Buddhist Perspective and Immanuel Kant’s Perspective on Metaphysics: A Comparative Study
The term ‘metaphysics’ should be firstly defined before going into its deeper analyses with reference to both Buddhist perspectives and Kant’s views on metaphysics. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy which deals with the first causes of the things that includes the terms like being, time, space and knowing. Other definition of metaphysics is that they are abstracts with no basis in reality. Later it was interpreted as the science of things which transcends what is physical or natural.
The Buddhist View of Metaphysics
Buddhism does not concern about a first cause as Buddhism consider that as fruitless speculation. Modern scholars have been intrigued of one question which is why the Buddha unanswered some questions which the Buddha kept silence. Mainly, the Buddha distinguishes four types of questions which have formed four types of answers. The unanswered questions come under the fourth category. They can be listed as following.
“- A question that ought to be answered unilaterally (Ekaṃsa-vyākaraṇīya),
- A question that ought to be answered analytically (Vibhajja- vyākaraṇīya),
- A question that ought to be answered by raising a counter-question (Pațipucchā-vyākaraṇīya),
- A question that ought to be set aside (țapanīya)” (Karunadasa, 2015, p. 139).
These questions are required to give four types of answers. Although the fourth question says that some questions need to be aside, the response that is given to that question (silence) is also considered to be an answer. These questions were never presented in the Buddhist texts as ‘unanswerable, inexpressible (avyākaraṇīya)’. It is a misinterpretation if these questions are categorized as ‘unanswerable’ through Buddhist perspective. But actually the Buddha has left them answered. In Buddhism, there is only a category of ‘unanswered questions’ and it is not a category of ‘unanswerable questions’. The use of the words: ‘unanswered’ (avyākata), ‘set aside’ (țhapita) and ‘rejected’ (pațikkhitta), reflects the position of the Buddha. By referring above-mentioned, it is possible to analyze that Pāli Buddhist commentarial exegesis defines the term ‘unanswered’ as ‘the questions which has not been answered “unilaterally, or analytically, or by raising a counter-question” (Karunadasa, 2015, p. 141). When the Pāli term ‘avyākata’ is used with a moral sense, it means what is neutral.
One day, bhikku Māluṅkyaputta got up from his afternoon meditation and went to the Buddha. Greeted him, sat one side and asked “venerable sir, when I was meditating, this thought occurred to me: ‘There are these problems unexplained and rejected by the Blessed One’ (Saddhatissa, 1991, p. 151). Then bhikku Māluṅkyaputta mentioned the ten questions that will be discussed below.
The list of unanswered questions consist ten questions. These ten questions can be considered as a metaphysical questionnaire which leads to some perennial philosophical questions. These philosophical questions were there even before the time of the Buddha. These questions can be classified into several categories. The first four questions are belong to the nature of the universe. They are,
- Is the world eternal? (sassato loko)
- Is the world not eternal? (asassato loko)
- Is the world finite? (antavā loko)
- Is the world infinite? (anantavā loko)
These questions relate to the question whether the world is eternal or non-eternal in stipulations of time and whether the world is finite or infinite in terms of space.
Although it is generally accepted that the Buddha has unanswered only for four questions, there are another six questions out of ten that the Buddha remain silent. The next two questions are belong to the inquiry that seeks whether the soul and the physical body are identical or different. They are,
- Is the soul the same as the body? (taṃ jīvaṃ taṃ sarīraṃ)
- Is the soul one thing and the body another? (aññaṃ jīvaṃ aññaṃ sarīraṃ)
These questions were raised even when the Buddha introduced Buddhism. During the Buddha’s time there were 62 philosophical and religious views in India. All these views can be categorized into three as,
- Sassatavāda (Eternalism/ Spiritualism)
- Ucchedavāda (Annihilationism/ Materialism)
- Sanśayavāda (Skepticism)
Aññaṃ jīvaṃ aññaṃ sarīraṃ emphasized via spiritualism which indicates that the soul can be separated from the body and both the soul and the body are two different entities. ‘Self mortification’ is the practice of Sassatavāda. However, annihilationist view is that the very body is the very ātman (taṃ jīvaṃ taṃ sarīraṃ). When the body and the self are inseparably connected, it is easy for them to introduce ‘extreme self gratification’. Buddhism sees both eternalism and annihilationism as two versions of the self: metaphysical version and physical version.
