German Philosophers Essay

My paper is about Kant’s ideas of progression which shall focus on a study of his works such as â€Å"Idea for a Universal History† and his most famous work â€Å"What is Enlightenment? † as basis for analysis. This paper also explains the opposing views of Mendelssohn from Kant’s ideas of progression. It will compare Mendelssohn’s idea of enlightenment from that of Kant. His contribution to the emancipation of Jews will be discussed too. I will include also some ideas from other philosophers like Nietzsche on The Genealogy of Morality and Hegel on the philosophy of history. The opposing views of Mendelssohn on progression are also discussed pointing his views on secularization and enlightenment in relation to Kant’s views. A little will be discussed on Kant’s Perpetual Peace essay pointing it on a philosophical manner. Other philosopher such as Nietzsche’s views on morality using his work On the Genealogy of Morality shall be discussed in relation with Kant’s two ways of distinguishing judgments (ethical and aesthetic theory). Introduction The primary objective of this paper is to discuss Kant’s historical theory of progression. The first approach in understanding his ideas is to touch in his historical philosophy. Since the system used for reconstructing Kant’s philosophical history is critical it results to unsatisfactory remarks thus the use of a horizontal approach is necessary. A more general issue of philosophical matters will usually submerge using the historical philosophy approach. This approach is helpful in understanding the dialogue between contemporaries because it particular criticizes the idea of progression. The Kant’s theory of progression involves a strong case of particular criticism addressing these objections: (i) the rejection of the idea of progression due to religion’s being secularized; (ii) that his ideas on progression are chronologically unfair because this try to mean that the earlier generation gets a raw deal; (iii) that progression delivers the species into endless unsatisfaction; (iv) that progression adds to a harmful homogenization which may eliminate traditional values and practices (McCloughan 2003). The ways of judgment as distinguished by Kant such as the priori judgment and the posteriori judgment; the former judgment explains that something is known a priori if it is neither derived from nor testable by sense experience while the latter judgments is derived from or is testable by experience. These judgment means that we have no certain knowledge about experience, and according to Kant, he believed that we had such knowledge thus we ask the question: â€Å"How are synthetic a priori judgment? † On the other hand, in Mendelssohn’s mind, aesthetics in relationship to Kant’s theory of aesthetic is closely interrelated with psychology (Kant 1983). I. What is progress? â€Å"Progress† is a broad term that is believed to be an act of rejection throughout history by human communities of their attitude. However, an increasing number of intellectuals believe that the methods and spirit of science must be applied to all fields. Because of this belief, the idea of progress came to include a concept of social and moral progress. It was stated that the cumulative improvement in human knowledge and power that had been brought about in the physical sciences could also be brought about in the organization of human society and its character if only these barriers against the employment of rational methods in morals, religion, and politics could be eradicated (McCloughan 2003). In pre-modern Western culture, the idea of progress challenged the thought that the golden age of humankind devised in the past and that the aging of the Earth involves decay for it and analogous to the aging of individual living organisms. Moreover, the idea of progress implies a trend to history and time that contrasts sharply with the cyclical conceptions of time and of history that is dominant in ancient history. Finally, the idea of progress implies an activist role for humans in defining their well-being and in causing it, in the present and for the future (McCloughan 2003). II. Kant’s idea of progression and his ways of judgment According to Kant, humanity, as whole, was gradually progressing towards enlightenment that there is a progression that expresses the idea of the history of humankind. Moreover, it is directing towards a goal, which led to the development of shifting interpretations of this abstract notion. Kant stresses the unplanned character of the development of history, which is more likely to go after on its way to a cosmopolitan world order. ‘Progress’ toward the commencement of perpetual peace will be unpredictable and painful because while the process is undergoing, progress will adopt a more regular pace. Progress would also take the form of a more balanced development of human capacities. Both at the national and international levels, spontaneous antagonism will not only holds up the process of development, but also ensures that such development as has taken place has failed to put attention to the all-important moral dimension (Kant 1983). Progression would be the universal history of all humanity and it is very comprehensive that often takes the case with traditional universal histories, the future as well as the past. Nevertheless, progression is more than just a collection of all facts falling under the intersection of the concepts ‘human’ and ‘history’. According to Kant, this would amount to what he calls an ‘aggregate’, a mere ‘distributive unity’, and would fail to satisfy reason’s demand for ‘systematic’ or ‘collective unity’ (Kant 1983). When human beings emerge from his self-incurred minority, it is called Enlightenment that is, on a public level, the application of one’s own understanding, improvement without the help of another individual. Kant asserted that it is the freedom of thought and all individuals can attain this freedom indiscriminately. While I agree that enlightenment transcends economic class and race, freedom of thought but it cannot practically be extended to everyone (Kant 1983). Furthermore, in Kant’s words, progress may be associated with human reason and talks about how things are presented to us. Human understanding is only concerned of how it works but it not concern with the foundations. In Kant’s mind, however, neither sciences nor philosophy must answer to those questions, since this separate their innate capacities. Nevertheless, this does not mean that it is less worthwhile to answer questions on one side because he said that