The System of Pure Reason That Kant Hopes to Construct - Coursework Example

Essay, Philosophy Topic: What is a critique of pure reason and what roles does it play in the system of pure reason that Kant hopes to construct? Introduction The final frontier for the votaries of Pure Reason like Immanuel Kant is the mind. They are aware of the tremendous potency of the mind and try to comprehend it with the power of the mind and this is their greatest miscalculation. The power of the mind cannot be challenged by another mind. Some power that is superior to the mind will be able to pass judgment on it. Unable to comprehend this fact, philosophers like Kant stumble. Just like a Brigadier can take orders from his superior authority Major General, and not from another Brigadier, mind can be controlled and directed by another power that is superior to mind. Mind and reason are alternative beats of the same heart. The concept of pure reason originates from mind but its final termination point, specifically the area of its fructification, is an issue of individual investigation culminating in the process of “direct experiencing”. For every argument there is a counter argument and this is the beauty of the domain of Pure Reason. The purity of the reason can never be established as there are many ifs and buts attached to any conclusion. This mysterious entity known as mind whose dwelling is in in the subterranean realms is powerful. If an individual masters the art of understanding, controlling and bridling it with self-efforts, then it can unveil new vistas that are beyond the mind, that are the supreme forces in the terrestrial range. There is a force beyond the mental force, which the votaries of Pure Reason will not admit openly, but they know it is there and they are unable to prove it by secular standards of measurement. Just as a human body is equipped with different limbs, human mind too possesses its subtle limbs in the form of temperaments. Right from the pre-Kantian period, a galaxy of scholars and intellectuals has been reflecting upon the potency of mind showing an intense concern to understand its mystery. Mind, which otherwise, is the propelling force behind every action, whether constructive or destructive, is the subject of enquiry. Its innate nature baffles the thinkers. Directly or indirectly, it is the mind that makes an individual different from other beings, whether living or non-living, sentient or insentient. What is there in the mind that makes one different from others? Human mind being a consciously thinking machine, this difference is the result of variations at the level of thinking ability and reasoning power. The true nature of an individual is Pure Consciousness which is the same everywhere. All possible variations are the outcome of the superimposition of mind and its tendencies on Pure Consciousness, resulting in its contamination and conditioning. For instance, water everywhere is same, throughout the globe; its chemical composition does not vary with time or place. What makes sea water different from lake water or ocean water different from tap water? It is the level of contamination or the volume of minerals and other chemical compounds mixed in it. Likewise Pure Consciousness being the same, the difference in individual beings lies in the way they are conditioned by their mind and respective temperaments. Mind is the psychological being in man. An individual is comprised of personality layers, or in other words, man is the combination of various beings. These layers can be classified as: 1. The physical layer 2. The mental layer 3. The intellectual layer 4. The soul The physical layer refers to the body of a human being. It consists of the organs of perception and those of action. These organs play a vital role during our interaction with the world outside. The organs of perception are used to perceive the world around us; for instance, eyes are used to see, ears to hear, nose to smell, tongue to taste, while the skin helps in detecting the sensations. The organs of action include mouth to speak, hands, legs and the genital organs. These all belong to our physical being. However, this physical being is not our total identity. Beyond our physical personality, an individual has his subtle being. The subtle being consists of the mind, intellect and above all the soul. Soul is the subtlest of all. Our soul is the core of all these different layers. It is the driving force propelling rest of the layers. It imparts the required vibration-energy for the functioning of the rest of the layers. Since this core—the soul—is the one that drives all personality layers, the enlightened souls have always been eulogizing it as our true self or true identity. The soul-consciousness not only drives our physical being but also propels and propagates our psychological being that consists of our mind. Mind is nothing but the flow of thoughts, or it can be described as the flux of thoughts. As such, the quality and texture of mind inherited by an individual is reflected by the thought pattern he possesses. The scientific analysis of the psychological being in human personality unfolds these thought conditions under whose shade human mind functions. That which cannot be comprehended by the reasoning power of the mind, is dubbed as speculative by philosophers like Kant. Did not the fox say that the grapes were sour when it could not reach out to the dangling bunch of grapes? The Critique of Pure Reason built by Kant can be knocked down in one stroke if he accepts that ‘practical experiencing’ is the final procedure that puts an end to all conclusions derived from reasoning. The conclusions derived from reasoning are bound to be imperfect, because they do not originate from a perfect source. They do not arrive from the conflict-free zone where bliss alone reigns. The individual is the exclusive owner of that practical experiencing and he cannot transmit that experience to someone else. He can share it to a limited extent by description through words and gestures but that again will be the mind-level limited knowledge of that experience. Kant begins the discussion with the topic “Of the difference between Pure and Empirical