Philosophy Take-Home Exam, Research Paper Example

Explain in detail what Kant meant by a “metaphysics of morals” and why he held it had  “personal convictions” that answered “beliefs” and “hopes” that were important parts of “human freedoms” needed in modern societies

Kant’s account of the metaphysics of morals treats the concept of morality as one that is prior to any possible human experience, an a priori concept, which means that it is a pre-empirical concept. As such, a common morality is inherent to all human beings, as morality is not something that is garnered through experience, which would render morality culturally relative. While the academic literature tends to debate Kant’s exact usage of the term metaphysics in this context, it would appear that Kant is attempting to develop the notion that all human beings have the same basic moral world-view.

It is by realizing the shared morality common to all human beings that the modern society can serve as a means to realize the end of promoting moral behavior.  However, what is central to this notion is that for Kant human freedom is inseparable from any account of morality. Thus, if human freedom is a common moral shared by all people, this leads to the notion that within modern society, people should have the freedom to possess their own individual beliefs, hopes and personal convictions. In other words, for the modern society to be moral it must allow humans to exercise their freedoms accordingly. By identifying the a prior notion of morality and making human freedom central to it, Kant is enable to argue for a society in which the rights of individuals are primary.

Compare and contrast Locke and Hume on the metaphysics of the self and the origin of the idea of God

Locke’s philosophy develops the notion of the self according to empiricism. For Locke, it is primarily sensation and the recollection of sensation in terms of memory that together constitutes the self. Hence, Locke’s concept of substance is central to his notion of selfhood, as it is precisely substance that provides the material support for the perception of sensations and the memory of sensations, although substance in itself remains thinkable only through   reflection on perception and qualities. It is according to the empiricism at the heart of Locke’s project that he is to offer his concept of God according to the same emphasis on experience. It is through the reflection on positive empirical perceptions that leads to the inference of the existence of God, who essentially, in Locke’s system, becomes the substance that contains these positive qualities. However, it is because we are limited to experience for knowledge that we are unable to understand the absolute nature of this God.

Hume’s thought on the self and God can be interpreted as pushing Locke’s account to the extreme. Hume maintained an element of doubt within his account of the self, as sense qualities connected to a self were never enough to be able to absolutely define a self. Rather, the self could only be projected in terms of a reliance on inference. This means that Hume’s skepticism could possibly be conceived as fulfilling the same role as substance in Locke’s account: Rather than substance, there is a leap of faith central to Hume’s project, meaning the self is constructed in order to ward off the radical skepticism that is central to the nature of thought itself. While Hume follows Locke in describing God in terms of empiricism, Hume’s account of God can be understood as the belief in a supreme being because of the very uncertainty of thought and experience. Therefore, God essentially functions as that which is beyond any experience: God is posited as the sacred power that ensures the consistency of human experience.

What did James mean by the present dilemma in Philosophy, and why did he think Pragmatism an important response?

Hegel’s Romantic Idealism opposes Kant’s theories by postulating that Kant’s thought is ultimately a repetition of the mechanistic accounts of science. Hegel is precisely interested in moving away from Kant’s theory to the extent that Kant emphasizes the limits of reason, a limitation which Hegel equates with such reductionist approaches prevalent in science. In essence, for Hegel, Kant’s approach is a cognitive style description of human existence. As such, Kant’s thought is ultimately scientific, as opposed to metaphysical, which means that for Hegel, metaphysics possesses its own unique problematic and should not be confused with science or the means by which science posits problems. Hegel juxtaposes the finitude of Kantian philosophy with the possibility of spirit and the process of thinking the whole of reality. Furthermore, Hegel’s thought can be understood as precisely what Kant’s thought lacks: a relation to the infinite. Kant is explicit in his forbidding of the knowledge infinite, emphasizing that humans cannot know the “thing in-itself”, but rather the thing can only be known on our own terms.  Hegel, rather, sees the possibility of relating the Geist of finite human experience to the infinite Geist. Because they are related Hegel believes it is possible to think this Geist. Hegel’s romantic idealism seeks to re-invigorate the sovereignty of thought against the limits of science, through the emphasis of thought’s relation to the infinite and the absolute.

How did Hegel think that Romantic Idealism was a better answer than Kant’s to the question of what constituted Science?

Hegel’s Romantic Idealism is the realization of the possibility of a metaphysics that is capable of understanding and reflecting on reality as a whole. Hegel’s Romantic Idealism uses concepts such as aufhebung, process and Geist to overcome divisions that Hegel finds present in previous philosophy, such as in Kant. For example, Hegel notes that strict differences between sciences and human reflection are ultimately unfounded, as human beings are also part of the world that science investigates. Hence, what is central to Hegel is the notion of a process, whereby reason uses dialectics to overcome these divisions, which are ultimately manifestations of spirit. It is because all these divisions are all manifestations of the spirit that the grounds for their separation can ultimately be overcome. Therefore, Hegel’s thought is radically all-encompassing because he thinks of reality in terms of the process of the resolution of differences, and that reason itself is also a part of reality: it is possible to participate in the ongoing resolution of differences and think the absolute on its own terms.

Descartes’ proof for the existence of God is based on two key concepts: firstly, his method of radical doubt; and secondly, the notion that God is an idea. While Descartes doubts everything in existence, his main question is how it is possible for an idea of God to exist.. Because God is a perfect being, Descartes concludes that God himself must give the idea of God, because the idea of non-perfect being thinking of a perfect being would be incomprehensible; this idea must be acquired from somewhere.  Descartes therefore does not view the notion of perfection as being able to be formulated by language, or other type of social system. Furthermore, Descartes believes that because one can think of a perfect being, that this perfect being must also exist, since existence must be a necessary part of perfection. Thus, we can detect two immediate limits to Descartes’ argument: the connection between perfection and existence; and secondly, the connection between the notion that the idea of a perfection is somehow beyond human intellect.  The weaknesses of these two assumptions are the potential downfall of Descartes’ proof.