He said we have a right to hope. He said that because we do not receive justice in this world, we have a right to hope for justice in another. He said we have a right to hope that human beings can make progress. He, like Steven King, think that hope is one of the best things.
2007-10-07 04:17:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by Sowcratees 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
To us, Kant's efforts are approachable only through the modern "loss of faith" that lays the groundwork for Hegel, Feuerbach, and especially Freud. Unlike Kant, Hegel realized that his efforts belonged to a specific time. Had a specific development in Metaphysics not culminated with Kant's thinking in this way, Hegel could not have come to this conclusion, that the dynamism of the West was coming to a denouement.
Since Kant, then, the pace at which the veil is drawn in front of the light increases. Access to the origins of the Western mind becomes more difficult because we habitually employ modern psychology in the interpretation of old texts - those composed before the "loss of faith".
Kant's metaphysics seem less useful than Spinoza's. The reason for this is that Spinoza was closer to that moment when small groups of men decided to abandon science as a "quest for an account of the whole", an activity that we moderns assume to be quixotic, in favor of securing the immediate and practicable means of survival. In metaphysics, you see, it is important to pay attention to the actions of men, as it seems they tend to not question the "good or evil" while "in the act". Now, in 2007, we do have men who are willing to face this grave problem as it relates directly to thinking, but not necessarily to "psychological well-being".
Disregard the technical babble. Pay great attention instead to those eerie commonalities between what is said to be superstitious and what we do not question because we are "in the act" of "doing good". Notice that someone enthralled in superstition may nonetheless be doing no harm to themselves or others, while those rational-industrial persons can, and often do, work themselves and their kind to a wasteful surplus, "beyond the useful".
2007-10-07 05:30:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by Baron VonHiggins 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
"Kant shows in the third part on 'Transcendental Dialectic', the forms of SENSIBILITY and UNDERSTANING cannot be employed beyond experience in order to define the nature of such metaphysical entities as God, the immortal soul, and the World conceived as a totality [cosmology.].....Kant is driven to the denial of the possibility of a science of metaphysics...but they are not wholly useless. ''The Ideas of Pure Reason' have a 'regulatory effect', in that they point to general objects which they cannot, however, constitute [i.e., noumena.]"
2007-10-07 04:37:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Difficult to speak about the metaphysics of kant in one line. I suggest that you try and understand his distinction between phenonmena and Noumena, metaphysical deduction of categories of understanding, time, space, and how the realm of noumena becomes necessarily un known and un knowlable.
2007-10-07 03:56:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by Dr. Girishkumar TS 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
E.Kant laughed at the notion that any intellectual mind would accept such nonsense....even though he he tried to prove the nonexistence of a god,he professed to be a practicing christian and believed that parapsychology was akin to devil worship.....read his books!
2007-10-07 04:04:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 2
·
1⤊
2⤋