Knowledge”. He articulates that the beginning of all knowledge is experience. He then comments on the theme of experience elaborately and connects its dependency to time. He leans on philosophy when he mentions that empirical knowledge is the product of our past impressions. At this juncture he is compelled to take the posture as for the issue needing further enquiry about the existence of knowledge independent of experience and names this knowledge as “a priori”. At this point he tries to provide a valid explanation about the concept of “a priori”, but fumbles and he will never be able to provide the clear-cut explanation because Kant is the mind-level philosopher. He argues “The ideas of such ultimate principles are generated a priori by the faculty of reason when it seeks, through regressive reasoning, for what is unconditional in respect of the objects given in experience, according to the principles of understanding that govern these objects” (15).He is confused and is unable to decide whether it is ‘hen first or egg first’. Without tendering complete explanation to “a priori” Kant next moves to the topic “The Human Intellect, even in an Unphilosophical State, is in Possession of Certain Cognitions “a priori”. Without solving the problem of “a priori” Kant makes efforts to reach to the second step of the ladder, through unsuccessfully. Thus he introduces the concept of pure knowledge without explaining the procedure to get that pure knowledge (referred to as “direct experiencing” in the earlier pages). It is beyond the realms of science and as such mind can never hope to get at the level of pure knowledge. An empirical or pure judgment can never be absolute or accurate and both are subject to qualifications as such the original confusion about “a priori” remains the original confusion, without accurate solution! On this issue Kant, argues, counter-argues, suggests, presents, admits, gives examples, contradicts and all these mind-level presentations and exercises will not be able to lead to something tangible and authoritative. Where is the guarantee about the purity of the pure reason? Now Kant moves one step near to the process of “direct experiencing” by knocking at the portals of philosophy. He articulates “Philosophy stands in need of a Science which shall Determine the Possibility, Principles, and Extent of Human Knowledge “a priori.” He has to cling on to “a priori” as he has no other alternative. He continues with his argument and mentions the meaningful phrases which he terms as “transcendental or supernatural sphere” though which he reiterates the limitations of mind-level human experience which neither provides instructions or guidance. This is an elevated form of effort by the human mind that will not lead to fructification. The sphere of sensuous phenomenon has limitations as articulated earlier. There are risks of many errors in these sorts of pursuits. Abandoning the ground of experiencing, he makes the mention of the origin of which is undiscovered. In the process Kant is making desperate efforts to build something without the foundation, and he has the realization that such a structure of argument is bound to collapse. He mentions the phrases like “natural” and “reasonable way of thinking” which indicates his surrender to the mysteries of nature which can be investigated only though the process of “direct experiencing” on an individual basis. Such knowledge cannot be stored in a repository nor can it be printed in the book form or conveyed through the spoken words. It is the exclusive personal asset of the one who has directly experienced. Kant wants the phenomenon of natural to be investigated further to reach at the pure level. “He seeks to carve out for theoretical philosophy a significant but limited domain, distinct from that of empirical knowledge and the opinions of common sense, but excluding the exaggerated claims that have bought metaphysical into disrepute” (20).He has the vague feeling that is possible through scientific investigation, and for that pure knowledge, he relies on the science of mathematics, in which accuracy and correct result is never compromised. He articulates “Mathematics gives the most resplendent example of pure reason happily expanding itself without assistance from experience” (630).The edifice of mathematics does not have any cracks, will never develop cracks because it is built with the bricks of purity and accuracy. He pins hopes on the science of mathematics to take “a priori” knowledge about all other subjects, to the level of perfection, so that it becomes knowledge of pure reason. Having made the mention of mathematical judgments Kant now asserts that “In all Theoretical Sciences of Reason, Synthetical Judgments “a priori” are contained as Principles” and takes his arguments one step further. He relies on the solid support of the science of mathematics and articulates that “mathematical judgments” are invariably synthetic. But the experiences of mathematics are not derived through the process of an individual directly experiencing it. The same types of experiences are available for any student of mathematics and by following the prescribed procedures an individual is bound to arrive at the known results. For 6 + 6 = 12 always, under all circumstances and that result is available for all persons engaged in doing that sum. Conclusion: Kant makes desperate efforts through the process of multiple articulations to explain pure reason, but in the process faces the setback to several impurities encountered by him en-route. He realizes that to construct the system of pure reason is impossibility and yet he makes the valiant efforts. In the process, he tries to transcend the final frontier of the mind by crossing several hurdles, but is unable to reach the realm of bliss through “direct experiencing”. Nevertheless, with his articulations, Kant sets the ball rolling, but let it be understood that pure reason is beyond reason, beyond arguments, and purity can be achieved only through Self-realization. Work Cited Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant) Paul Guyer (Ed., Trans.), Allen W. Wood (Ed., Trans.)Cambridge University Press, 1999; Print Read More