetics), may have been headed in this direction. Of particular relevance is Kant’s discussion of the experience of the sublime. According to Kant, we cannot conceptualize or comprehend the “sublime” … because we cannot “circumscribe” it, “grasp” it … this applies to “persons” in Levinas.

 

[levinas12]

There is a problem with Kant. He set up a divide, a chasm between phenomena (things-for-us) and noumena (things-in-themselves). Traditionally, philosophy has sought to understand things-in-themselves, i.e., things as they “really really” are. By restricting science to phenomena, Kant thought he could make room for free will, God, even an afterlife. But all this came at a high cost. Truth itself became jeopardized.

I realize that this is a simplification. Kant’s noumenon as interpreted, e.g., by Levinas, opens up a new realm beyond “being” as understood by Aristotelian metaphysics. This realm is radically “exterior” to our individual consciousness. It cannot be conceptualized, and is not subject to our control.

I should have said:

**I realize that this may be a misleading or distorting simplication.

There are other views. For example, Kant’s noumenon as interpreted, e.g., by Levinas, opens up a new realm …**