The last four questions relates with ‘the post-mortem survival of the Tathāgata, the one who had realized emancipation’ (Karunadasa, 2015, p. 143). They can be listed as following.
- ‘Does the Tathāgata exist after death? (hoti Tathāgato parammaraṇā)
- Does the Tathāgata not exist after death? (na hoti Tathāgato parammaraṇā)
- Does the Tathāgata both not exist and does not exist after death? (hoti ca na hoti ca Tathāgato parammaraṇā)
- Does the Tathāgata neither exist nor non-exist after death? (neva hoti, na na hoti Tathāgato parammaraṇā)’ (Karunadasa, 2015, p. 143).
Bhikku Māluṅkyaputta asked from the Blessed One that he did not explain the above-mentioned questions. Venerable decided not to continue to follow the holy life under the Buddha if the Buddha does not answer to those questions. He said that, ‘if the Blessed One knows that the universe is eternal, let him explain it to me so. If the Blessed One does not know whether the universe is eternal or not…then for a person who does not know, it is straightforward to say ‘I do not know, I do not see’.” (Saddhatissa, 1991, p. 152). The reply that the Buddha has given should be observed by the people who are wasting their valuable time on the metaphysical questions. The Buddha asked whether the Buddha asked him to lead a holy life as the Buddha is going to explain these questions to you or whether bhikku Māluṅkyaputta said that he will lead a holy life under the Blessed One only if the Buddha explains these questions. bhikku Māluṅkyaputta was speechless as he did not mentioned anything like that before. The Buddha preached that “if anyone says: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the Blessed One if he will explain these questions’, he may die with these questions unanswered by Tathāgata” (Saddhatissa, 1991, p. 152). The Buddha explained it with an exemplary story.
Suppose a man is wounded by a poisoned arrow and his friends and relatives take him to a surgeon. Assume that the man then say: ‘I will not let this arrow be taken out until I know who shot this arrow to me; whether he is belong to kśathriya caste, a Brahmin, a vaiśya or a sūdra; his name and family; his complexion etc. and I will not let this arrow be taken out until I know the type of the bow, bow-string used, the type of arrow, type of the feather, which sort of metal that has used to made the arrow etc. the Buddha said that the particular man will die without knowing any of these. The Buddha asked venerable Māluṅkyaputta to bear in his mind that what the Buddha has explained as explained and what the Buddha has not explained as unexplained. The Buddha says he has not explained things like whether the universe is eternal or not etc, ‘because it is not useful’ (Saddhatissa, 1991, p. 153). If or if not answers are given to such questions it is not fundamentally connected with the spiritual life. the Buddha mentioned that the Buddha have explained the dukka, arising of dukka, cessation of dukka and the way that leads to the cessation of dukka because it is useful and basically it connects with the spiritual life and ‘is conductive to aversion, detachment, cessation, tranquility, deep penetration, full realization, Nibbāna’ (Saddhatissa, 1991, p. 153). When carefully analyzing above-mentioned information it is possible to understand the reason why the Buddha left certain question unanswered.
Immanuel Kant’s Views of Metaphysics
The question ‘how are synthetic a priori propositions possible?, have asked in The Critique of pure Reason and in order to explain answers to that questions Immanuel Kant divided this question into three sub questions. They are,
- How are the synthetic a priori propositions of mathematics possible?
- How are the synthetic a priori propositions of natural science possible?
- How are the synthetic a priori propositions of metaphysics possible?
The first question is answered in the doctrine of transcendental Aesthetics and in the doctrine of transcendental ideal (space and time) whereas the second question is answered in the transcendental analytic. The third question of metaphysics is answered in the transcendental dialectics.
The noun ‘transcendence’ means the existence beyond the physical level and the adjective ‘transcendental’ means that something that relates to a spiritual realm. However, it will be misunderstood if the term transcendental has used in the sense of transcendence which describe an ultimate realm. Kant claims that “I call all cognition transcendental that is occupied not so much with objects, but rather with our mode of cognition of objects insofar as this is to be possible a priori” (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1998, p. 149).
