Search

This paper examines the work of Immanuel Kant in the light of a new theory on the nature of truth, knowledge and falsehood (the Inversion Theory of Truth). Kant's idea that knowledge could be absolutely certain, and that its truth must correspond with reality, is discredited by a dissection of the Correspondence Theory of Truth. This examination of the nature of truth, as well as knowledge and falsehood, is conducted with reference to Sir Karl Popper's writings on regulative ideas, the criterion of demarcation and the principle of falsifiability. It is argued that if truth is to be regarded as certain, it should be used to describe objects and events in the objective (noumenal) state, and that subjective knowledge must contain (and is improved by) falsehood. Perceptions and knowledge are obtained by the biological and evolutionary process of Active Subjectivism. Ideas we have knowledge of can be metaphysical or scientific, according to Popper's Criterion of Demarcation. Kant's "Copernican revolution" claim that our intellect imposes absolutely true laws on nature could not allow for the possibility that ideas might be constructed from fallible perceptions, and hence that all knowledge is uncertain. Instead, he developed a Critique of Practical Reason in which religion, though not provable through logical reasoning, could be proved by our innate moral sense, giving us a Categorical Imperative that could lead to perverse results. By rejecting the absolute certainty of a priori knowledge, and admitting a degree of essential falsehood, we arrive at a more reasonable grounding for moral behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Kant argues that an action is morally worthy only if it is done not from inclination or self-interest but from duty. In the Groundwork, he provides examples to illustrate that the presence of motives aligned with duty undermines the moral value of an action. These viewpoints have sparked significant controversy, particularly in light of the resurgence of virtue-ethics in recent years. Notably, the work of two famous Kantian philosophers, Richard Hanson and Barbara Herman, are especially remarkable as they provide an enlightening interpretation of Kant's perspective and address the raised concerns. While Hanson outlines two innovative models for the conditions of action, he also identifies the relevant phenomenon of overdetermination and states that an action has moral worth when the motive of duty is sufficient by itself to generate the action. Furthermore, Herman complements these models by introducing a third one and arguing that an action maintains its moral value if it necessitates both duty and if its primary motive is the motive of duty, regardless of whether it reflects the agent's desires or not. In this paper, we assess the strength and effectiveness of these models by examining Kant's examples. Consequently, despite shedding light on Kant's intentions, these accounts do not significantly contribute to resolving the existing ambiguities. Critics can express concerns regarding the simplification of the overdetermination, the fallacy of circular and tautology. A thorough examination of Kant's philosophy reveals that fulfilling one's duty and disregarding other motivations are essential for the development of an individual's moral character. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most important and most discussed problems of traditional and contemporary metaphysics and philosophy of science is the problem of causality. The problem has generated a lot of controversies and debates from scholars. One clear point amidst these discussions on the causality problem is that the last has neither been written nor heard. It remains an open-ended issue for philosophical consideration. The causation problem itself is not just a problem but a cluster of problems with puzzling questions such as; how do causes bring about their effects? Our concern in this paper is not to examine all the problems that are embedded in the relationship between cause and effect, but to focus on the metaphysical problem of how cause, conceived as a separate event is related or connected to the effect. Several theories have been postulated by Western scholars like Aristotle, Spinoza, Hume, Hempel, Russell, Kant, Mill, among others to explain the kind of causal connection obtainable between causes and effects. Some of these theories of causation are traditional view or common sense view, Humean, and the host of others. It is a fact that some of these theories have failed in proffering a philosophical solution to the traditional causation problem. In an attempt to further reflect on the traditional causation problem, this paper undertakes an exposition of the nature of causality, determinism, freedom and predestination in traditional African thought with the aim of proffering better explanation towards resolving the traditional causation problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his theory of knowledge, Kant presents an exclusive method for obtaining science by applying categories to the data of sensory intuition. "A priori synthetic propositions" are those the only the product of the application of categories to the data of sensory intuition, Propositions that are Kant's exclusive criterion in diagnosing science. Kant claims that only the sciences that have a priori synthetic propositions, which necessarily have sensory intuition data are science, and propositions that do not have sensual intuition data are nothing more than fake science. With the same reasoning, he pushed metaphysics out of science. Accordingly, the attempt of this paper is to measure Kant's theory of knowledge with his own criterion of knowledge. We want to know whether it has a priori synthetic propositions or not. To be more precise, do the propositions through which Kant explained his theory of knowledge, contain sensory intuition data or not? If they have these data, they are science, otherwise, they are not. The investigations carried out in this article, which focuses on Kant's important and key propositions in transcendental aesthetic and Transcendental analytic, show that these propositions, which define and explain the basis of Kant's theory of knowledge, lack sensory intuition data and are not science. Eventually, Kant's "theory of knowledge" is not able to obtain the accreditation it wants and according to Kant's own theory of knowledge, it is not a valid science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There could be various comparative studies between Kant and Kierkegaard on fields like human knowledge, ethics, faith, art, etc. This paper aims to compare the two philosopher's epistemology through their writings. The main common ground of Kant's and Kierkegaard's epistemology is their belief in the idea of a "fissure" between theory and practice, which constitutes the core of their contemplations on human knowledge. This article shows that Kant's theory of knowledge paved the way for Kierkegaard to describe his notions of the "fissure" between being and thought. Thus, it will be shown that Kant and Kierkegaard have been led to believe in the finitude of human beings in knowledge by this split. Then, it will be demonstrated that Kierkegaard, following Kant, distinguishes "being" from "essence" and "actuality" from "ideality". Finally, we argue that Kant's critique of the traditional proofs of God's existence anticipates Kierkegaard's conflict with natural theology and his idea that traditional demonstrations are useless for a believer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Soren Kierkegaard, as one of the leading anti-philosophers of the school of existentialism, employs an ironic and groundbreaking approach to find fault with rationalism, abstract thinking, heteronomy, ethics and pluralism developed from the ideas of thinkers such as Kant and Hegel. Instead of valuing society, government, and conventional ethical and moral norms, he supports de-familiarization, creativity, autonomy, activity, individuality, and singularity. Kierkegaard argues that there are three stages on life's way or three spheres of existence on the path to self-realization. He believes that the highest realm of human life is the religious sphere in which Abraham, as a believer in the realm of faith, decides to sacrifice his son Isaac to God with the aim of saving his agency, individuality and singularity from the clutches of moral, governmental and public systems. Kierkegaard argues that the leap of faith is making a decision in the very moment of madness, and considers it as a kind of gambling and risktaking. He believes that faith is a belief in the impossibility, irrationality and paradoxicality. In this sense of faith, on the one hand, Abraham is willing to obey God's command regarding the sacrifice of Isaac, and on the other hand, he believes in his heart that Isaac will be returned to him in this material world by God's command. The present paper, accordingly, examines the following hypothesis: Although Kierkegaard is against the official government policy based on sovereignty and pluralism, his leap of faith, which implies standing on the boundaries and suspending the moral and the general, can lead to the emergence of a political event and, consequently, the birth of an active and autonomous subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]