Immanuel Kant, his life and doctrine

Front matter

B68S m n

BR

WBffl wBSL

Preface To The Second Edition

No essential changes have been made in the second edition. In a few places slight additions have been made, and here and there the expression of the thought has been improved, and the divisions made clear to the eye by means of headings.

The fact that the first edition has been so quickly exhausted I regard with pleasure as new evidence that there is a wide circle of readers who are actively interested in the Kantian philosophy. The new century that stands before the door cannot have any more favorable omen than the fact that it devotes earnest attention to such serious thoughts.

May the two men shown in the accompanying portrait look kindly on the coming century. The one that is just passing would have brought them many severe disappointments. The belief in ideas which they imparted to it has gradually given way to belief in the external forces and material goods that now dominate our life. Nevertheless, as in families the grandson may resemble the grandfather, so it may perhaps happen in history; perhaps the twentieth century will be more like the eighteenth than the nineteenth.

F. PAULSEN.

U I/. 111. I BsRLDT,

Preface To The First Edition

The fact that this book belongs to the series of ' Classical Writers of Philosophy' marks out the task that it is possible for it to undertake. It can only give an exposition of Kant's thoughts in their broad outlines, and not enter upon an exhaustive account of their details. Still less is it possible for it to undertake to solve the thousand questions that have become connected with the system, or to try to take account of the endless and ever-increasing literature that deals with Kant himself. On the other hand, ii will have a somewhat different character from the other books that have already appeared in this scries. Kant occupies at present a special place in our philosophical literature : he forms the centre of the academic study of philosophy, and is the object of a kind of philological activity, as Aristotle was some decades ago. I have, therethought thai I should not restrict myself to a general explanation of the fundamental thoughts of the system, but rather make an attempt at the same time to inform the reader about the Kantian studies of the present time, about the differences of opinion on the chief points, and thf sources at our command for a knowledge of these ideas and their development, so far as this was possible within tin- given limits. I am fully aware that it is a somewhat If undertaking to write such a book at a time when

line thai Kanl left, either in print or iii manuscript, is brought ud ler the scrutin; tigation. V

Xll PREFACE

theless, I could not and would not refuse the task which the editor and the publisher urged upon me with friendly persuasions. And, above all, the task itself attracted me. I cannot count myself as an unconditional adherent of Kant, but I am firmly convinced that the great fundamental thoughts of his philosophy have a mission in pointing the way to a philosophy of the world and of life at the present time ; and the earnestness and force that he has devoted to the solution of the deepest and most ultimate problems will render his works for all time both an attractive and worthy object of study.

I have not sought to conceal my conviction that in the system as such there is not a little which is not of permanent value. I have indicated, with the candor due to a man like Kant, the points where he enters on a path that I cannot follow, and which I do not regard as practicable. In this criticism I include not merely the external schematic arrangement, but also the inner form of the system, which is determined by an a priori dogmatic mode of thought, which takes its character from mathematics and dominates his epistemology and moral philosophy. It belongs in its presuppositions to the eighteenth century. The nineteenth century has everywhere abandoned these, and adopted in their place the historical and genetic point of view. On the side of its content, I feel much more sympathy with Kant's philosophy. The ethico-metaphysical Idealism, the conception of the relation of the knowing mind to reality, the determination of the significance of the value of knowledge and of will for life and for a theory of the world, — all these have become permanent elements of German philosophy. For the very reason that Kant's philosophy is a living system, I thought that I should not abstain from criticising it. When criticism ceases, it is a sign that a system is dead : to become a matter of history

PREFACE xill

is called death. This time has not jet come for Kant ; he still has important things to say, even at the present time. And this is true not merely of his epistemology. I wish especially that the spirit of his practical Idealism, his lofty ideas of human dignity, right, and freedom might again exert an influence in this age of u realism," of belief in might and money. The true German people cannot, without shame, look back from the end of this century to the end of the preceding one, which Schiller celebrated in that proud hymn.

