Why is Kant's practical reason for God wrong?

[MindForgedManacle]

From the little I know of Kant (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) but a major compenent to his critique of metaphysics is that what we experience as reality is but mental recreations, our perceptions. Since we only ever, and could only ever, know the perceptions and not reality, we can't say anything about what (if anything) is behind those perceptions and the reality therein.

Would that be an accurate assessment philosophy people?

[genkaus]

And my thought in another thread has been demonstrated: Genkaus knows everything.

On the contrary - Google knows everything. Genkaus is just the vessel through which Google's infinite wisdom is expressed.

[MindForgedManacle]

@Gen Was my summary of Kant's deathblow to metaphysics accurate?

[genkaus]

@Gen Was my summary of Kant's deathblow to metaphysics accurate?

Not sure. I'm not actually familiar with Kant's philosophy - just some ideas that have become common. When someone presents one of his arguments, I've to study up on those propositions on the almighty Google.

[Faith No More]

From the little I know of Kant (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) but a major compenent to his critique of metaphysics is that what we experience as reality is but mental recreations, our perceptions. Since we only ever, and could only ever, know the perceptions and not reality, we can't say anything about what (if anything) is behind those perceptions and the reality therein.

Would that be an accurate assessment philosophy people?

That seems to be fairly accurate of what I have read. The way it was posed in what I was reading was that Kant believed our perceptions are like eyeglasses, in the sense that all of reality is filtered through them, and it is impossible for us to understand reality unfiltered.

But given that, I'm wondering how he justifies his moral and theological stance.

[CleanShavenJesus]

He thinks that belief in the realization of this world is necessary because disbelief in this ideal would lead to the meaninglessness of morality. Seeing this world unattainable by humans alone, he introduces the existence of God, a being that portions out happiness to those who are morally right. He claims that this type of reasoning is practical because if there were no God, there would be no reason to be good because it would never bring happiness.

This means that Kent is inherently an asshole.

[filambee]

So Kant can't figure out how humans could do something, so he introduces magic in order to fix that gap in his understanding. Unfortunately, in the real world, one can't think so hard that their handwaving becomes literally true, and similarly, one isn't endowed with this right to know everything; his inability to figure it out doesn't therefore mean that what he feels is the best explanation available to him currently must be the right one.

On this score, Kant needed to just admit he didn't know, and leave it at that.

So are you saying that any assumption that humanity can or cannot achieve a level of the "highest good" is speculative reasoning? Could thinking that humanity cannot achieve this level be inductive reasoning instead based on the history of humanity?

[genkaus]

So are you saying that any assumption that humanity can or cannot achieve a level of the "highest good" is speculative reasoning? Could thinking that humanity cannot achieve this level be inductive reasoning instead based on the history of humanity?

His assumptions about that "highest good" is speculative reasoning. Given that, the question of whether humanity can achieve it is pointless.

[MindForgedManacle]

I was talking to a professional philosopher on Twitter, and she said that from my question about "whether or not there was a contradiction between Kant's prohibition on metaphysics and moral views" that she would say no.

And given she can understand Kant and I really...can't (been saving that one!), I would tend to defer to her knowledge until I can.

---

So are you saying that any assumption that humanity can or cannot achieve a level of the "highest good" is speculative reasoning? Could thinking that humanity cannot achieve this level be inductive reasoning instead based on the history of humanity?

If you're talking about Kant's idea that "ought implies can", that's in error because to say something is an ought is only to say that if it can be done it should be done. It doesn't address whether or not it actually can be done.

[Faith No More]

I was talking to a professional philosopher on Twitter, and she said that from my question about "whether or not there was a contradiction between Kant's prohibition on metaphysics and moral views" that she would say no.

And given she can understand Kant and I really...can't (been saving that one!), I would tend to defer to her knowledge until I can.

I'm more interested in how he reconciles his epistemology with his metaphysical claims of god's existence.