The Philosophy of Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was a fascinating man, who spent much of his life, thinking. Thinking in particular about morals. He was born in Prussia (today called russia) near germany and poland in 1726 and died in 1804. His thoughts, still to this day caused a rupture in early philosophy and are still large and debated topics in universities today.

Background - Immanuel Kants personality

As a little background on Immanuel Kants character, it is said that he was almost mechanical, he had the discipline of a fictional character or a robot, He was the exemplary of a man living entirely through the mind. It is said that he woke at exactly 5am each morning and wrote for 3 hours exactly, he would then go to university and lecture for 4 hours on the dot, then he would go to the exact same restaurant and order the exact same meal everyday, following that, he would take his long walk through the same park at exactly the same time and use exactly the same route every single day. Supposedly his neighbours used his leaving the house as an alarm clock, for they would know the exact time when he stepped foot out of the door. It didn't matter the weather, Kant knew what he wanted from life, and he would not let any form of distraction get in the way of that. Supposedly he never actually left his city, and despite the sea being just one hour away from him, he never saw it, becaucse of his rigorous schedule.

Immanuel Kants Thoughts on religion and his goals

The mechanical lifestyle, although not everyones cup of tea, did have its benefits, the main one being efficiency, In Kants life, he came up with so many philosophical ideas that became the shoulders for those following him to stand on, such as Nietzsche, Freud or Schopenhauer. Before i get on to his philosophy, i should preface by letting you know that Kant was born into a strict religous family and this may be one of the things that led him to question religion, Kant did not dislike religion, but he also did not like religion. What Kant enjoyed about religion, were the ethical sides of religion, the moral behaviour that it presented and the cohesion that it could bring about in communities to bring uplifting and positive change. However Kant was not a fan of the idea of God, or the the worship of something above and unknown. What Kant tried to do in his work, was create a rational secular moral compass based on intellectuism and thought but that did not have spirituality or other-worldness attached to it. Essentially Kant used logic to explain the value of having morals, rather than blindly accepting the moral values of religion, (although much of what he said ended up being similar to that, that is written in all religious texts). Kant used logic to explain morals. Akin to the way a biologist seeks to find out more about the human body, by dissecting and examing it, to understand its processes and functions.

Kants Philosophy

I am going to focus on two of his most famous pieces of literature and thought. Kant Strove for and spoke of a free society, where everyone has freedom. But his ideas of freedom were maybe not exactly what freedom seems to be at first. Firstly, I will let you know that Kant believed that by nature, human being are intensely prone to corruption and that the human being has 2 states of consciousness it can exist in, the rational mind or the irrational, Kant believed that the rational mind is where the moral compass is found, and that, the difference between good and bad, right and wrong is bestowed upon and known by all human beings through intellect alone, hence his distate for religion. However, he also understood that a state of irrationality existed, in which a person craves their passions and their desires. Kant believed that a person who fulfils all their passions and their desires, who is free externally, acts in which ever way they choose too in that moment, is a slave. the irony of there freedom to act in whichever way, is that they become a slave, on the other hand, to act in the rational, to do what the mind wants to do when it makes a plan to do anything, to complete it and to ignore the craving and desires of the passionate heart, one gains freedom and intelligence through living a life in this state. Again, and ironic tale, that those who are disciplined in life are truly free, As said by marathon runner Eliud Kipchoge. Kants most famous piece of work, known as - The Categorical Imperative, says, "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should a universal law". To break this down, maxim essentially means principle, and universal law means a law that is known and followed by everybody, so what Kant is saying with this, is, do "unto others, as you would like to have done unto you" and his second most popular piece of work being - The universal law, in which he states, "Act as to treat people always as ends in the themselves, never as mere means" in other words, he says to treat someone as a mere means to your own goals, and no thoughts to the other persons end goals, Kant believes, is wrong. As an example of the categorical imperative, lets say that you decide that you want to take someone books from their shelf when they are not looking, if you think this is okay, then you are also saying that it is okay for others to act in the same way to you. with the categorical imperative in mind, every action you take is a direct instruction into the way you think it is appropriate for you to get treated. An example of the universal law, may be something like, asking for loan, with no interest in paying backer to the loaner, if this became a universal law, and if this is how people acted, requests for loans would not be believed and thus no one would loan out money, leading to a dysregulatory society.

My thoughts

I believe that a lot of what Kant said was correct, mainly his Categorical imperative and his universal law. What i find most interesting about his work, are his thoughts on the irrational and the rational. Sometimes i find myself thinking about similar things, and i find it interested how the mind, the rational, is in direct competition with the body, the irrational, The mind, seeks to grow, and to grow it seeks to destroy the body, as an example of this we could use fasting. We know that when we fast, it enhances connections in the brain and increasing BDNF, essentially meaning that we can grow brain cells faster. However, during a fast, the body is being broken down, and sometimes literally eating itself. On the other hand, the body seeks to destroy the mind, The body that constantly craves, more normally bad things, such as sugar for example, is in direct opposition of the mind. destroying brain cells and making the mind smaller. I like the idea that we all exist of this plane of existence, somewhere between slave and sapien, That depending on what rational we choose to follow, the uphill, rational mind, or the downhill irrational body, will dictate our level of consciouness. Having said this, it is also interesting to thing about the benefit of the irrational. If i could ask Kant one question, it would be, "are you happy?" i would ask this because, in his life, although a striver and a great thinker, he spent almost every hour of every second going up hill, and no point did he stop to enjoy his view, or even descend downhill in moments of irrationality and fun. Does the human being, not need also to enjoy their life in certain moments, or is it best to completely still this irrational mind and to live in the mind only? it is an interesting thing to think about.

I also find it fascinating, that despite his distate for religion, most of what he said, and what is dissected today in serious debate, is just a rewording of what almost all religious text has said already, Does he believe that someone else, much smarter than him, came before him and already intellecualized everything, and came up with rules of and good and bad and named himself or herself god? We know how much Kant lived in the mind, how much more might a person have to do to gain much more wisdom than Kant? and yet he can only essentially quote two proverbs from religious texts. Are his thoughts and his life actually greater evidence towards the existence of god than against? Perhaps, what Kant was seeking destroy, through his writing, only caused the flame of the chances of gods existence, to burn brighter.