Philosophy of Religion - Essay Example

Philosophy of Religion Question I Critique to Pure Reason The central focus of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is the determination of the dimensions and limits of pure reason. His interest was on the capacity of human reason to generate knowledge independent of sense experience or other alternative forms of knowing. In part, the Critique of Pure Reason assesses the claims of rationalism and metaphysics regarding the capacity of the mind to probe into the nature of reality without the support of the senses (Adorno 41). The main features in Kant’s Critique to Pure Reason are the relationship between a priori knowledge and analytic knowledge on the one hand, and a posteriori knowledge and synthetic knowledge on the other hand (Adorno 50). Kant contends that analytic knowledge is distinguished by the fact that the concept in the predicate is necessarily contained in the concept in the subject. Synthetic judgments are distinguished by the fact that the concepts in the predicate have information that is lacking in the concept in the subject. In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant assigns the qualities of a priori and synthetic judgments to all mathematical truth and scientific principles (Adorno 63). In his philosophy, such truths have a universal element and their truth-values are not dependent on sense experiences. The a priori and synthetic elements of the human mind, according to Kant, makes it possible for the mind to discern knowledge but does not imply the express capacity for the mind to discern the mysteries of the universe as understood within the claims of metaphysics. The perceiving mind, according to Kant, processes information acquired and interprets it in accordance with time and space. It is within the same element of the perceiving mind that Kant explains the capacity of the human subject to make sense of the laws of causality. The critique introduces the role of intuitions and the faculties of sensibility and understanding as some of the key determinants of knowledge. Time and space, according to this line of though, become only intuitions generated by the faculty of sensibility. The faculty of understanding, on the other hand, generates scientific concepts. Knowledge from sense experience occurs after the processing and organizing of the experience in line with the intuitions of time and space. The faculty of understanding, according to Kant, organizes the events we experience in order for them to make sense. Finally, Kant argues that it is not entirely impossible to know the nature of ‘noumena,’ which he compares to “things-in-themselves.” The challenge of metaphysics, according to the philosopher, is that it attempts to unravel realities of things that go beyond the limits of knowledge (Adorno 70). In the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant argues that practical reason is capable in guiding the attainment of knowledge more effectively and reliably than in the desire-based practical reasoning (Adorno 33). The critique proposes the fostering and cultivation of pure practical reasoning. This second Critique departs significantly from the position adopted by the Critique of Pure Reason, whose conclusion affirmed the fact that metaphysical subjects such as knowledge on the existence of God are ultimately unknowable. The Critique of Practical Reason confronts the challenges of pure reason because of the difficulty in probing into noumenal truths. In essence, the effort is linked to the aspect of “the highest good,” (Freydberg 101). Kant argues that the pursuit of the highest good will necessarily lead to the pursuit of the metaphysical truths. Kant’s arguments in “Religion within the limits of reason alone,” seeks to re-establish an alternative framework of assessing the authenticity and truths of religion outside the conventional systems as established by conventions and religious dogma. Kant sought to establish the place of faith, in this critique, by pointing out certain weaknesses in the existing arguments of reason, which were based on false certainties about the existence of God (Freydberg 75). It might be argued that Kant sought to snatch the understanding of religion from the realm of metaphysics in order to build a new understanding within the sphere of practical reason. Knowledge about God, religion, and freedom, could be demonstrated successively through a methodical search for insights in concepts and predicates. In essence, Kant combines the two critiques with the objective of exposing weaknesses in conventions in order to build a stronger thesis on metaphysical and moral subjects. Question II Contemporary Philosophers To a significant degree, Kant’s postulates about the “universal moral laws,” and his concepts on God and freedom come into conflict with the views developed by Friedrich Nietzsche and Soren Kierkegaard. While Kant sought to create a Universalist interpretation on the questions of God, morality, and ethics, the two thinkers placed both questions at the centre of the individual. Their argument was that it was essentially relevant to determine the place of the individual within the comprehension of God (Jackson and Michael 14). Kierkegaard, for instance, sought to separate morality, ethics, and religion. He argued that an individual has the choice to pursue either the “highest moral good” or the “highest religious good.” According to Kierkegaard, the individual, and not society or religion, must interact with life in ways that give meaning and context in a subjective way (Jackson and Michael 24). Individual attitudes about life and the world are the key determinants of the shape of reality as it appears before personal interpretations. An appreciation of Kierkegaard’s position should begin with his opinion of the absurdity of the world. The individual effort to make meaning from the surrounding chaos eventually determines the perspectives and practices taken on matters of God, religion, morality, and ethics. In this sense, Kierkegaard adopts a position totally dissimilar to the one adopted by Kant. According to Kant, perceiving mind can be prodded through method and procedure to access inner truths about the mysteries of the universe. Such mysteries include the question of God, morality and ethics. Kierkegaard acknowledges the centrality of the Supreme Being to the destiny of man’s soul. However, he observes that the Supreme Being is not the focal point of morality or ethics. By separating religiosity from ethics and morality, Kierkegaard essentially adopts a different philosophical course from the one created by Kant, whose Critique of Practical Reason adopted a position that is consistent with the equality of God and Religion (Jackson and Michael 38). Religious order, in the opinion of Kierkegaard seeks its own goals that are related to, but not similar with the laws of ethics and morality. From yet another perspective Nietzsche propounded his unique views on morality by challenging its place within an individual. Nietzsche’s philosophy pointed out that morality was essentially biased because it supported certain values over others. Nietzsche argued that man was first an individual and only secondly a member of the community. His philosophy is consistent with the view that man is essentially an egocentric being and is only compelled by moral laws to act otherwise. Nietzsche further argues that morality cannot be predicated on reason. He adopts the position that the pursuit of