New version page

UCI EUROST 10 - Euro Studies Class 17

Upgrade to remove ads

This preview shows page 1-2 out of 5 pages.

Save
View Full Document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 5 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 5 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Upgrade to remove ads
Unformatted text preview:

Professor Smith European Studies Department Europe Studies 10 European History Course Code: 24000 ● What is Enlightenment? ○ Immanuel Kant ○ The Three Critiques ○ “Public” vs “Private” reason ○ The “Public Sphere” in political theory ○ 1784 ■ The publication date of Kant’s essay “what is enlightenment” ○ Foundations laid by the Protestant Reformation, the dawn of the scientific revolution, a new humanist turn to reason, the birth of the nation state, and the rise of capitalism (the bourgeoisie) ● What we will cover and not cover… ○ Not a general overview of the enlightenment as a movement from approx. 1680 to 1800 ■ Included major figures like Leibniz, Locke, Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Hume ● Associated with the “age of reason” ● Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) ○ Author of the three “critiques” ○ Critique of Pure Reason ○ Critique of Practical Reason ○ Critique of Judgement ○ Kant wrote that he was introducing a kind of “copernican turn” in philosophy ■ In many ways he brought about a “paradigm shift” ● Such that old problems came to be looked at in entirely new ways ● “Critique” ○ Kant did not use this word as we might namely, in the sense of a (negative) evaluation of something ○ Rather, he meant that in each case he was looking at the special nature and limits of particular aspects of our intellects ■ He sees the need to make fundamental distinctions, especially between nature (science), morality, and art ○ The first Critique addressed “epistemology”, i.e., what can we know and how do we know it? Can we have scientific knowledge? ○ The second critique addressed “ethics”, i.e., how ought we to act? (“practical philosophy”) ○ The third critique addressed (mostly) “aesthetics, i.e., what is the unique experience we have of beauty in nature and art” ● The problem Kant needed to address: skepticism (doubt) about knowledge ○ “The sun warms the stone”○ How is such a statement possible? ○ I see the sun and I feel the warmth of the stone ○ But where do I see “causality” ○ David Hume (Scottish Empiricist) said there is no causality, just habitual connections ○ Kant said: we bring the concept of causality to the experience ○ This was his “copernican turn” ● Critique of Pure Reason ○ 1781/1787 ○ Knowledge of nature ○ Role of the “understanding” (“theoretical” reason) in our (scientific) knowledge of nature ○ Whatever can “show up” or “appear” to us as a possible object of experience (=Nature) falls under our “forms of intuition” (space and time) and the “categories of the understanding” (e.g., number, causality) ○ That is, our minds contribute basic forms and concepts to the empirical sense data in order to produce knowledge ○ To go back to our example: “the sun causes the stone to get warm” ○ The concept (“category”) of causality is a necessary condition that we bring to our experience of the world ■ This is called “a priori” in philosophy ● It is not derived from experience (of the sun and stone) but is prior to that experience ○ As well as number (quantity), necessity, possibility…(there are 12 categories) ● That is… ○ It is a precondition of all experience (of nature) that objects are in space and time, and are connected by causality, have a number, etc ○ I can’t say: ■ “I see something but it’s not one or two or three...” or: “I see something and it does not have a cause...” ○ I might not know the specific cause (yet), but if I experience it, it must have a cause ○ Unless i’m the mulder from the x-files ● Kant’s goal here was: ○ To provide a firm foundation for the natural sciences (the mathematical study of nature and basic concepts, esp. causality) ○ But, if everything we experience falls under these categories, how can there be both all pervasive causality and free will ■ And what about god? ○ We just saw that all objects of experience in nature are necessarily subsumed under categories (number, causality, space, time, etc) ○ What about god and our free will? ○ In a crucial sense, for Kant, they are not objects of experience■ If they were, then they would be subsumed under the forms of intuition (space and time) and the categories ● And that would be odd ○ Theoretical reason ■ Nature, what “appears” to us, what can be known under the “categories” (causality, number, etc.) ○ Practical reason ■ God and the free will ● They cannot be known under the categories ○ But they can be “known” in some other way ○ Note: kant therefore rejects all “proofs” for the existence of god - recall descartes ■ Why? ○ Because god can’t be an object of our (theoretical) knowledge like other things ○ If god were, tehn e.g., god would have a cause and would be locatable in space and time ○ But we can “know” god (and justify free will) in another way by means of morality ■ How? ● What about ethics? ● Critique of Practical Reason ○ Knowledge of morality ○ Realm of will/god ○ They are not objects of knowledge but we can “know” them in some other way ■ We can know, using “practical reason”, what we ought to do ○ What I “ought” to do is, by definition, not a part of nature ■ The “is=ought distinction” ○ By definition, what I ought to do is not something present in the world ■ I need to bring it about ○ That is, we have in us a sense of the “moral law” ■ Our conscience (kant was a pietist/lutheran) ○ But not just a “sense” of what is right ■ We can even formulate an absolute moral principle ○ The “categorical imperative” ■ Act according to maxims (rules) that could be made universal law (without contradiction) ● For example… ○ Is it okay to lie (if I can get away with it)? ○ What if I made that a universal law? ○ Then there would be no possibility of distinguishing what is true and so we encounter a contradiction ○ Hence, we may never tell a lie ○ If you make this principle (imperative) the sole reason for your actions, you will act morally ■ You will determine your actions according to what is right, what is your duty● “Deontological” ethics ○ From Greek deon = duty ○ To act ethically is to do what is right because it is right ○ Vs. “consequentialism” ○


View Full Document
Download Euro Studies Class 17
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Euro Studies Class 17 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Euro Studies Class 17 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?