The purpose of the book made it necessary to devote more space to Kant's central doctrines, and merely to outline the less fundamental disciplines. In particular, I have devoted a detailed exposition to the metaphysics, which is usually too much overshadowed by the critical doctrine in the accounts of Kant's philosophy. Kant one time remarked jokingly that it was his fate to have fallen in love with metaphysics, though it was only seldom that he could boast of any favors from her. This is more than a mere jest, however, and in spite of the critique of reason he always remained true to his old love, and the result shows that favors were not entirely wanting on her side. It is true that Kant now and again in the Critique adopts the standpoint of the Agnostic. But wherever he expresses himself directly in his own personal thinking, as in the lectures and lecture-notes, we find everywhere the pure Platonist, and he who does not give heed to the Platonist will not understand the critical philosopher. The transcendental Idealism does not exclude the objective, metaphysical Idealism. On the contrary, its vocation is to serve as a basis, on the one hand, for a rationalistic epistemologjj and on the other for an idealistic metaphysics. Kant's view of the nature of what is " actually real n remained unaltered throughout his life. Reality is in itself a sys-

XIV PREFACE

tem of existing thought-essences brought into a unity by ideological relations that are intuitively thought by the Divine intellect, and by this very act of thought posited as real. The method of establishing this view changes, but the view itself undergoes no alteration. In the Critique of Pure Reason the negative side, the controverting of a false demonstration, is most prominent. Here Kant's thought has attained the greatest distance from its centre. In the Critique of Pure Reason, the reality of the intelligible world continued to be taken for granted as a matter of course, and in the later writings, especially in the two later Critiques, it again reappears in a most emphatic fashion as the dominating central point. If one overlooks this and makes Kant either a sceptical agnostic who teaches the unknowableness of things-in-themselves, or a subjective idealist for whom there is no reality in itself at all, he will never be able to make anything of his philosophy. At least he can never present a systematic exposition of it, but only interpret disconnected passages.

I should be glad if this exposition contributed a little to inspire courage in idealistic metaphysics, which in these latter days has begun to venture again into the light, by showing that Kant is no forbidding or threatening name, but a kindly disposed patron.

The purpose of the book answers the question for whom it is written. Above all, it aims to afford guidance to those who wish to read and study Kant himself. Our students nowadays are referred to Kant on all sides, by means of lectures, discussions, and examination requirements. Thus it happens that for many the Critique of Pure Reason is the first philosophical book that they seriously attempt to read. It is obvious that the book is not well suited to this purpose. Kant himself would not have recommended it. He did not even write the Prolegomena for pupils, but

PREFACE XV

for future teachers of philosophy. In fact, not only are the problems with which the Critique deals in themselves the most difficult, but the manner of treatment greatly enhances the difficulty. They presuppose nothing less than an acquaintance with the entire state of philosophy at the time, with dogmatism and scepticism, with Leibniz and Hume. And, in truth, these influences are not merely external to it, but are contained in it as systems of ideas that have been transcended though not yet effaced. That is especially true of Leibniz. The Critique of Pure Reason not seldom gives the impression of a palimpsest, over an original half-effaced manuscript. A new work is written, with the effect that its clearness is obscured by the script that lies beneath. Nevertheless, we cannot alter these things. Kant's philosophy is the door to the philosophy of our century, and the door to the Kantian philosophy is the Critique of Pure Reason. I have, therefore, taken special pains to explain the historical condition of affairs out of which Kant's philosophy arose with sufficient fulness to render intelligible the problems that he raises. It is certain that with this assistance the door will remain narrow and the path steep ; but even this may have its advantage. An enthusiast in recommending that Greek should be made the beginning of school instruction, advanced the following reasons for his plan: If the nine-year-old boy masters at first the forms of the Greek language, he will proceed smoothly and without difficulty downwards on the path of language study. Thus one could comfort and encourage the reader of the Critique by telling him that, when he has worked through and understood it, all other philosophical books would seem easy and afford him no (rouble.

