How could one explain oneself ...                                      WHAT IMMANUEL KANT WROTE


Immanuel Kant lived in the 18th century. Of course, like many research results from other sciences (such as physics), he was not familiar with modern brain research in the 20th and 21st centuries.


Had he known this, his statements, theses, comments, considerations, etc. would have been different.


From this point of view, one should look at his writings (as well as those of many other philosophers before the 20th century, especially those who lived in antiquity).



> For Kant, the path of reason was the central point in man with which he shapes himself. For him, thinking is the linchpin of his philosophy. Added to this was the view in the critical period. Hereby he refers to the sensory-receptive part of knowledge (quasi perception).


However, he probably had no idea what role the brain plays for humans.


Basically, you can only understand people if you know how their central organ, the brain, works.


Because man is shaped by his brain, through its goals with their tools, the midpoints that they carry out.


If you like to follow Kant regarding reason and his concept of intuition, the book by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman "Fast Thinking, Slow Thinking" is recommended. Here it becomes clear that man is not the rational being that he is often thought to be, but follows patterns according to which the brain generates attitudes (anchor),etc. that allow us to act and “recognize”.



> Kant believed in free will, which is increasingly questioned these days. Because it cannot be proven and the results of brain research show the opposite of "free".


There is no question that there is will. But it is actually no longer a question that this is not free. "Free" in the sense of "detached from all substances". As a free floating spirit, so to speak.



> Kant has no definition of the (nature) laws.


I define it in this form:

Identical substances under identical circumstances always give identical results. Or to put it a little less precisely: the same things in the same circumstances always result in the same thing.


> The thing in itself. (Kant understands things as such "as it exists for itself, independent of all possibilities of experience, the absolute reality of the inner be.)


The thing in itself. (Kant understands "thing as such" to be reality as it exists for itself independently of all possibilities of experience; of inner being.)
This was the anchor for him to have a hold on the metaphysics in which he believed.


I mean:


Man takes in the environment through the goals in his brain that show him the world.


There is no thing in itself that would be unchangeable from every perspective, ultimately original, unchangeable. Because the world, the substances in the universe are in constant change.


What is there - and this is where the idea of the thing itself comes from - are the goals from the primal structures in the human brain.


What people like to do is to accept them as if they were carved in stone, but abstractly; unchangeable as things in themselves. And then transfer it to the universe.


The psychological process is somewhat parallel to the Platonic ideas.


I would like to answer the "four Kantian questions" in this - profane - form:


1.What can I know?

My answer: Everything happens according to substances and laws.


2.What should I do?

My answer: Live as balanced as possible.


3. What can I hope for?

My answer: stay healthy.


4. What is the human being?

My answer: Part of the universe, like everything else. He is a being that runs organically according to his goals. The central goal is to survive and, like all living things, to produce offspring.



An addition:

On metaphysics:

Metaphysics is a sought-after belief that is supposed to refute the definition: 

Law means that identical parts - or waves - always result in identical structures under identical circumstances. Laws are inherent properties of substances that - viewed in isolation - are unchangeable (apart from the basic possibilities for modification contained therein) as long as nothing is added to or removed from the substances.

And that means that everything can only take place in a very specific legal form. 

Substances and laws belong together directly and inseparably. There are no substances without laws or vice versa.

The formula: substances = laws is universal.  


You want other truths to be hidden behind such obvious truths. Except for this Statement (the wish), I have found no valid evidence for this from Kant either.

It is similar to the search for free will, for God, etc. This is psychologically understandable, but ultimately theses are only wishes - and of course unprovable (see definition above).


Kant speaks of body and soul. Regarding the latter from the inner senses. (Note from me: "Sense" can always be translated as "target".) 

He wanted to show that the “soul” of the body can only be experienced from a metaphysical point of view.

(Note from me: The inside of all bodies runs according to laws.)  

I doubt that he wrote a definition of the law. In my opinion, it was more about proving metaphysics. Which, of course, he didn't manage because it is just a dream.

Perhaps he wanted to reach a disembodied sphere that fits the respective belief, supports him. This was - and still is - well suited to the wishes of many people who strive for their faith. 


(Note from me: Only the teaching that people want, especially emotionally, can last.)




© It is permitted to use or reproduce this content without restriction on the condition of naming my website and without changing or shortening the texts. (Please inquire about exceptions via my imprint.)