Basically, he says that he does not refer objects as transcendental but the knowledge of objects and the mode of knowledge with the nature of a priori are taken as transcendental. Thus, he prefers the term ‘transcendental’ to an epistemological ground. It is related to his objective of describing the nature, origin and the limitations of knowledge rather than emphasizing a metaphysical, transcendental and ultimate ground.
Human beings are aware about the external world which can be perceivable. For Kant, it is not the reality. However, human are not aware of the things which are beyond from the external reality. Pure reason can carry them beyond the phenomenal world. But, those mattes do not receive percepts like God. He gives priority to reason in his explanation of dialects. According to Kant, we see things only as they appear to us and not as they really are. He further stated that, although mind cannot give a direct knowledge on the external objects, appearance can give that type of knowledge. Illusionary nature can be occurred because of these appearances. Therefore, Kant has claimed that there is transcendental illusion within transcendental dialectics.
Kant uses the transcendental dialectic section to uncover the illusions. He mentioned those illusions as transcendental illusion. It is,“an unavoidable illusion entice from the understanding a transcendent use which, although deceptive, cannot be kept in limits by a resolve to stay within the bounds of experience, but only by scientific instruction and taking pains” (Kant, 1953, p. 97).
He identified these things as illusions because these transcendental illusions are able to misguide humans. Kant summarized these transcendental things into a system which consists three main sections. Kant has mentioned them as speculative psychology based on the absolute monism of the soul as transcendental paralogisms, speculative cosmology on the absolute monism of the things that appear as antimonies and speculative theology on the God as the cause of the world as Ideal of pure reason. In addition, Kant used dialectics in order to refute such reason and pure reason.
Kant’s dialectics can be considered as a critique of theoretical metaphysics. Thus, it has mentioned in the critique of pure reason that transcendental dialectics is not an art of generating dogmatic illusion. However, it is a critique of understanding and reason for its hyperphysical usage. His intention of these dialectical arguments was to lead to new innovations in logic and epistemology. Moreover, Paralogisms of objects occur when the pure reason of the soul applies categories. According to Kant, they are transcendental. However, it does not give a phenomenological knowledge. It is true that there is a monism of subjects. Regardless of that, even philosophers who have lived before Kant have argued about the monism of the subjects and the immortality of the soul. Even George Berkeley, who was an empiricist, has also emphasized about an immortal soul. Kant’s transcendental dialectics has introduced a new formation of arguments that is able to make an integral understanding of the reality.
Speculative psychology based on the absolute monism of the soul as Transcendental Paralogisms
There are separate views of the soul in the history of western philosophy as European rationalists and British empiricists have dogmatically argued about that. Rationalists have argued that the soul is a self-existing and self-identical object. Thus, Descartes has accepted an immaterial mind/ soul by stating his ‘I think, therefore, I am’ argument. He believed that it is possible to gain human knowledge from that cogito argument. However, British empiricists like David Hume rejected its absolute nature. Kant had a unique view on this matter. He argued against Descartes and rationalists.
Kant has mentioned that the failure of recognizing the difference between appearances and things in themselves would lead to a transcendent error. It is impossible to get to know truth from transcendental concepts. For Kant, absolute monism is a transcendental concept. Kant categorized them as transcendental paralogisms that give invalid knowledge about the soul.
Speculative cosmology on the absolute monism of the things that appear as antimonies
This is the second part of the transcendental dialectics. These are the methodological problems of rationalism. Human beings got to constitute paralogisms of the soul because of the unawareness of the limitedness of the mind. As such they got to constitute antinomies about the world. Thus, it can be considered as the unresolved dialogue about the knowledge of the world that occurred between skepticism and dogmatism.
Categories (Quality, Quantity, Relation and Modality) are used in order to gain knowledge of the external world. Mind tries to constitute a metaphysical knowledge of the world instead of the knowledge that we can gain from the things which are appear to us in the external world. Those categories cannot use to constitute a metaphysical knowledge about the universe. If we use that way to constitute a metaphysical knowledge, then only the antimonies of the world would be created. It is possible to identify four types of antinomies and each antinomy has a thesis and an anti-thesis. The can be validly proved things which are related to the boundless world by using the thesis and anti-thesis.
The first antinomy is about the creation of the universe. It is stated that both that the world has a beginning in the time and space with a finite nature and the world has no beginning in the time and space as the thesis and anti-thesis.