So far as possible I refer to Kant's writings according to the titles of sections and the paragraphs. The paging is

XVI PREFACE

given from Hartenstein's second edition (8 vols.). Moreover, I have been sparing of quotations. I do not believe that on an average one out of a hundred references is looked up. And in the last resort an interpretation of Kant must be based upon his whole system. By using individual passages one can get out of him almost every possible and impossible view.

The portrait that is here given is a reproduction of the Kant-Lessing group from the Friedrich monument by Rauch. The photograph was taken by Herr Niemeyer (Steglitz) from the cast in the Rauch Museum. The head of Kant was originally taken from the bust in possession of the University of Konigsberg, modelled from life in 1802, by Hagemann, a pupil of Schadow. It was a happy thought of Rauch to place Kant and Lessing together. Kant himself would scarcely have wished to select any one else as the representative of the readers for whom he wrote. And with the insight of genius the character of the two men is represented : Kant, the teacher, expounding his system with steadfast seriousness and zeal ; Lessing, the hearer, listening to the word with quiet attention. And even the slight smile that plays around the refined mouth of the listener, would not have been wanting if he could have read, with his characteristic confidence, the works in which the critical philosopher announced the new doctrine. It is as if the sceptically curved lips would say : " Have we at last, then, the whole and final truth ? "

The original of the letter of Kant to his brother which is here reproduced is in the Royal Library at Berlin. It shows the handwriting, and also affords a not uninteresting impression of the man's nature and mode of thought.

FRIEDRICH PAULSEN.

Steglitz bei Berlin,

Table Of Contents

INTRODUCTION. Page

I. Kant's Significance in the General History of

Thought 1

Introduction

I. Kant's Significance in the General History of Thought

There are three attitudes of the mind towards reality which lay claim to truth, — Religion, Philosophy, and Science. Although sprung from a single root, they become differentiated in the higher stages of mental life, reunite, and again stand opposed to one another in a variety of ways, receiving their characteristic stamp through the manner in which this process takes place. Especially is it true that every philosophy is essentially determined through the attitude which it adopts towards religion and science.

In general, philosophy occupies an intermediate place between science and religion. If one adopts the figure of Bacon which represents the mental world as a ball (globus intellect ualis), similar to the globus materialis by means of which the mediaeval cosmology pictured the external world, then one might divide the world into three concentric spheres, corresponding to the three spheres of the cosmos. The outermost sphere of this ball, corresponding to the region of the fixed stars, would represent science ; the inner kernel, corresponding to the earth, would represent religion ; while philosophy finally would occupy the middle or planetary sphere,

Science holds the peripheral position in the mental Ufa In this field the thinking and calculating understanding gives rise to a system of concepts and formulas by means of which it externally comprehends and rules over nature. Eeligion forms the inner kernel of our view of the world ; its goal is the interpretation of the meaning of things. Science makes the world conceivable, but does not render it intelligible. Conformity to law is not its meaning. All religion claims certainly to possess the meaning of life and of the world, and to reveal this in concrete examples of the good and the perfect. Philosophy occupies an intermediate position between the two, — relating itself on the one hand to science, and on the other to religion. It seeks not only to conceive the world, but also to understand it. The history of philosophy shows that its task consists simply in mediating between science and religion. It seeks to unite knowledge and faith, and in this way to restore the unity of the mental life. It performs this task both for the individual and for society. As in the case of the individual, it mediates between the head and the heart, so in society it prevents science and religion from becoming entirely strange and indifferent to each other, and hinders also the mental life of the people from being split up into a faith-hating science and a science-hating faith or superstition.

