The Dialectics

Was there dialectics before Kant?

Dialectics can be defined as a way of debate that can be explained as people are intended to solve  different types of arguments about a particular subject that can be derive truth by reasoned arguments, logic and discussion. Dialectic has a historical evaluation as it was mainly used by western and Ieastern philosophies to derive truth. The Greek philosophies of Socrates, Plato, Zeno and Aristotle and medieval philosophers like Boethius, Abelard, William of Ockham, and St. Thomas Aquinas have used dialectics in their works. For instance, the Socratic methods of argument, Plato’s method of Forms, Aristotelian rhetoric are different forms of dialectic. 

The meaning of the term ‘transcendental’

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). 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. 

What does ‘transcendental dialectics’ mean?

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. Nevertheless, 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 could 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 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. Even Kant’s dialectics have influenced philosophers who came after him. For instance, Hegel identified himself as a disciple of Kantian philosophy and developed his dialectics through Kant’s dialectics.

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 not everything in the world operates 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, cosmological, and 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. However, 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 the god has created it. 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 

Kant’s transcendental dialectics has influenced further studies on dialectics in the contemporary continental philosophy. Hegel denies the ‘antinomies’ in Kant’s dialectics. Although Kant claimed that antinomies could not be resolved, Hegel stated that they can be resolve in synthesis. Hegel claimed that antinomy disappear in the progress of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis progress. He concerned history for that. As such, Kant’s use of dialectics has influenced further studies and his contribution that has done to the continental philosophy has a great impact of his dialectics.

Works Cited

kalansooriya, A. D. (2007). Nutana Batahira darshanaya. Battaramulla: Adyapana Prakashana Deartamentuwa.

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.

Wolff, R. P. (Ed.). (1968). Kant (a Collection of Critical Essays. London: Macmillanand C.Ltd.