What is the fundamental difference beetween the terms transcendent and immanent ?

Question

I'm looking at a difference regarding philosophy. more particular of Kant's.

Answer 1

Here is a short, but complete, answer.

The fundamental difference between transcendent and immanent it that transcendent is about being above and beyond while immanent is about being close and involved.

These two opposites are said to be simultaneous characteristics of G-d.

"Theism holds that God exists realistically, objectively, and independently of human thought; that God created and sustains everything; that God is omnipotent and eternal, and is personal, interested and answers prayer. It holds that God is both transcendent and immanent; thus, God is simultaneously infinite and in some way present in the affairs of the world."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Answer 2

Immanent Meaning

Answer 3

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
What is the fundamental difference beetween the terms transcendent and immanent ?
I'm looking at a difference regarding philosophy. more particular of Kant's.

Answer 4

Define Immanence

Answer 5

Neither. People walk along a great loop. Sometimes inward to an immanent god and sometimes outward to a transcendental god. These are just points of extremity on a great loop that we walk over many lifetimes. It is this loop that is God, God is neither a transcendental being beyond our comprehension nor is God an immanent being in our heart mind. God is rather the immanent transcendental thread that links all. It is our dualistic mind that sees god and not god. When we look in such a manner then god is 'either here or there' then as we give up the dualistic mind God is both 'this and that, here and there' only when we give up the notions of an immanent god or transcendent god do we see them as nothing more than glove puppets being used by God, like a parent playing with their baby.

Answer 6

Kant maintains that understanding cannot know anything but that which is experienced immanently(understanding from within). However, reason can go beyond this and conceive of a world of which we can have no actual experience. Thus it transcends , rises above experience, and gives us transcendent principle. In here understanding is immanent but reason transcends above it.

Answer 7

Immanence, derived from the Latin in manere "to remain within", refers to philosophical and metaphysical theories of the divine as existing and acting within the mind or the world. This concept generally contrasts or coexists with the idea of transcendence.

The first meaning, as part of the concept pair transcendence/immanence, is used primarily with reference to God's relation to the world and is particularly important in theology. Here transcendent means that God is completely outside of and beyond the world, as contrasted with the notion that God is manifested in the world. This meaning originates both in the Aristotelian view of God as the prime mover, a non-material self-consciousness that is outside of the world, and in the Jewish and Christian idea of God as a being outside of the world who created the world out of nothingness (creatio ex nihilo). In contrast, philosophies of immanence such as stoicism, Spinoza, Deleuze or pantheism maintains that God is manifested in and fully present in the world and the things in the world.

In modern philosophy, Kant gave transcendental a new, third meaning in his theory of knowledge, concerned with the conditions of possibility of knowledge itself. For him it meant knowledge about our cognitive faculty with regard to how objects are possible a priori. "I call all knowledge transcendental if it is occupied, not with objects, but with the way that we can possibly know objects even before we experience them." (Critique of Pure Reason, A12) Something is transcendental if it plays a role in the way in which the mind "constitutes" objects and makes it possible for us to experience them as objects in the first place. Ordinary knowledge is knowledge of objects; transcendental knowledge is knowledge of how it is possible for us to experience those objects as objects. This is based on Kant's acceptance of David Hume's argument that certain general features of objects (e.g. persistence, causal relationships) cannot derive from the sense impressions we have of them. Kant argues that the mind must contribute those features and make it possible for us to experience objects as objects. In the central part of his Critique of Pure Reason, the "Transcendental Deduction of the Categories", Kant argues for a deep interconnection between the ability to have self-consciousness and the ability to experience a world of objects. Through a process of synthesis, the mind generates both the structure of objects and its own unity. For Kant, the "transcendent", as opposed to the "transcendental", is that which lies beyond what our faculty of knowledge can legitimately know. Hegel's counter-argument to Kant was that to know a boundary is also to be aware of what it bounds and as such what lies beyond it -- in other words, to have already transcended it.

Hope this helps....reference Wikipedia if you wanna read more.