It follows from what has been said that the character of a philosophy is essentially determined through the manner in which it performs this historical task. From this standpoint we may distinguish two fundamental forms of philosophy: I shall name them with Kant the dogmatic and the critical. The essence of dogmatic philosophy consists in the fact that it undertakes to found faith upon knowledge ; it seeks to demonstrate what is to be believed. It produces as a variation of itself its own contradictory, that is, the sceptical philosophy. For when the latter tests the demonstrations and perceives their inadequacy, it comes at last to discard faith itself as a delusion, and to maintain that knowledge through scientific concepts constitutes the only form of truth. The critical philosophy comes forward in opposition to this. Its real nature is seen in the fact that it makes clear the essential difference between the functions of knowing and of believing, between conceiving things through a system of laws, and understanding their significance ; and through a strict division of the field it shows how an agreement may be reached. Matters of faith cannot be demonstrated by the understanding, as dogmatism undertakes to do, because they are not derived from the understanding. But just for this reason they cannot be overthrown by the understanding, as scepticism tries to show.

I shall indicate the way in which this conceptual schema is borne out by the historical development.

The original form of positive dogmatism in the Western world is the idealistic philosophy of the Greeks ; the original form of negative dogmatism is found in their materialistic philosophy. Plato and his successor Aristotle set out from the fundamental principle that the world is the realization of ideas. The cosmic order manifested through mathematically formulated laws is objective reason. Every living being is the realization of a purposive idea, while man, as the highest living creature, as knowing his own end and the purpose of the universe, is the self-realization of reason. The real function that philosophy has to perform, then, is to make known the meaning of the world in the form of a scientific system.

The same view of the nature of the world and of philosophy is dominant in the systems of the middle ages, which retained their place as the accepted school-philosophy until the beginning of the eighteenth century. It was also an assumption of the natural theology that after the time of Locke and Leibniz superseded scholasticism. The purpose of this natural theology is to furnish scientific demonstrations of the truth of whai is held through Eaith, at Least in its main principles, <>r to discover the divine, purpose in nature and in history. Apart from the dependence of Christian philosophy upon external authority, it is distinguished from Greek philosophy mainly by the fact that it adopts a teleological philosophy of history, while Greek speculation limits itself to a teleology of nature.

Along with positive dogmatism, we have, as the obverse, negative dogmatism. In the ancient world, we meet this in the Epicurean philosophy, which knows only bodies and uniform natural laws, and refuses to recognize ideas and purposes in the real world. Although this point of view disappears almost completely during the middle ages, it emerges again as soon as pure scientific thought, which first showed itself in mathematics and the sciences of nature, found freer expression. In the second half of the eighteenth century, this philosophy was at the same time both the prohibited and the prevailing form of thought. This was especially the case in France.

Now, the real purpose of the critical philosophy, the philosophy of Kant, is to overcome the opposition which has extended through the entire history of human thought. Kant undertakes with positive dogmatism to restore the agreement between faith and knowledge. In the last resort, however, he establishes this agreement by means of a philosophy of morals, not by means of a philosophy of nature. In this way, he is able to grant to negative dogmatism its right to a free, unprejudiced investigation of the entire world of phenomena.

In his theoretical philosophy, Kant overthrows at one blow both positive and negative dogmatism. With materialism, he asserts that science leads only to a knowledge of the uniform connection of things according to law, not to a recognition of their meaning; it is mechanical, not teleological. A teleology of nature and of history is impossible from the scientific standpoint, and consequently it is impossible to have a science of natural theology. But a scientific knowledge of the world, which construes all things, from the formation of the cosmos to the origin of life on the earth, and the course of human history, as the necessary effects of given causes, is possible. On the other hand, Kant holds with idealism that there is a meaning in things, and that we can become certain of this meaning. Life has a real significance. With immediate certainty we affirm moral good as the real purpose of life. We do this, not by means of the understanding or scientific thinking, but through the will, or, as Kant says, the practical reason. In the fact that the will, which alone judges things as ' good ' or ' bad,' determines morality as that which has absolute worth, we have the point of departure for the interpretation of life. It is through the will, not through the understanding, that we interpret history ; such persons and events as, e. g., Jesus and his life and death, are the historical facts of supreme importance. Thus arise all the historical religions. And in the fact that the entire world is referred to this fixed point, the religious view of the world has its origin ; nature is interpreted as a means for the fulfilment of that purpose. Faith is convinced that God has made the world in order to realize in it his salvation toward men. All dogmas of every religion are the diverse expressions of the conviction that the world exists for the sake of the good, and that nature and history find their explanation in the purposes of God.

