JoeRedskin
08-18-2011, 04:06 PM
D'Souza is a terrible Kantian.
Kant's arguments very subtly explored the strengths of the use of reason in experience as well as the limits of reason in experience. Kant placed a limit on reason in recognizing that we cannot know the Ding An Sich, the "thing-in-itself," through reason. This is because reason approaches objects only as they are mediated by our senses. That is, right now I am not experiencing my coffee table, I am only experiencing my psycho-sensual perception of my coffee table. Therefore any reason which I apply to the coffee table, such as "The table is strong enough to hold up my cup of tea," is reason as mediated, not reason applied directly to the object itself.
This argument has led Kant to be deeply influential in today's world. Not only has Kant's theory of epistemology (how we know stuff) spawned important philosophical movements such as phenomenology (as typified by Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, etc.) and deconstruction (as typified by Derrida, De Certeau, etc.), his theory of knowledge is a baseline for method in many other disciplines. In psychology Jung taught that we only know our representations of reality, not reality itself, and psychotherapy of all stripes would be impossible if things were otherwise. In history we find Foucault, in anthropology Michael Jackson, in sociology Alfred Schutz, and this list goes on. This paragraph is just a minor sampling of the major effects of Kant's theory of reason and knowledge.
Kant's theory has been so influential because his argument was very subtle and precise. Although Kant did temper the Enlightenment's overblown reliance on reason, Kant did not in the end conclude that reason was worthless. Kant said that reason was worthwhile as long as its limits were respected. As well, Kant and later Kantians talk about the consensual nature of knowledge. That is, your reason and my reason may be limited, but by joining forces we can make reliable statements about the world which we consensually perceive. In other words, the pitch is real because pitcher, batter, other players, and fans perceive it that way, although each individual may perceive the reality of the pitch slightly differently.
D'Souza illicitly exploits Kant with his attack on reason. Again, Kant was never willing to make the philosophic move that reason is bankrupt, as his argument was more subtle. And Kant certainly was not willing to say, "Hey, reason is mediated, therefore we all need to be Christian." Kant would tell D'Souza that his faith in the Bible and in Jesus is just as mediated, just as limited, as reason is. That is, in the Kantian critique, there is not one Bible and one Jesus. Instead, there is the Bible as you read and understand it, and Jesus as you perceive and understand him. My perceptions may be different. If D'Souza were less partisan and coarse in his application of Kant, he would argue the opposite of what he normally argues. That is, if he were a faithful Kantian D'Souza would argue that we each have our own religious (and political) paths, and we each must navigate our own ways without having D'Souza tell us what to think.
I need to read me some Kant.
Kant's arguments very subtly explored the strengths of the use of reason in experience as well as the limits of reason in experience. Kant placed a limit on reason in recognizing that we cannot know the Ding An Sich, the "thing-in-itself," through reason. This is because reason approaches objects only as they are mediated by our senses. That is, right now I am not experiencing my coffee table, I am only experiencing my psycho-sensual perception of my coffee table. Therefore any reason which I apply to the coffee table, such as "The table is strong enough to hold up my cup of tea," is reason as mediated, not reason applied directly to the object itself.
This argument has led Kant to be deeply influential in today's world. Not only has Kant's theory of epistemology (how we know stuff) spawned important philosophical movements such as phenomenology (as typified by Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, etc.) and deconstruction (as typified by Derrida, De Certeau, etc.), his theory of knowledge is a baseline for method in many other disciplines. In psychology Jung taught that we only know our representations of reality, not reality itself, and psychotherapy of all stripes would be impossible if things were otherwise. In history we find Foucault, in anthropology Michael Jackson, in sociology Alfred Schutz, and this list goes on. This paragraph is just a minor sampling of the major effects of Kant's theory of reason and knowledge.
Kant's theory has been so influential because his argument was very subtle and precise. Although Kant did temper the Enlightenment's overblown reliance on reason, Kant did not in the end conclude that reason was worthless. Kant said that reason was worthwhile as long as its limits were respected. As well, Kant and later Kantians talk about the consensual nature of knowledge. That is, your reason and my reason may be limited, but by joining forces we can make reliable statements about the world which we consensually perceive. In other words, the pitch is real because pitcher, batter, other players, and fans perceive it that way, although each individual may perceive the reality of the pitch slightly differently.
D'Souza illicitly exploits Kant with his attack on reason. Again, Kant was never willing to make the philosophic move that reason is bankrupt, as his argument was more subtle. And Kant certainly was not willing to say, "Hey, reason is mediated, therefore we all need to be Christian." Kant would tell D'Souza that his faith in the Bible and in Jesus is just as mediated, just as limited, as reason is. That is, in the Kantian critique, there is not one Bible and one Jesus. Instead, there is the Bible as you read and understand it, and Jesus as you perceive and understand him. My perceptions may be different. If D'Souza were less partisan and coarse in his application of Kant, he would argue the opposite of what he normally argues. That is, if he were a faithful Kantian D'Souza would argue that we each have our own religious (and political) paths, and we each must navigate our own ways without having D'Souza tell us what to think.
I need to read me some Kant.