Human Status in Regards to Aristotle and Kant - Research Paper Example

Human status in regards to Aristotle and Kant Introduction The problem of a person is one of central in the history of philosophy. It was realized and became a reflection subject already in antique Greece. Today in the XXI century, when the rich knowledge of a person has been already accumulated, he turned into the object of the research of many special sciences. The philosophical problem of a person is one of the most relevant issues. The mankind took enormous efforts to develop the general concept of a person. Stoics in antiquity, Christians in its decline and in the early Middle Ages, Buddha destroyed traditional ideas of separation of mankind into various groups by the nature or in Gods will: Greeks and barbarians, elected and not elected, devout and not devout, civilized and uncivilized etc. The aspiration to prove the unity of the human race was always resisted by aristocratic, hierarchical, nationalist, racial, class and other theories. Understanding of mankind, and, therefore, the general concept of a person was finally developed only in the XIX century. All the second grade theories have one common feature: some part of mankind is recognized as superior. However, there classical theories, which allow us to understand the real essence of humans and their status in this world in the given work two views on humans’ status will be considered: the view of Kant and the view of Aristotle. German classical philosophy is presented by such thinkers as I. Kant, I. Fichte, F. Schelling and G. Hegel, who lived and worked at the end of XVIII - the first half of the XIX centuries. One of the main tasks of the German classical philosophy is to overcome the contradictions of XVII—XVIII centuries’ philosophy, which was expressed in opposition to rationalism and empiricism, exaggeration of a role of natural sciences and excessive optimism of Enlightenment. This movement is characterized by the revival of interest in history, art, mythology, as well as by the criticism of natural science direction in modern philosophy. All these are caused by a great interest to the problem of a person put in a new way. The German classical philosophy replaced an individual ideal of free identity of Renaissance by the collective ideal of free mankind expressed by the ideas of Enlightenment and the slogans of The Great French revolution. Protestantism is the religious fundamental of German classical philosophy. In Kants work there are two periods: critical and subcritical. During the subcritical period (1756-1770) the interests of Kant were mainly connected with logical problems and natural sciences. In the 1760s Kant became more interested in the issues connected with religion and science, morals and knowledge. Under the influence of he works of the English philosopher David Hume, Kant began to understand that the science is not only a source of truth and benefits, but it can also bring considerable danger to mankind. The main disadvantage is narrowness of the perspective and lack of connection with moral values. The aspiration of science to natural explanation of the world leads to refusal of belief in God, which Kant considered as a necessary basis of morals. Thinking of these problems, Kant got an idea of critical reconsideration of the scientific knowledge principles, which would allow to show limitation of science and to stop its attempts to absorb morals and religion. Morals are the most important for Kant, it is the aspect, which makes humans different from animals, makes them superior (Beiner and Booth). The view on a person is expressed by Kant in his work Antropology. Anthropology is a science about a person. Perhaps, the changeable human being makes Kant’s Anthropology not fully applicable to our time. To avoid long reasoning about it, it is enough to refer to the fact that a person changes very little over time. Thoughts and passions change very little from century to century. And if they change, it brings to other epoch and the people additional interest. But this interest is possible only at the general basis, the existence of which it also proves. Anthropology "from the pragmatic point of view", according to Kant, means that it speaks about a person as about a free being, about his character. Anthropology is an applied work. It contains abstract philosophical ideas, which had been developed by Kant during all his life and are applied to life, to one of types of reasonable beings, which are called “people”. Anthropology describes the actual life of people, supervision over this life. But if it were simply supervisions, we would have just historical or fiction genre. A philosophical view provides the estimation that is not peculiar to the usual texts, which explain life and acts of people. At the same time it brings universalism. Anthropology adjusts our usual human life with deep understanding of a position of a person in the universe and the main regulators of the behavior of a person. It convinces us that a person with all his weaknesses and prejudices, nevertheless, can be a reasonable and moral being, proves that a person not only has to be moral, but can be such. Kant considers anthropology from the "pragmatic" point of view. It means that he does not pay any attention to physiology and to what the nature made of a person; he is interested first of all in what a person can do for himself. In many respects Kants anthropology is similar to modern general psychology. “Anthropology, accordingly, stresses the other aspect of freedom involved in civil society, the development of mans tendency to become a well-bred member of society who can live peacefully with his fellow men. In civil society the individual can no longer resort to private force to achieve his ends. He must rather use skill in his dealings with other men and influence them to help him achieve his ends. And this means, essentially, that he must cultivate the social qualities that will make other men like and admire him” (Gregor). Kants ideas turned into a humanistic psychology one and a half centuries later. For Kant a person is the most important thing in the world. The existence of consciousness makes a person superior over other objects. Thus, a person represents an individual, a personality. No matter how many changes he may undergo, he, nevertheless, represents