Second antinomy is about the simple parts. It can be indicated with the arguments that say every composite substance is made out of simple parts and in contrast, nothing is composed of simple parts.
Third antinomy is about free-will. As the thesis it says that everything in the world does not operate according to the relationship between cause and effect. To illustrate, there are determinism, indeterminism and free-will. As the anti-thesis it is stated that everything in the world operate according to causality and free-will and indeterminism does not exist. Fourth antinomy is about the God and it has merged for and against the existence of a necessary being. The thesis has stated that, “in the series of causes of the world there is some necessary being” (Kant, 1953, p. 104) and the anti-thesis has mentioned that “there is nothing necessary in it, but in this series everything is contingent” (Kant, 1953, p. 104).
As it has mentioned by Kant, thesis is based on a dogmatic state. Mainly, theologists and rationalists have given thesis an important role. Empiricists have admired the anti-thesis. According to Kant, metaphysics have not considered as sciences throughout the history of philosophy. They have been metaphysics because of they were not aware of the finite nature of the mind. For that, those arguments were not identified as antinomies. Thesis and anti-thesis are equally valid. Therefore, it is difficult to come to a conclusion from the thesis an anti-thesis. However, Kant has mentioned that arguing for thesis and anti-thesis would not be able to derive reality. For Kant, it has not given an important role for the thesis and anti-thesis when critically discussing them. Thus, Kant has claimed that both thesis and anti0thesis leads to a transcendental illusion.
Speculative theology on the God as the cause of the world as Ideal of pure reason
Creator God is the core area in speculative theology. The concept of God is not a complete one but an empty one. This is the third state of transcendental idea, “which provides material for that use of reason which is the most important of all, but which, if pursued merely speculatively, is a hyperbolical (transcendent) and thereby dialectical use of it, is the ideal of pure reason” (Kant, 1953, p. 114).
According to Kant, as the concept of God is out of human experience, we are not able to get knowledge about the God. The theologists and thinkers who did not understand its idealness have tried to prove the existence of god. Those ways can be summarized to three arguments as,
- Ontological argument
- Cosmological argument
- Physico-theological argument
Firstly, ontological argument states that the God is an all-good and all-powerful being and this statement itself proved the existence of the God. Existence is a quality. However, before applying a quality to an object, its existence should be proved. For Kant, this argument does not prove the existence of God. For instance, it is possible to construct a concept of a glass mountain which can be existed within one’s mind. But it is not required to exist in the external world. Similarly, although it is possible to a concept of God to exist within one’s mind, it is not required that type of a supernatural being to exist in the phenomenal world.
For Kant, cosmological argument is based on ontological argument. Kant was confident about the failure of cosmological argument as ontological argument can be shown to fail. Cosmological argument claimed that, if something exists, a necessary being should be existed and if I exist, then the necessary being should be exist. This argument has empirical premise. The god; the necessary being is considered as a transcendent being. The conclusion is not an empirical one. Therefore, this argument is invalid.
According to physico-theological argument, there is a pattern within everything in the phenomenal world. For instance, the relationship between causes and conditions has a pattern and it has been created by the god. This argument indicated about an architectural process. It is not clear whether this architect is a creator God or not. However, Kant reject this argument too because it lacks empirical factual evidences. Kant suggested that this argument also could not prove the existence of God.
Conclusion
According to my point of view, both the Buddha and Immanuel Kant have been explained metaphysics in a similar manner. Both deny the existence of God. Although some religions try to prove the existence of God by using a number of arguments, the Buddha do not accept the existence of a creator God. Kant also denies the existence of the God by using above-mentioned three arguments. That means knowing the metaphysical things would not help us understanding the external world because it is impossible to have a common agreement on what has defined as ‘metaphysical’. Even in ordinary sense, by knowing metaphysical things, it would neither affect to one’s personnel growth nor the development of the world. But it would be helpful to understand the world.
In conclusion, it can be said that both the Buddha and Immanuel Kant have been taken a similar approach when defining metaphysics and most of the ideas have been used in common.