But how now is it possible to bring together in a unitary view of the world these two independent ways of regarding things, — the scientific explanation and the religious interpretation? Kant's answer is, by means of the distinction bet ween a sensible and a super-sensible world. The world which constitutes the object of mathematico-scientific knowledge is not reality as such, but only the appearance of reality to our sensibility. The world of religious conviction, on the contrary, is the supersensuous reality itself. This can never become the object of scientific knowledge, on account of the nature of human cognition, which presupposes perception. Eegarding it we can know only that it exists ; that is the ultimate point to which knowledge attains. In reflecting critically on its own nature and limits, the understanding recognizes that there is an absolute reality beyond the world of sense. And now the spirit (which is something more than understanding) claims, as a moral being, to be a member of this absolute reality, and defines the nature of this reality through its own essence. This is Kant's doctrine of the primacy of the practical reason over the theoretical.

In this way the critical philosophy solves the old problem of the relation of knowledge and faith. Kant is convinced that by properly fixing the limits of each he has succeeded in furnishing a basis for an honorable and enduring peace between them. Indeed, the significance and vitality of his philosophy will rest principally upon this. Although in the details of this philosophy there may be much that is not agreeable to us, it is its enduring merit to have drawn for the first time, with a firm hand and in clear outline, the dividing line between knowledge and faith. This gives to knowledge whafc belongs to it, — the entire world of phenomena for free investigation ; it conserves, on the other hand, to faith its eternal right to the interpretation of life and of the world from the standpoint of value.

There is indeed no doubt that the great influence which Kant exerted upon his age was due just to the fact that he appeared as a deliverer from unendurable suspense. The old view regarding the claims of the feelings and the understanding on reality had been more and more called in question during the second half of the eighteenth century. Voltaire and Hume had not written in vain. Science seemed to demand the renunciation of the old faith. On the other hand, the heart still cluim to it. Pietism had increased the sincerity and earnestness of religion, and given it a new and firm root in the affections of the German people. At this point Kant showed a way of escape from the dilemma. His philosophy made it possible to be at once a candid thinker and an honest man of faith. For that, thousands of hearts have thanked him with passionate devotion. It was a deliverance similar to that which the Reformation had brought to the German spirit a century or two earlier. Indeed, one may in a certain sense regard Kant as the finisher of what Luther had begun. The original purpose of the Reformation was to make faith independent of knowledge, and conscience free from external authority. It was the confusion of religion and science in scholastic philosophy against which Luther first revolted. That faith had been transformed into a philosophical body of doctrines, that fides had been changed to credo, seemed to him to be the root of all evil. To substitute for belief in a human dogma the immediate certainty of the heart in a gracious God reconciled through Christ, to emphasize the importance of the inner disposition, as opposed to outer acts, was the soul of his work. Kant was the first who definitely destroyed the scholastic philosophy. By banishing religion from the field of science, and science from the sphere of religion, he afforded freedom and independence to both. And at the same time he placed morality on a Protestant basis, — not works, but the disposition of the heart.

