Kant's Response to Hume's Skepticism - Essay Example

? Kant’s response to Hume’s skepticism Kant’s response to Hume’s skepticism Hume gets so skeptical when he argues out that no attestation exists in support of origin and effect interactions within the universe. He points out that through observing people’s habits one infers an affiliation between two dissimilar events. He, therefore, adds that it very difficult to prove that one event caused the other. Hence, even though reasoning and experience designate that objects function in a predictable way, this somehow fails to necessarily provide evidence how objects will behave in the near future depending on their former interactions. To ascertain his claims, Hume puts forth the concept that causal affairs belong to two types of knowledge: matters of fact and relations of ideas. In order for anything to bring out idea relations, its divergent must be ludicrous. Hume argues that since relations of thoughts are known via rationale alone, they are vacuous in the sense that they do not declare anything about the planet. On the other hand, every effect is different from its origin; every origin is different from its result. For that reason, an effect cannot be revealed in a casual event or object purely by prior reasoning. It is evidential that Hume was so skeptical in such a way that it is very difficult to understand how objects conduct themselves. You cannot be able to predict a future behavior based on the former. Minds are not like software where you can install a program and run it in a predefined way. Consequently, the strength of this theory is based upon the fact that experience cannot take hold of the casual bond between two objects. It is not a guarantee that one can establish events that will take place in the future. The weakness is in the issue that one cannot dwell in skepticism, as most claims lies on experience, inductive reasoning and probabilistic claims. Moreover, Hume becomes dogmatic in this approach by claiming that we cannot tell casual relationships, and so we should adopt a skeptical stance. Kant responds to Hume's skepticism using various theories, some of which include the moral and ethical theory. In hunt for the essential “good”, Kant did not accept as a true fact that anything that was inherently happiness, good or pleasure could result out of evil deeds. He did not believe that good character traits as courage, intelligence, ingenuity among others, could all be a medium through which bad deeds were implemented. Thus, he used the word “good” to mean a resolution to act purely according to one’s duty. Alternatively, Kant argues that if we have pre-determined actions, they cannot be described as gratis and morality doesn’t concern us. According to Kant, it is not possible to determine an objects behavior based on their looks or former behavior. There is a very big difference between appearance and reality. What appears to be good could actually be a result of an evil thought. It is at this point where Kant differs a bit with Hume’s skeptics in the sense that not every idea would result in a bad outcome. On the other hand, living a predetermined way of life would make life lose its moral value. It is evidential that objects behave solely in agreement with their duty. Thus, using an explanation, Kant believed that a person could concentrate only upon his/her duties. Divine pre-formation theory According to this theory, objects came into being in a very divine manner. Initially, there was nothing in the universe, but eventually, there came to be. Kant's argument that evil mind could as well as bear good results is the statement that needs to be contrasted with this theory. Heaven and earth were made without witnesses; we cannot necessary conclude that the maker had another motive which was not positive. Whoever created the world might have had good reason of utilizing the empty space that was initially in place. Kant argues that good character doesn’t automatically mean that one is good. Further, bad actions in the past do not proof that the future action will be bad too. For that reason, Divine pre-formation theory gives a solution to Kant’s theory. This is evidential in the existence of the universe itself and the mysterious creation of everything in it. There is a divine creature that has authority over everything that exists. Therefore, it is not true that objects will probably process a different character after sometime. Objects are made in a divine manner and their actions are determined by a divine power. For instance, one might fail to understand how one falls asleep, as well as the mechanisms involved to enable them get up. A sleeping man thinks of nothing and it’s not in his/her power to determine when to wake up. Alternatively, what evidence do we have to prove that we really exist? What makes one believe that whatever we see is what is actually there? In the midst of this confusion we are made to believe that someone is in control, hence the issue of divine pre-formation arises. God’s existence The most accomplished cost of rationalism of the Enlightenment was the disheartening of basic Christian devotion among the learned. Nevertheless, its effect was unplanned because the aim of many philosophers was to prove the being of God using facts. Some philosophers assumed His being could logically be proved; He was indeed a component of philosophy. There are so many evidences of God's existence, which can be argued out by looking at the traditional proof. Unmistakably, judging from cosmology, they are design and ontological argument. From design, the mechanism through which a clock works, one might be tempted to think that it was a result of mere chance of design. On the contrary, looking at the universe, the spherical earth, one would think that it happened by chance. There was no plan whatsoever. With all the complexity of the universe, surely, there must have been a design and whoever deliberated it ought to be God. On the other hand, as the most perfect being, God processed all perfections. If He were not perfect, God could not exist, hence, as God is faultless, God must be. Cosmologically, there is a reason for anything to exist. Nevertheless, there must have been a reason prior to all the causes. Nothing came from nowhere. There must have been a cause of the happening, caused by the being which was there even before the world was formed. The Bible reckons that God caused everything to happen according to His plan and purpose. Being the “prime mover”, God must be the cause of everything. Critically, at the beginning the world was void and without form. Within a week, it had all that is in it, and in good form at that. Hence, there must be a being that existed back then. This mysterious being made the earth and the heavens, the sea, land and man. It is, therefore, said that anything happens with a reason and there is always someone behind it. Since no one existed by then, the only being that caused all this must have been God. Thus, God surely exists. According to Kant, what is bona fide in itself is beyond our familiarity. Hence, concluding that if God does exist, it's difficult to know the real things about God. He further argues that Christians' faith in God is based on human autonomy to form moral values. It’s also thought that in a religion God was a suspicion of supreme spirit. God is immanent and history is a process of God's doings, hence, we are all a part of him. Others argue out that religion is a protrusion of the soul essence onto an ideal. God did not create man but rather God is the discovery of human perception. Similarly, Kierkegaard concurred with Kant that God’s existence could not be proven by reason. For instance, efforts to prove the identity of God philosophically could bring about so many arguments. It is said that God is a man. Man is said to be a sinner. We may be forced to conclude that God, being a man, is a sinner too. The mystery behind understanding the identity of God might bring up a lot of conflicts. The basic thing is that God exists. God is omnipresence. Faith makes human being believe in God’s existence. One is left to wonder about Hindus who worship idols, while their faith is made whole. Who is who? The supreme God or the Hindu idols? All in all, before the world came to be, there was nothing. A supreme being commanded all what is there to be. Therefore God existed even before heaven and earth were created. Doubting his existence would make the theory of creation lose its meaning. It would also be difficult to understand how we came to be. It is important to believe that God exists because it is very difficult to explain how everything came to being. If the world was void, then someone made it to be and the Supreme Being must be God. Reference Nash, R. H. (1999). Life’s ultimate questions: An introduction to philosophy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Read More