morality through reason would lead to the practice of nihilism. In this sense, the philosopher sought to distinguish morality from the aspect of universalism. The individual ego, according to Nietzsche’s claims, thrives outside the boundaries of morality. A strict pursuit of morality would necessarily stifle creativity, as all humans would be compelled in similar patterns that inhibit the thriving of alternatives. By challenging the role of pure reason in fostering morality, Nietzsche essentially goes against the grounds established by Kant who sought to interpret the moral good because of the pursuit of the ideal good through the application of practical reason. Regarding the question of religion, Nietzsche argued that religious practice should not stifle human framework (Jackson and Michael 51). He was against strict and orthodox religious doctrines for the reason that they limited the flourishing of individualism and human talents. It was precisely because of this reason that he challenged the foundations of Islam, arguing that its strict doctrine emptied the adherents of all individualism and the sense of self. In essence, it suppressed freedom. Nietzsche’s declaration that “God is dead” sums up his perspectives on the Christian God. He took the view that Christian doctrines were opposed to the realities of the material world (Jackson and Michael 20). It is a claim that led him to accuse the Christian faith as essentially nihilistic in orientation. In his opinion, it was not possible for the world to exist well within the bounds of thought established in Christianity. Nietzsche argued that the Christian religion viewed the world as essentially immoral. As a result, it would not be possible to reconcile the facts in the objective world with the arguments projected in the Christian orthodox doctrine. He also observed that the world could no longer be guided by religious doctrine because it was increasingly becoming secular. Regarding ethics, Nietzsche promoted the idea of competition and ego. He observed that the pursuit of individual gain was central to human progress. People, according to him should act in ways that promote their interests. He was against sentimental feelings of pity arguing that they were both necessary and unavoidable. As such, he argued against the principle of egalitarianism, which he thought was defeatist and inconsistent with nature. Nietzsche was primarily driven by the idea of the natural state. He is often considered as a pragmatist in the sense that most of his ideas were consistent with material progress and individual success. Ultimately, it might be argued that the ideas propounded by both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard championed religious freedom and the choice of religious practice. They are based on the idea of promoting individual pursuits as understood within the concepts of egoism, and the self. Both philosophies are consistent with the central tenets of atheism as it expresses itself in the modern world. A determined shift from the core concepts of religious practice and the concepts of morality appear to dominate the philosophies championed by the two thinkers. Their positions are radically different from the ones adopted by Kant who endeavoured to rationalize matters of morality, religion, and the existence of God while sorting out the fallacies and untruths resident in the existing philosophies. Question III Western Philosophy versus Eastern Philosophy A survey of the definitive aspects of western philosophy and eastern philosophy would yield some fundamental differences between them. The differences are manifest in concept, orientation, and approach (McLaurin 11). For instance, it is possible to distinguish the philosophies of Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Kant on the one hand, and the thoughts of D. T. Suzuki and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, on the other. Western philosophies such as Brahman, Nirvana, and Sartori are governed by the idea of the unity of the universe. The role of man is to strive, through deed and thought to capture the rhythm of this unity. The cosmological unity entails such matters as the transmigration of souls, reincarnation, and the pursuit of internal peace and harmony. Internal harmony must conform to cosmological order. Human suffering and human progress are all determined by the capacity of man to adjust to the cosmological unity. On the other hand, western philosophy is founded on specific goals and is generally individualistic in approach. The philosophies are usually linear in approach in the sense that they are based on the search for some ultimate goal at some stage of the development. Unlike eastern philosophies, western philosophies are not entirely governed by behavioural ethics (McLaurin 42). They are directed by the aspect of searching outside the self for answers to the mysteries of nature and humanity. On this score, the element of proof is central to the philosophy. Eastern philosophies differ in the sense that truth is provided as a given and there is no room for developing inquiries or proofs into the systems of knowledge. Suzuki’s is widely considered as one of the influential philosophers of the Sartori philosophy. As understood within the Buddhist philosophy of the Japanese, Sartori signifies a sense of awakening. It is likened to a moment of epiphany when the searching individual comes to the understanding of the nature of reality as it manifests itself in all its subtle forms. Such an awakening is usually accompanied by the realization of the subliminal and mystical forces that control the progress of life in all its forms. The process of inner searching usually controls this philosophy. It differs significantly from the philosophies developed by western thinkers in the sense that it does not involve technical processes of deductions or inductions. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan remains a renowned personality in Indian Philosophy in the 20th century. His contributions were mainly in the philosophical fields of Hinduism and Vedanta. According to him, religious feeling should manifest itself through rational and ethical living. Radhakishnan’s postulations on Brahman are such that was controlled by metaphysical idealism. The world of experience, according to him, was real and diverse. The Brahman was conceptualized as a transcendent absolute and generally identical to the self. One significant difference that comes out from the philosophies propounded by Radhakrishnan is the idea that cyclical forces drive all reality. Such characteristics of his philosophy distinguish it from the linear nature of western philosophy. Spiritualism and virtue are some of the important pillars that control Radhakrishnan’s philosophy. Western philosophies may seek to establish discontinuities between the subjective and objective worlds. On the contrary, eastern philosophers suggest a kind of continuum between both worlds, which supplies a sense of harmony in the life of man. Works Cited Adorno, Theodor, W., and Rolf Tiedemann. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1959). London: Stanford University Press, 2001 Freydberg, Bernard. Imagination in Kant's Critique of Practical Reason. New York: Indiana University Press, 2005 Jackson, Frank, and Michael Smith. The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford Handbooks Online, 2007 McLaurin, Hamish. Eastern Philosophy for Western Minds. New York: Kessinger Publishing, 2003 Read More