we could not construct any serious progress in physics, for example, while we argue over the issue of whether it is logically consistent to talk about laws of nature. However, it does mean that whatever we are doing we are in an important respect, stopping to do philosophy. If this is correct, then there is no chance of achieving progress in philosophy by adopting a paradigm that helps achieve progress, but only by making it cease to be philosophy (Kant 1983). Kant saw the problem of knowledge was on the issue of how to connect the† is† of sense experience with the â€Å"must† of necessary and universal truth. First, we distinguish analytic from synthetic judgments. An analytic judgment can be ascertained by looking on the truth of such judgment which can be know by an analysis of the subject while a synthetic judgment can be ascertained by looking at the truth of such a statement which cannot be known through an analysis of the subject (McCloughan 2003). Philosophers before Kant stated that an analytic judgment was known a priori while the synthetic judgment was known a posteriori. The former were always and necessarily true but true only about the meaning and relation of words not about the world while the latter judgment was about the world but they could only be contingent or probable truths. Kant believed that we have no certain knowledge about experience and we had such knowledge. As a solution, he further adds that experience provides the content and the mind provides the structures that determine the way in which the content will be organized and understood (McCloughan 2003). III. Kant on the issue of morality Kant says in a moral sphere that he has denied knowledge to make room for faith because he believe that moral law cannot be justified by reason it can only be obeyed on its own sake. According to Kant’s ethical theory, which rests on the concept of duty, a good person acts out of duty not because he fears punishment but because it his duty. The categorical imperative states that a person should act in such a way that it are possible for one to will that the maxim of ones action should become a universal law (Kant 1983). On the other hand, according to Kant’s aesthetic theory, which holds that judgment, give beauty to something, although they rest on feeling, but have valid claims although these are mere statements of taste or of opinion. This concept involves a judgment, which are on purpose for example, when a person judges something to be beautiful there is harmony of the experienced object with mental structure (Kant 1983). IV. Mendelssohn’s Views Mendelssohn believed that destiny should be divided into two separate categories. The first is the personal, private, and intellectual destiny of man; and the second was the destiny as a citizen of a state or a public, duty-oriented destiny. In an enlightened society according to him, the need for culture is ideally eliminated and substituted by the virtues of Enlightenment (Mendelssohn 1983). Moreover, another important truth about the Enlightenment thinking is the possession of knowledge through experience and observation, education, and self-probing on an intellectual and spiritual level. Moreover, by fulfilling these quests shall lead you to the path of Enlightenment. The idea of Mendelssohn on Enlightenment has distinguished the destiny of man through his roles as both a citizen of a state and between the role of a human to morality, religion, and personal philosophy. He discovers that this distinction is necessary because he believes that the personal interests of man as a human can do conflict with the interests of public man. According to him, the ideals of Enlightenment should be limited in their availability to man when it is in the best interest of the state and they should not meddle with work ethics or motivations, as they are necessary to the functioning of society (Mendelssohn 1983). V. Mendelssohn’s contribution to Jewish thought and secularization Mendelssohn’s principal contribution to Jewish thought concerns a declaration of inconsistency while he supports the abolition of excommunication while remaining loyal to biblical law, and is willing to overlook such coercion. In Mendelssohn’s reply, â€Å"Jerusalem Or On Religious Power and Judaism† which was one of the first works in German to plead for freedom of conscience in religious matters, separates church and state, and the civil rights for the Jews. According to him, both states and church have as their final goals the promotion of human happiness. The state is permitted to enforce specific actions, whereas the church’s task is to convince its followers of their religious and ethical duties through persuasion alone (Mendelssohn 1983). Mendelssohn replied to the question of the continued authority of Jewish law, and said that the ceremonial law originating from the Hebrew Bible is binding solely on the Jewish people and Judaism is a religion of revealed legislation but not of revealed beliefs. He further said that the existence and unity of God, the reality of divine providence, and the immortality of the soul should be declared on the grounds of natural reason, not miracles or supernatural revelation. Mendelssohn was concerned with freedom inside one religion as well as freedom of religion for minority communities but he is still confirming the continued authority of Jewish law. He argued that by identifying the church and state in biblical Israel should end with the destruction of the ancient association of states and laws that preserve the universal principles of Jewish faith against errors into idolatry and polytheism. Until God arranges another indubitable supernatural revelation to the Jewish people, these laws will not lose their force to replace that of Mount Sinai. However, loyalty to the Jewish law does not prevent the Jews from expecting the legitimate duties of citizenship in an enlightened society (Mendelssohn 1983). Mendelssohn was seen as a forebear of the conflicting trends of German Jewry but Kant as well as Hegel viewed his synthesis of philosophical theism and traditional religious observance as outdated. Nevertheless, he was revered by the Enlighteners for having moved from the ghetto to modern society without abandoning the Jewish tradition or the Jewish people. However, Mendelssohn was criticized for having paved the way to the loss of Jewish distinctiveness and, therefore, to assimilation. In retrospect, his thought and life can be seen to have posed some of the fundamental issues of Jewish religious survival in secular, liberal society (Mendelssohn 1983).