Works Cited
Kant, I. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason. (P. Guyer, & A. W. Wood, Editors) Retrieved November 29, 2018, from http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kant-first-critique-cambridge.pdf
Kant, I. (1953). Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics . Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Karunadasa, Y. (2015). Early Buddhsit Teachings. Kandy: Buddist Publication Society .
Saddhatissa, V. H. (1991). Facets of Buddism. Kandy: Buddhist publication Society .
The Buddhist View of Metaphysics
Buddhism does not concern about a first cause as Buddhism consider that as fruitless speculation. Modern scholars have been intrigued of one question which is why the Buddha unanswered some questions which the Buddha kept silence. Mainly, the Buddha distinguishes four types of questions which have formed four types of answers. The unanswered questions come under the fourth category. They can be listed as following.
“- A question that ought to be answered unilaterally (Ekaṃsa-vyākaraṇīya),
- A question that ought to be answered analytically (Vibhajja- vyākaraṇīya),
- A question that ought to be answered by raising a counter-question (Pațipucchā-vyākaraṇīya),
- A question that ought to be set aside (țapanīya)” (Karunadasa, 2015, p. 139).
These questions are required to give four types of answers. Although the fourth question says that some questions need to be aside, the response that is given to that question (silence) is also considered to be an answer. These questions were never presented in the Buddhist texts as ‘unanswerable, inexpressible (avyākaraṇīya)’. It is a misinterpretation if these questions are categorized as ‘unanswerable’ through Buddhist perspective. But actually the Buddha has left them answered. In Buddhism, there is only a category of ‘unanswered questions’ and it is not a category of ‘unanswerable questions’. The use of the words: ‘unanswered’ (avyākata), ‘set aside’ (țhapita) and ‘rejected’ (pațikkhitta), reflects the position of the Buddha. By referring above-mentioned, it is possible to analyze that Pāli Buddhist commentarial exegesis defines the term ‘unanswered’ as ‘the questions which has not been answered “unilaterally, or analytically, or by raising a counter-question” (Karunadasa, 2015, p. 141). When the Pāli term ‘avyākata’ is used with a moral sense, it means what is neutral.
One day, bhikku Māluṅkyaputta got up from his afternoon meditation and went to the Buddha. Greeted him, sat one side and asked “venerable sir, when I was meditating, this thought occurred to me: ‘There are these problems unexplained and rejected by the Blessed One’ (Saddhatissa, 1991, p. 151). Then bhikku Māluṅkyaputta mentioned the ten questions that will be discussed below.
The list of unanswered questions consist ten questions. These ten questions can be considered as a metaphysical questionnaire which leads to some perennial philosophical questions. These philosophical questions were there even before the time of the Buddha. These questions can be classified into several categories. The first four questions are belong to the nature of the universe. They are,
- Is the world eternal? (sassato loko)
- Is the world not eternal? (asassato loko)
- Is the world finite? (antavā loko)
- Is the world infinite? (anantavā loko)
These questions relate to the question whether the world is eternal or non-eternal in stipulations of time and whether the world is finite or infinite in terms of space.
Although it is generally accepted that the Buddha has unanswered only for four questions, there are another six questions out of ten that the Buddha remain silent. The next two questions are belong to the inquiry that seeks whether the soul and the physical body are identical or different. They are,
- Is the soul the same as the body? (taṃ jīvaṃ taṃ sarīraṃ)
- Is the soul one thing and the body another? (aññaṃ jīvaṃ aññaṃ sarīraṃ)
These questions were raised even when the Buddha introduced Buddhism. During the Buddha’s time there were 62 philosophical and religious views in India. All these views can be categorized into three as,
- Sassatavāda (Eternalism/ Spiritualism)
- Ucchedavāda (Annihilationism/ Materialism)
- Sanśayavāda (Skepticism)
Aññaṃ jīvaṃ aññaṃ sarīraṃ emphasized via spiritualism which indicates that the soul can be separated from the body and both the soul and the body are two different entities. ‘Self mortification’ is the practice of Sassatavāda. However, annihilationist view is that the very body is the very ātman (taṃ jīvaṃ taṃ sarīraṃ). When the body and the self are inseparably connected, it is easy for them to introduce ‘extreme self gratification’. Buddhism sees both eternalism and annihilationism as two versions of the self: metaphysical version and physical version.