To this interpretation and evaluation of the Kantian philosophy there are opposed two other views. Criticism is combated by two forms of dogmatism. Though opposed

"h other, they agree in their unfavorable opinion of Kant. Negative dogmatism accuses him of treachery to knowledge; positive dogmatism, <»f yielding the righl faith. The latter reproaches him as the destroyer of reliad of the philosophy which was well disposed towards it : the former despises him for his subservience to tradi-

I modes of thought and to the pretended necessities of the heart, — a weakness which at most can be forgiven only in view of his other services. 1

I shall not further discuss negative dogmatism and the judgment which it passes on Kant. At the present day it plays no great role. Materialism does not nowadays speak the final word. The representatives of science for the most part occupy the Kantian position. So much the more frequent and vigorous are the attacks from the other side. Revived scholasticism, in particular, directs its attacks at Kant as the champion of the hostile philosophy. With Thomism, as the fundamental form of constructive idealism, is contrasted criticism, as the type of subjective, false, and destructive idealism. Thus it has been pictured by Otto Willmann in his three-volume History of Idealism. He represents the history of philosophy according to the following schema. First, the ascending branch. From Plato to St. Thomas we have the ever richer and fuller unfolding of pure idealism, which posits the ideas as objective, constitutive principles of reality. With Thomas the highest point is reached. Then with Nominalism begins the downward course ; the disaster of the Eef ormation followed, and this in logical train led to the Illumination and the Revolution. In Kant's philosophy the spirit of denial has found its completest expression. It is at the very opposite pole from Thomism. In it false idealism has attained to its final consequence — the reduction of all ideal principles to subjectivism. In this system, the subject, with boundless

1 H. Heine, in his essay on " Religion and Philosophy in Germany," has characterized, or rather caricatured, Kant's relation to religion as follows : After Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, had destroyed deism, or the old Jehovah himself, the tragedy was followed by a farce. Behind the dreadful critic stands, carrying an umbrella, his old servant Lampe, tears and drops of anguish upon his face. " Then Iinmanuel Kant has compassion and shows that he is not only a great philosopber, but also a good man, and, half kindlv, half ironically, he speaks : ' Old Lampe must have a God or else he cannot be happy, says the practical reason ; for my part, the practical reason may, then, guarantee the existence of God.'"

self-conceit, claims to be the bearer of all reality, the creator of both the laws of nature and of morals. The autonomy of reason is the real nerve of Kant's philosophizing. Kant is the absolutely free thinker, " an advocate for the overthrow of faith, morals, and science." " The idea that he is a pure German philosopher is quite preposterous. Kant is a cosmopolite : he follows the English, is an enthusiastic admirer of Eousseau, and raves about the French Revolution. To German honesty (Treue) Kant's destructive sophistic is in direct opposition." 1

There can be no doubt that this condemnatory judgment regarding Kant is a direct consequence of the Catholic principle. The autonomy of reason and the infallibility of the dogma are evidently irreconcilably opposed. It is also a matter of course that for the adherent of the absolute philosophy, sanctioned by the authority of the Pope, there only exist outside his own standpoint various forms of error, over whose differences it is scarcely worth while to linger. Philosophia ccelestis has only one opposite, the philosophia terrena, unless one should oppose to it a philosophia infernalis, which, moreover, also stands in the same relation. Both are sisters born of arrogance and disobedience.

What attitude would Kant have taken towards such criticism ? I think he would have accepted unconditionally the characterization philosophia terrena. He recognizes that he is a man placed in this world; his standing-place is

1 III., pp. 503, 528. — In an essay on this book by Commer, the editor of the Catholic Jahrbiicher fiir Philos. und spekul. Theologie (1896), we find the following statements : There are two species of philosophy, the true and the false — philosophia ccelestis and philosophia terrena. These correspond to the two kingdoms of reality, as St. Augustine has distinguished them, — the civitas Dei and the civitas terrena. The one philosophy has its roots in love to God ; the other, in self-love. On the one side stands St. Thomas, the representative of divine and true philosophy; and on the other, stand Materialism, Anarchism, Pantheism, Atheism, Agnosticism, and in the midst, Criticism, as the most dangerous foe of God and of religion. — I have made some criticisms of Willmann's book in an essay entitled, "The Most Recent Inquisition on Modern Philosophy," in the Deutsche liundscliau, August, 1898.