Skip to main content

Kant on Plato




"The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty space. It was thus that Plato left the world of the senses, as setting too narrow limits to the understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the ideas, in the empty space of the pure understanding. He did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance...."


I don't know German, so of course I have no idea what the original passage as Kant composed it would sound or feel like to someone who does. But Kant's prose has a reputation for, um, Teutonic heaviness. Yet unless his translators have given him a huge gift, this passage shows that he had a light poetic side.
It seems to me to speak with great concision to the similarity/difference of Kant and Plato. They are both philosophers who distinguish between the apparently (or provisionally) real world on the one hand and the really real world on the other. They are both philosophers who think of the apparently real world as "this world," the one in which our problems and conflicts with one another arise. They both believe that in fundamental respects the solution to those problems, the solutions to the ultimate questions this world raises, consists in an appeal to the "other" world, the really real one.
So far so good, in terms at least of amity between these two figures. But it all leads us to the obvious tricky question: how do we distinguish what is really real from what is merely apparently real. On this point, Plato and Kant give exactly contrary answers. Plato says: the really real world is the one of which we have knowledge. Of the apparent world, we can only have opinions. Kant says precisely the reverse: the apparent world is the one we know, because our categories apply to it, and that is because it wouldn't appear to us at all if they didn't. The really real world is one we don't know (and, thus, the domain of faith).
Kant was expressing his own side of this argument in the above passage. We need the "resistance" of the world of sense in order to have any knowledge of anything at all.
The kind of knowledge that seems to Plato to tell us of the really real, for example the Pythagorean theorem, doesn't seem to Kant to be knowledge at all. Geometry becomes in his eyes a giant tautology, a closed system of "analytic" statements, telling us nothing about either of the two halves of Kant's dualism.
 

Comments

  1. Christopher,

    Your analysis is very helpful; I'd never contrasted Plato and Kant in that way. I'm puzzled, though, that you say that Plato said that "the really real world is the one of which we have knowledge." What about his parable of the cave? The people in the cave see only the "unreal" shadows projected by the fire behind them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Henry,

    Surely the whole point of the parable of the cave was that the inhabitants thereof didn't have knowledge properly so-called even of their own surroundings. They had familiarity, but to call it knowledge is to stretch the terms of the parable to the braking point.

    Consider Plato's mentor. Socrates famously said that all he knew was that he did not know. To the mind of the mature Plato, this represented a stage in a journey, not a resting point. One who becomes aware of his ignorance bursts the bounds of captivity to the wall shadows and can begin looking for the sun, the light of reality.

    Perhaps I could have made the point, and the contrast with Kant, more clear if I said that to Plato the really real world is the only one of which we have reliable knowledge. But to Plato, "reliable knowledge" would have seemed a pleonasm.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "breaking point" not "braking point." But you knew that.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

https://sites.google.com/site/francescoorsi1/

https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/3

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …