Critique of Pure Reason: Human Pride and Foolishness

In the Introduction to the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant describes the foolish and blind ambition of man to make dogmatic assertions about things of which he has no experience. His antagonist is the philosopher of metaphysics with his abstruse proofs for the immortality of the soul, the freedom of the will, and the existence of God. Kant thinks these are true, but he denies they are attainable by man's reason. "I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (page 117, Cambridge edition, 1998).

Since then, modern man simple denies them.

And he claims Kant as one of the decisive turning points for making an absolute separation between faith and reason, then leaving faith in the dustbin.

I'm only a little ways into the Critique, but I see two foundational ideas from Kant that my age has missed: the foolishness of the educated, and the wisdom of the commoner.

About the metaphysicians Kant says: "Captivated by such a proof of the power of reason [from mathematics], the drive for expansion sees no bounds. The light dove, in free flight cutting through the air the resistance of which it feels, could get the idea that it could do even better in airless space. Likewise, Plato abandoned the world of the senses because it set such narrow limits for the understanding, and dared to go beyond it on the wings of the ideas, in the empty space of pure understanding. He did not notice that he made no headway by his efforts, for he had no resistance, no support, as it were, by which he could stiffen himself, and to which he could apply his powers in order to put his understanding into motion" (p140).

And in his Preface to the same edition, he compares the monopoly of the schools, with their dogmatic proofs, to the simple and obvious understanding of the average man who believes in the immortality of the soul "on that remarkable predisposition of our nature, noticeable in every human being, never to be capable of being satisfied by what is temporal...leading to the hope of a future life". Or on the freedom of the human by "the mere clear exposition of our duties". And finally on the existence of God by "the splendid order, beauty, and providence shown forth everywhere in nature leading to the faith in a wise and great author of the world."

Kant calls this practical reason. It is not mathematical and can't be reduced to equations. But it is real and it is reasonable. It is an approach to reality rooted in the humility of being a creature. We cannot directly perceive the immortal. It is beyond our human ability. But what we can perceive reliably leads us to true thoughts about what or who the immortal is.

Bill Nye "the Science Guy" gave an interview to the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/02/bill-nye-universe-exclusive-interview_n_5233555.html). Asked about the most compelling scientific mystery, he answered:

"The whole thing puts me in awe when you start talking about the Big Bang. But as Einstein said, perhaps the most remarkable thing about the universe is that we can understand it at all, that we can make any sense out of it, is really amazing. I mean we’re these animals running around on this planet and we can understand that. What is the nature of consciousness? What is the nature of your mind? What goes on that I have a mind? I’d say I have a mind. It seems like I have a mind. You know, I speak with dogs frequently. They don’t really talk, but I feel they’re communicating. I just don’t think that they’ve asked these questions. But still they have emotions--they’re happy, they’re sad, they’re tired, they’re energetic in ways like people, but I don’t think they’ve asked a lot of questions. I don’t think they do a lot of calculus, not formally anyway."

What a wonderful answer. I have another term for this: the image of God. I think his hesitation comes because he knows he's giving a theological answer to a supposedly scientific question. But it's a human question. The answer cannot be reduced to space and time and mathematics, but my perception and understanding of space and time and mathematics presupposes a "me" that is doing the perceiving and understanding. And in a world without faith, or without practical reason, there's not much of a "me".

With greater education and understanding, human pride puffs up and then confuses and forgets the most basic truths about our existence as creatures. I think this is what Kant has in mind by setting limits and bounds on the capability of pure reason, and yet we use his very arguments to prove that this life is all there is, man is essentially an animal, and there is no God.