The last four questions relates with ‘the post-mortem survival of the Tathāgata, the one who had realized emancipation’ (Karunadasa, 2015, p. 143). They can be listed as following.
- ‘Does the Tathāgata exist after death? (hoti Tathāgato parammaraṇā)
- Does the Tathāgata not exist after death? (na hoti Tathāgato parammaraṇā)
- Does the Tathāgata both not exist and does not exist after death? (hoti ca na hoti ca Tathāgato parammaraṇā)
- Does the Tathāgata neither exist nor non-exist after death? (neva hoti, na na hoti Tathāgato parammaraṇā)’ (Karunadasa, 2015, p. 143).
Bhikku Māluṅkyaputta asked from the Blessed One that he did not explain the above-mentioned questions. Venerable decided not to continue to follow the holy life under the Buddha if the Buddha does not answer to those questions. He said that, ‘if the Blessed One knows that the universe is eternal, let him explain it to me so. If the Blessed One does not know whether the universe is eternal or not…then for a person who does not know, it is straightforward to say ‘I do not know, I do not see’.” (Saddhatissa, 1991, p. 152). The reply that the Buddha has given should be observed by the people who are wasting their valuable time on the metaphysical questions. The Buddha asked whether the Buddha asked him to lead a holy life as the Buddha is going to explain these questions to you or whether bhikku Māluṅkyaputta said that he will lead a holy life under the Blessed One only if the Buddha explains these questions. bhikku Māluṅkyaputta was speechless as he did not mentioned anything like that before. The Buddha preached that “if anyone says: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the Blessed One if he will explain these questions’, he may die with these questions unanswered by Tathāgata” (Saddhatissa, 1991, p. 152). The Buddha explained it with an exemplary story.
Suppose a man is wounded by a poisoned arrow and his friends and relatives take him to a surgeon. Assume that the man then say: ‘I will not let this arrow be taken out until I know who shot this arrow to me; whether he is belong to kśathriya caste, a Brahmin, a vaiśya or a sūdra; his name and family; his complexion etc. and I will not let this arrow be taken out until I know the type of the bow, bow-string used, the type of arrow, type of the feather, which sort of metal that has used to made the arrow etc. the Buddha said that the particular man will die without knowing any of these. The Buddha asked venerable Māluṅkyaputta to bear in his mind that what the Buddha has explained as explained and what the Buddha has not explained as unexplained. The Buddha says he has not explained things like whether the universe is eternal or not etc, ‘because it is not useful’ (Saddhatissa, 1991, p. 153). If or if not answers are given to such questions it is not fundamentally connected with the spiritual life. the Buddha mentioned that the Buddha have explained the dukka, arising of dukka, cessation of dukka and the way that leads to the cessation of dukka because it is useful and basically it connects with the spiritual life and ‘is conductive to aversion, detachment, cessation, tranquility, deep penetration, full realization, Nibbāna’ (Saddhatissa, 1991, p. 153). When carefully analyzing above-mentioned information it is possible to understand the reason why the Buddha left certain question unanswered.
Immanuel Kant’s Views of Metaphysics
The question ‘how are synthetic a priori propositions possible?, have asked in The Critique of pure Reason and in order to explain answers to that questions Immanuel Kant divided this question into three sub questions. They are,
- How are the synthetic a priori propositions of mathematics possible?
- How are the synthetic a priori propositions of natural science possible?
- How are the synthetic a priori propositions of metaphysics possible?
The first question is answered in the doctrine of transcendental Aesthetics and in the doctrine of transcendental ideal (space and time) whereas the second question is answered in the transcendental analytic. The third question of metaphysics is answered in the transcendental dialectics.
The noun ‘transcendence’ means the existence beyond the physical level and the adjective ‘transcendental’ means that something that relates to a spiritual realm. However, it will be misunderstood if the term transcendental has used in the sense of transcendence which describe an ultimate realm. Kant claims that “I call all cognition transcendental that is occupied not so much with objects, but rather with our mode of cognition of objects insofar as this is to be possible a priori” (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1998, p. 149).
Basically, he says that he does not refer objects as transcendental but the knowledge of objects and the mode of knowledge with the nature of a priori are taken as transcendental. Thus, he prefers the term ‘transcendental’ to an epistemological ground. It is related to his objective of describing the nature, origin and the limitations of knowledge rather than emphasizing a metaphysical, transcendental and ultimate ground.
