1. Intro: Why Should We Even Bother with Kant?
In this lecture, I typically discuss the significance of Kant in the context of the Romantics and the authors who precede and follow him. Occasionally, it turns into a head-to-head comparison with Hegel; however, I avoid that because, within the framework of evolutionary truth and subjectivity, we can already gain a great deal from Kant in general, and from the Critique of Pure Reason in particular.
Why should anyone even bother themselves today with this 18th-century philosopher, just another dead white man who spent his life criticising everything? The answer is simple - no matter what we take deeper interest in (practically everything from philosophy, psychology, ideological critique, all sorts of social sciences, mathematics, physics, theology, logics what have you), Kant just keeps on coming up whether we want to or not.
If we do not know him, it is tough for us to enter the discussion. Every significant philosophical thinker worth their salt after him has read him well and, though the degrees to which they admit to that vary, has been influenced by him. Foucault noted that we can never truly escape Hegel; the same holds true for Kant. When we believe we have escaped him entirely, sneaked away, deem him obsolete or irrelevant, seal ourselves away from him, trying to circle his thought, reaching a concept that we see fit to present as original, what shall we find? Often, Kant has beaten us to the punch, and what is even creepier - our attempts to outdo him may have led us to prove him right instead. Climbing higher and higher, we reach the next level of conceptualizing the universe, God, human sentience, intelligence, cognition, development of new-age philosophy, or quantum mechanics, and there Kant stands, "motionless, waiting for us.”
One might argue now that Kant's thought could have been more consistent, that he was sometimes careless with his arguments, was forgetful about the conclusions reached, or contradicted himself, and one is absolutely correct. As Robert Paul Wolff puts it: "Within the ranks of the great philosophers, there are a few whose insight into the most profound problems goes so deep that it seems to outreach their capacity for clear, coherent exposition and argument. Kant is such a philosopher." No author is beyond criticism, also not Kant, and by no means was he always right; however, the fact that we can find contradictions in his thought may be a feature of his thought, not a bug. Why is that so? Kant tackled the most complex problems with remarkable, nearly obsessive systematicity, arriving at remarkable conclusions by any stretch of the imagination. If he had left it there, his constructed system would have already been sufficient to justify his place among the top philosophers in human history. However, being "a good compulsive neurotic," as Žižek puts it, we can see again and again, Kant diving deeper, jumping off the established path, as if he was possessed by the obscure song of some distant siren that only he can hear, effectively forgetting what he had just posited, and this way reaching something even more profound. That often cames with the cost of clarity, however, that is also what makes hime great and relevant at modern day.
Much of what follows is based on the Critique of Pure Reason“ - a book, when published, was reviewed the following way: "It will be misjudged because it is misunderstood, and misunderstood because men choose to skim through the book and not to think through it - a disagreeable task, because the work is dry, obscure, opposed to all ordinary notions, and moreover long-winded.” In a way, it is just perfect that the authorship of this comment belongs to Kant himself.
How should this book be read? By trying to find exceptional arguments that made Kant relevant and not looking for inconsistencies. If we find ourselves feverishly hunting for contradictions and mistakes in this great book, wishing to celebrate such findings as proof of our tremendous wit, we should take a long look in the mirror. If we are to succeed, in many cases, we have not understood everything and should read more. Even if we prove Kant wrong and murmur victoriously: “What a character, mistaken he is again!” we should instead imagine with what sort of compassionate sadness Kant would look at us, standing outside of time.
In conclusion, the relevance of Kant’s genius stems from his balanced critique of both rationalist and empiricist perspectives. Rather than taking sides with Leibniz's metaphysics or Newton's empiricism, he developed his unique philosophical approach to reconcile their views without strawmanning either side. Kant's persistence and industriousness in grappling with profound questions, such as the possibility of freedom within determinism, demonstrate his commitment to almost maniacal intellectual rigor. No matter how likable one finds him, he cannot be blamed for trying to find an easy way out when wrestling with such issues.
His influence is undeniable, shaping the thoughts of numerous thinkers, including Hegel, Schelling, Fichte, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Goethe, Husserl, and Heidegger. To understand these later figures, one must first understand Kant's philosophy, even though they often critiqued his ideas. Therefore, it just feels uncanny to even try to popularise someone's approach without understanding his connection to Kant (and that is also not limited to philosophers, Kant also had a considerable influence on Freud and Jung).
Importantly, appreciating the work of these thinkers does not necessitate choosing sides in their debates with Kant. One does not have to dislike Hegel to appreciate Kant; rather, it is fascinating to trace the consistency of certain lines of thought throughout human intellectual endeavor's history; and we shall do that because that is what the Evolutionary truth is all about.
In the simplest terms, Kant is a landmark, cornestone of Western philosophical though, and trying to ignore or downplay this fact just results in entering the arena of philosophical, ethical or psychological discourse ridiculously unprepared.
