Transcendental Idealism
The fundamental idea behind the creation of a Transcendental perspective was to oppose the perspective of Realism, which had served as the dominant lens of Western Philosophy. Realism’s proposition is that the world which exists in the physical realm and the world which human beings exist through their senses are the same. There is an implied congruence or symmetry between the physical world and the sensory world. Kant differentiated between these two perspectives when proposing Transcendental Idealism. He proposed there was a ‘noumena’ which is the physical world, existing with certain conditions in place that would remain the same regardless of perception. A red balloon will remain red, even if a color blind person sees it as some other shade. The second world is the ‘phenomena’ or the sensory world. This is the world which human beings experience through their senses. Here, the senses and perception guide the individual through each experience. Regardless of the actual shade of the balloon, certain external factors, like the lighting or the individual’s eyesight problems, will influence what shade it appears to be. The red balloon could end up looking purple. However, it is impossible for the individual to step out from this subjective phenomenal world and experience the objective noumena, as an individual cannot separate himself from his senses. Transcendental Idealism extended the simple proposition that the world which humans experience might be markedly different from the physical world that exists.
Linguistics of Epistemology
A longstanding query in epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, concerns the true source of knowledge, and the expressions of such truth. Distinctions have been made between apriori (known prior to any experience, true by definition) and aposteriori/empirical (requires experience to be verified) knowledge; further classifications between analytic propositions (wherein the predicate of a sentence is contained in the subject itself, such as, ‘yellow is a color’) and synthetic propositions (wherein the predicate is not implicitly contained in the subject, such as ‘yellow is the color of my toy’) have been used to compartmentalize types of knowledge. As analytic propositions are true by definition, they are naturally apriori. Using similar associative logic, we can infer that synthetic propositions are aposteriori or empirical, as it requires experience to truly know a piece of information that is not definitionally contained in the subject of a sentence. Kant’s radical hypothesis was that synthetic apriori knowledge was the true source of knowledge. A simple example of bringing together these seemingly oppositional concepts is mathematics, with the most basic rules of geometry: A triangle’s internal angles add up to 180 degrees. The predicate, 180 degrees, is not contained by definition in the subject ‘triangle’. By definition, a triangle is a shape with three sides. But, we know that this statement is true without having to empirically verify it, as simple logic dictates it to be correct. This ability to confirm the information by merely thinking it through logically and not verification makes it apriori, and the fact that it extends our knowledge without being true by definition makes it an synthetic statement. Kant’s linguistic approach is straightforward, and provides a framework to classify most daily parlance. Philosophers prior to Kant tended to either believe in either analytic apriori (Rationalists) or synthetic aposteriori (Empiricists). The association of synthetic propositions with apriori knowledge was groundbreaking in the field of both philosophy and linguistics.
Opposition to Rationalist and Empiricist Epistemology
Kant’s desire as a thinker was to extend boundaries of knowledge, and not merely categorize and debate existing propositions. He employed linguistics extensively to make a point about why the purpose of metaphysics must be to extend knowledge. As explained in the section on the linguistics of epistemology, Kant propagated the finding of propositions which were synthetic apriori in nature, as opposed to the age old Rationalists versus Empiricists debate concerning whether analytic apriori or synthetic aposteriori concepts were more valuable in the hunt for true knowledge. His discontentment with both linguistic expressions was rooted in the flaws he discovered in both the Rationalist and Empiricist school of thought. As a transcendental idealist, he did believe that the mind held certain structures which classified knowledge (as the Rationalists did) but he did not discount the role of experience either. He believed that the external world and our sensory responses were the only way we, as humans, inseparable from our senses, could experience the world. But, to him, the analytic apriori knowledge which was the pride of Rationalists, did not add any value to a person's bank of knowledge. A proposition like 'red is a color' is not telling us anything new, as it will continue being true by definition. However, the synthetic aposteriori propositions of the Empiricists did not convince Kant fully either. As he believed that senses were capable of being deceived, (hence his distinction between the physical noumenal world and the human, sensory driven phenomenal world) he did not believe in relying solely on empirical evidence that could not be verified by apriori logic. His proposition of synthetic apriori dealt effectively with both problems in that it was logically verifiable and extended knowledge. His belief was that the purpose of the metaphysical school was to extend knowledge on the foundations upon which all other knowledge rested, which is why he believed in new exploration and not existing classification.
Freedom of Will
Freedom in the works of Kant is unique compared to the layman's notion of freedom. All natural beings have certain physiological needs which cause them to act in ways that an anthropocentric moral framework might condemn (the killing of weaker animals, hierarchical organization of a pack). Kant used the human condition to differentiate between biological necessity and the the legitimate freedom of will. Humans too, have certain biological necessities, which are inescapable. However, human beings also possess a highly developed mental faculty with cognitive powers that the animal kingdom does not enjoy. This unique possession, Kant argues, enables us to exercise a freedom from these biological necessities as being the only determinants of behavior, and humans can choose to exercise their free will to behave in a way that overrides their biological urge, but is morally correct.
Deontological Approach to Morality
Of the many approaches to morality that have prevailed, the consequentalist perspective has reigned supreme over several others. Immanuel Kant popularized the unconventional deontological approach, which can be whittled down to a simpler meaning of 'duty based approach.' Kantian morality does not lay emphasis on the nature of the action itself or the consequences that the action brings, but rather the motive with which a particular action is carried out. A shopkeeper who refrains from overcharging a small child will not be lauded for the action based on the action itself, or the consequence, that an innocent customer who would not know otherwise has been charged correctly. Kant would judge whether the motives of the shopkeeper were pure. If the shopkeeper's only motive was that overcharging the child would have led to the spread of a negative reputation, or in an extreme case, a potential lawsuit, he performed the right action for the wrong reason, which does not translate to moral behavior. If, however, he charged the child the correct amount because it is his duty as an upstanding shopkeeper to serve all his customers, however knowledgeable or naive, in an honest manner, he can be called a moral person. The unique deontological framework is noble in theory, but extremely difficult to detect in reality.