Human beings are aware about the external world which can be perceivable. For Kant, it is not the reality. However, human are not aware of the things which are beyond from the external reality. Pure reason can carry them beyond the phenomenal world. But, those mattes do not receive percepts like God. He gives priority to reason in his explanation of dialects. According to Kant, we see things only as they appear to us and not as they really are. He further stated that, although mind cannot give a direct knowledge on the external objects, appearance can give that type of knowledge. Illusionary nature can be occurred because of these appearances. Therefore, Kant has claimed that there is transcendental illusion within transcendental dialectics.
Kant uses the transcendental dialectic section to uncover the illusions. He mentioned those illusions as transcendental illusion. It is,“an unavoidable illusion entice from the understanding a transcendent use which, although deceptive, cannot be kept in limits by a resolve to stay within the bounds of experience, but only by scientific instruction and taking pains” (Kant, 1953, p. 97).
He identified these things as illusions because these transcendental illusions are able to misguide humans. Kant summarized these transcendental things into a system which consists three main sections. Kant has mentioned them as speculative psychology based on the absolute monism of the soul as transcendental paralogisms, speculative cosmology on the absolute monism of the things that appear as antimonies and speculative theology on the God as the cause of the world as Ideal of pure reason. In addition, Kant used dialectics in order to refute such reason and pure reason.
Kant’s dialectics can be considered as a critique of theoretical metaphysics. Thus, it has mentioned in the critique of pure reason that transcendental dialectics is not an art of generating dogmatic illusion. However, it is a critique of understanding and reason for its hyperphysical usage. His intention of these dialectical arguments was to lead to new innovations in logic and epistemology. Moreover, Paralogisms of objects occur when the pure reason of the soul applies categories. According to Kant, they are transcendental. However, it does not give a phenomenological knowledge. It is true that there is a monism of subjects. Regardless of that, even philosophers who have lived before Kant have argued about the monism of the subjects and the immortality of the soul. Even George Berkeley, who was an empiricist, has also emphasized about an immortal soul. Kant’s transcendental dialectics has introduced a new formation of arguments that is able to make an integral understanding of the reality.
Speculative psychology based on the absolute monism of the soul as Transcendental Paralogisms
There are separate views of the soul in the history of western philosophy as European rationalists and British empiricists have dogmatically argued about that. Rationalists have argued that the soul is a self-existing and self-identical object. Thus, Descartes has accepted an immaterial mind/ soul by stating his ‘I think, therefore, I am’ argument. He believed that it is possible to gain human knowledge from that cogito argument. However, British empiricists like David Hume rejected its absolute nature. Kant had a unique view on this matter. He argued against Descartes and rationalists.
Kant has mentioned that the failure of recognizing the difference between appearances and things in themselves would lead to a transcendent error. It is impossible to get to know truth from transcendental concepts. For Kant, absolute monism is a transcendental concept. Kant categorized them as transcendental paralogisms that give invalid knowledge about the soul.
Speculative cosmology on the absolute monism of the things that appear as antimonies
This is the second part of the transcendental dialectics. These are the methodological problems of rationalism. Human beings got to constitute paralogisms of the soul because of the unawareness of the limitedness of the mind. As such they got to constitute antinomies about the world. Thus, it can be considered as the unresolved dialogue about the knowledge of the world that occurred between skepticism and dogmatism.
Categories (Quality, Quantity, Relation and Modality) are used in order to gain knowledge of the external world. Mind tries to constitute a metaphysical knowledge of the world instead of the knowledge that we can gain from the things which are appear to us in the external world. Those categories cannot use to constitute a metaphysical knowledge about the universe. If we use that way to constitute a metaphysical knowledge, then only the antimonies of the world would be created. It is possible to identify four types of antinomies and each antinomy has a thesis and an anti-thesis. The can be validly proved things which are related to the boundless world by using the thesis and anti-thesis.
The first antinomy is about the creation of the universe. It is stated that both that the world has a beginning in the time and space with a finite nature and the world has no beginning in the time and space as the thesis and anti-thesis.
Second antinomy is about the simple parts. It can be indicated with the arguments that say every composite substance is made out of simple parts and in contrast, nothing is composed of simple parts.