the same individual. Kant defined three types of egoists: 1) a logical egoist who considers it excessive to check the judgments by means of other people’s mind; 2) an esthetic egoist who takes into account only with own taste and looks for something fine only in his own soul; 3) a moral egoist who sees advantage only in what is favorable to him. The last section of Anthropology ”is devoted to the features of national character. Though Kants ideas are not always exact and in some places are quite original, nevertheless, it was one of the first steps to the formation of social psychology. Kant made the contribution to the portrait characteristic of owners of different types of temperament. The philosopher used the sense of beauty and sublime as a basis for the analysis. In the sublime sphere, according to Kant, there is a melancholic temperament. Kant gives it the preference though recognizes its weaknesses. In soul of a sanguine person the sense of beauty prevails. He likes cheerful, interesting life, the change. The happiness of others brings sincere pleasure to him, but its moral feeling is deprived of the principles and, therefore, is unstable. He is generous, inclined to charity, but forgets about his own debts. If his character spoils, he becomes trite and petty. It seems that a choleric person lives with the feeling of sublime, but actually it is attracted only by deceptive and misleading gloss. He is indifferent to what is hidden in depth; he is not interested in sincere kindness, though he is glad when he is considered kind. His behavior is unnatural, it is important for him not what he really is, but what he seems to be. He is hypocritical in religion, flattering in communication, changeable in policy. He willingly cringes to the powers to become a tyrant in relation to subordinate (Auxter). A man and a woman, according to Kant, complements of each other respectively. In marriage they form one moral personality encouraged by mind of a husband and the taste of a wife. Problems arise in those families where there is no full unification, no equality. Refinement and tenderness of feelings are strong only at the beginning, during family life communication they are gradually becoming dull and then pass into friendly love. A great art consists in preservation of the remains of initial feeling, so the indifference and boredom can’t destroy all the value of that pleasure for the sake of which this union was worth- concluding. According to Kant, the reason is stirred up because of sexual desire, the ethical and cultural standard should be imposed on feelings and desires (White Beck). In contrast to Kant, Aristotle pays more attention to person’s nature and soul, but he also states that a person is distinguished by virtue and reason. A person is a social animal, which has reason. Aristotle considered the state as not simply an instrument for ensuring the safety of individuals and regulating public life by means of laws. The primary task of the state, according to Aristotle, consists in achieving virtuous life. And as virtue is a condition and a guarantee of happiness, it also guarantees happy life. It is not surprising Greek philosopher defines a person as a social animal with reason. “Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. And if this is true of the body, how much more just that a similar distinction should exist in the soul? but the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right” (Aristotle). The person is intended by the nature to life among other people; only in a group people can be formed, be brought up as moral beings. Such bringing up, however, can be carried out only in a state of justice. On the one hand, original justice, existence of good laws and their observance improve a person and promote development noble inclinations in him, and on the another hand - good life is a purpose of the state . Aristotle was the supporter of average material prosperity, when in society there are neither poor, nor too rich people, but, first of all, there is justice. Justice crowns all virtues, which are prudence, generosity, self-restriction, bravery, generosity, truthfulness, benevolence. .Considering soul to be the beginning of life, Aristotle provides the typology of various "levels" of soul: vegetative, nutritive, and rational. The lowest soul - vegetative – is responsible for food, growth and reproduction. Nutritive soul adds to these functions the feeling, and the ability to wish, i.e. aspiration to reach the pleasant and to avoid the unpleasant. The reasonable soul, which only a man possesses, is allocated with the highest of abilities - reasoning and thinking. “Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, anothers and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature” (Aristotle). Reason, according to Aristotle, doesnt depend on a body. Being eternal and invariable, it is able to perceive the eternal life and is the essence of the highest form, which is absolutely free of substance. Aristotle calls this principal reason active, creative and distinguishes it from passive reason, which only perceives. The philosopher comes to the conclusion that only reason is immortal in a person: after death of a body it merges with universal reason. Conclusion Aristotle is an ancient philosopher and Kant is considered to be a modern thinker, whose views are very close to the views of modern psychology. Kant considers a person to the most important. According to Aristotle, much depends on the state and according to Kant, much depends on a person. Two philosophers emphasize moral values as the most important for personality. Virtue, reason, moral values and good deeds are the basics of happiness. Not desires , but debt, not wishes, but responsibility – this is what forms a good personality, which will not suffer in this world. Works cited Gregor, Mary, J (ed.) Kant: Anthropology for a pragmatic point of view. The Hague, Netherlands, 1974 Simpson, Peter L. P. The Politics of Aristotle: Translation, Analysis, and Notes. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1977 Auxter, Thomas (1982) Kants Moral Teleology. Mercer University Press) White Beck, Lewis (1960) A Commentary on Kants Critique of Practical Reason, University of Chicago Press, 1960 . Beiner R and W.J. Booth (eds.) Kant and Political Philosophy, Yale University Press, 1993 Read More