chazwyman wrote:Okay this is getting complicated with all these nested posts. SO I write it out manually.
First there man be a slight problem as the abbr for the Critique of Practical Reason might be confused with the Critique of Pure Reason could both be CPR. In the light of this I wonder if you might be more clear.
Noted. The Critique of Practical Reason is often abbr as CPrR.
Secondly, you said that "In Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, he showed that there is no independent perfect object".
This is not the case. Kant demanded that there is in fact such a thing as the noumenon. But that such a thing was not available to us. This is not just nit picking as many people who have studied Kant, especially scientists think that the objective study of science is a means of pushing back the boundaries of the Subject to penetrate the Noumenon with a fuller understanding of the Phenomena; that which was once obscure by this boundary is revealed as we understand more fully the natural world. The Noumenon shrinks as the Phenomena are revealed.
This is controversial topic between the realist and the anti-realist views.
I am with the anti-realist view, i.e. the noumenon is only an ideal thing reasoned out by pure reason (without sensibility), it cannot be known ever and can only be used in the negative sense.
Kant wrote:The concept of a noumenon is thus a merely limiting concept, the function of which is to curb the pretensions of sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
At the same time it is no arbitrary invention; it is bound up with the limitation of sensibility, though it cannot affirm anything positive beyond the field of sensibility.
Norman K Smith (NKS) - pg 272
Btw, I do not want to discuss the details of the noumenon here.
Third, You assert that he specifically claims that he uses his epistemology in reverse and substantiate it with the following quote from CPR (without ref,);"As the idea give the rule… … Perfection thereby prescribed" Your response if problematic for two reasons. The quote does not seem to support my specific question and I cannot recognise the quote so cannot look back for context. Why would he simply reverse his findings, as if they were of no importance.
But on this point, in what manner does Kant assume we come 'perfectly prescribed', and do you think it is valid or meaningful?
I mentioned the related NKS page earlier. It is relevant to your question, your radar is not within the range to detect it.
In the CPR, Kant showed there is no perfect unconditioned empirical thing, i.e. the thing-in-itself or noumenon.
However it is possible to generate a perfect thing using pure reason, i.e. the thing-in-itself or noumenon, that is stripped of all elements of experience, sensibility and leaving only the form, logical, etc. This is where Kant explained how one can manifest God in thoughts using pure reason (not sensible-based reasoning) but a perfect God cannot exists empirically.
Kant reversed the CPR and apply the principles of the noumenon to his morality. What he proposed was to keep out the empirical and experience elements of the CPR and rely solely on pure-reason to reason out the perfect ideal moral in CPrR. The ideal perfect moral, i.e. CI should be based on logical principles.
What he implied was, we cannot find the perfect uncondition 'apple', the apple-in-itself via experience and in the empirical world, but we can reason out the perfect and ideal moral standards using pure-reason without relying on experience, i.e. the Perfection thereby Prescribed'.
Nevertheless whatever is ideal need to conform to the laws of logic and should not be something of "arbitrary invention".
Once we have these logical perfect moral standards that are not expected to be attainable, the next question is how to reconcile them with the practical.
Note the example on the Perfect Market of Economics which economists are in a way using pure-reason to reason out and lay down its principles. The Perfect Market is just a guide and not expected to be attainable.
There are so other problems further, in which it is not clear if you are evaluating Kant or asserting from his position e.g. For morality, humanity should rely on pure reason to establish the highest ideal, the CI. Note the basis is pure reason not utility (thus the not utilitarianism).
Reason leads as much to utilitarianism as it does to the CI. Just ask Mill
There is a very big difference between reason and pure-reason. There is reason that is grounded on the sensible and experience (a posteriori) on one end, and reason that is not grounded on anything sensisble (a priori ) in the other extreme.
As I had mentioned pure-reason is totally divorced from grounded sensible utilities.
One example of pure-reason is 2 + 3 = 5 which is true and there is no need for experience to support it.
The CI should therefore in the same mode as '2 + 3 = 5' i.e. pure logic which do not need sensibility or utility to support it.
Okay - now it comes together. I'm not asking here what Kant claims. I'm asking you.
Kant's position seems to be - I've got a good reason why we should all behave under the CI rule, and because I said it the reasoning is pure.
For Mill and Bentham, their advice for follow Utilitarianism seems to be more honest. They are making a plea that this is a good idea; that it ought to be the case because it works. And this is exactly why I think Kant is a megalomaniac.
The CI, he claims is divinely inspired and brought to us, though my perfect reason, and this is why it is the right way to live. Kant is claiming that perfect morality IS; Mill is suggesting an ought, he is thus rejecting one of Hume's greatest warnings.
Nah, Kant did not claim the CI is divinely inspired.
What he implied was, for morality, it is more effectively to work from a top (perfect) down (the practical) approach then from a bottom up approaches.
In this case one is aware of the reasonable perfect limit which one is working on.
As I had stated, for Kant, the CI is not expected to be carved in stone tablet like the Ten Commandments, but it is a flexible perfect logical form which can be changed with varying conditions and circumstances.
The CI based on pure-reason is just like any typical planning.
One establish the ideal theoretical plan based on the current known and speculated Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT).
The Plan (CI) stipulates the 'oughts'.
On the practical side;
Then one work the plan and adjust accordingly.
However the plan should be flexible, if conditions of the assumptions and SWOT has significant unanticipated changes, then one has to change the original plan and continue to work on it towards the stated objectives.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.