Third antinomy is about free-will. As the thesis it says that everything in the world does not operate according to the relationship between cause and effect. To illustrate, there are determinism, indeterminism and free-will. As the anti-thesis it is stated that everything in the world operate according to causality and free-will and indeterminism does not exist. Fourth antinomy is about the God and it has merged for and against the existence of a necessary being. The thesis has stated that, “in the series of causes of the world there is some necessary being” (Kant, 1953, p. 104) and the anti-thesis has mentioned that “there is nothing necessary in it, but in this series everything is contingent” (Kant, 1953, p. 104).
As it has mentioned by Kant, thesis is based on a dogmatic state. Mainly, theologists and rationalists have given thesis an important role. Empiricists have admired the anti-thesis. According to Kant, metaphysics have not considered as sciences throughout the history of philosophy. They have been metaphysics because of they were not aware of the finite nature of the mind. For that, those arguments were not identified as antinomies. Thesis and anti-thesis are equally valid. Therefore, it is difficult to come to a conclusion from the thesis an anti-thesis. However, Kant has mentioned that arguing for thesis and anti-thesis would not be able to derive reality. For Kant, it has not given an important role for the thesis and anti-thesis when critically discussing them. Thus, Kant has claimed that both thesis and anti0thesis leads to a transcendental illusion.
Speculative theology on the God as the cause of the world as Ideal of pure reason
Creator God is the core area in speculative theology. The concept of God is not a complete one but an empty one. This is the third state of transcendental idea, “which provides material for that use of reason which is the most important of all, but which, if pursued merely speculatively, is a hyperbolical (transcendent) and thereby dialectical use of it, is the ideal of pure reason” (Kant, 1953, p. 114).
According to Kant, as the concept of God is out of human experience, we are not able to get knowledge about the God. The theologists and thinkers who did not understand its idealness have tried to prove the existence of god. Those ways can be summarized to three arguments as,
- Ontological argument
- Cosmological argument
- Physico-theological argument
Firstly, ontological argument states that the God is an all-good and all-powerful being and this statement itself proved the existence of the God. Existence is a quality. However, before applying a quality to an object, its existence should be proved. For Kant, this argument does not prove the existence of God. For instance, it is possible to construct a concept of a glass mountain which can be existed within one’s mind. But it is not required to exist in the external world. Similarly, although it is possible to a concept of God to exist within one’s mind, it is not required that type of a supernatural being to exist in the phenomenal world.
For Kant, cosmological argument is based on ontological argument. Kant was confident about the failure of cosmological argument as ontological argument can be shown to fail. Cosmological argument claimed that, if something exists, a necessary being should be existed and if I exist, then the necessary being should be exist. This argument has empirical premise. The god; the necessary being is considered as a transcendent being. The conclusion is not an empirical one. Therefore, this argument is invalid.
According to physico-theological argument, there is a pattern within everything in the phenomenal world. For instance, the relationship between causes and conditions has a pattern and it has been created by the god. This argument indicated about an architectural process. It is not clear whether this architect is a creator God or not. However, Kant reject this argument too because it lacks empirical factual evidences. Kant suggested that this argument also could not prove the existence of God.
Conclusion
According to my point of view, both the Buddha and Immanuel Kant have been explained metaphysics in a similar manner. Both deny the existence of God. Although some religions try to prove the existence of God by using a number of arguments, the Buddha do not accept the existence of a creator God. Kant also denies the existence of the God by using above-mentioned three arguments. That means knowing the metaphysical things would not help us understanding the external world because it is impossible to have a common agreement on what has defined as ‘metaphysical’. Even in ordinary sense, by knowing metaphysical things, it would neither affect to one’s personnel growth nor the development of the world. But it would be helpful to understand the world.
In conclusion, it can be said that both the Buddha and Immanuel Kant have been taken a similar approach when defining metaphysics and most of the ideas have been used in common.
Works Cited
Kant, I. (1953). Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics . Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Karunadasa, Y. (2015). Early Buddhsit Teachings. Kandy: Buddist Publication Society .
Saddhatissa, V. H. (1991). Facets of Buddism. Kandy: Buddhist publication Society .
Comments
Post a Comment