Kantian Idealism and the Quest for Ultimate Reality

 

I pondered over Kant and his philosophy of transcendental idealism and then contemplated Descartes and discovered they have significant overlap. Kant claimed we cannot know the world in itself i.e. the noumena but only have knowledge of the world as it appears to us i.e. the phenomena. Then I drew a parallel of this idea to Descartes’ radical doubt which claimed that we cannot know if the external world exists or not, but the one thing we have epistemological certainty of is Cogito Ergo Sum or I think therefore I am. The overlap being lack of true knowledge of the external world. Then I thought about how religion can be incorporated. It is explicit in Descartes that the external world is clear through his faith in God through his ontological argument but for Kant such a thing is absurd as he believes philosophizing about God is beyond the scope of what philosophy can accomplish and therefore he rejects cosmological and ontological arguments. He argued that causation is a category of human thought and cannot be confidently extended to the realm of things in themselves. Nevertheless, if one has faith that revelation is true, if revelation says that the external world is real as it is affirmed in the Abrahamic tradition then this would solve the Kantian noumena-phenomena distinction as they would be identical, but this can only be through faith in revelation rather than found epistemologically or rationally or experimentally. Furthermore, revelation can prove the opposite as well as Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism states that the world as it appears is Maya or illusion and that the world in itself is all Brahman. I found it striking that either possibility could be affirmed.

I am struggling to find a method of incorporating cosmological and ontological arguments into Kantian philosophy. One way I thought of doing so is:

1) Revelation is affirmed as true.

2) Revelation affirms that the external world is true or identical to the noumena.

3) Cosmological/ontological arguments can continue to be used based on their premises. as the external world is identical to the world in itself.

However, a problem arises. I need to affirm revelation to utilize these arguments of Kalam and ontology. Generally, in the works of Aquinas and Al-Ghazali and contemporary philosophers like William Lane Craig, first they posit arguments for God then discuss how revelation is true but not vice versa. Furthermore, this method necessitates an a priori acceptance of revelation, which may raise questions about circular reasoning. Therefore, I am left with 3 possibilities:

1) Affirm the world is real regardless of Transcendental Idealism through faith.

2) Accept what Kant posits and reject cosmological/ontological arguments for God.

3) Attempt to overcome these negating worldviews.

      It is an arduous task to integrate arguments for the existence of God within a Kantian framework while respecting the phenomena-noumena distinction but that does not mean it is impossible! Consider the following:

Cosmological Argument: The cosmological argument is an attempt to understand the contingent nature of the world of experience or the phenomena. The argument might point to the need for a necessary being as the ground of contingent phenomena.

Ontological Argument: The ontological argument is a reflection on the concept of God within human cognition. It explores the idea that the concept of God entails existence, but within the realm of our conceptual understanding or the phenomena.

However, another problem arises. These arguments only necessitate that the phenomena needs a creator but not the noumena and since the phenomena is not the world in itself then no God necessarily needs to exist to explain the noumena which is reality in it itself. Yet, if the phenomena exists and needs an explanation to ground it then perhaps the noumena can be identified with God. While Kantian philosophy advances limitations on our direct knowledge of the noumena, Schopenhauer attempts to transcend this constraint. Schopenhauer, influenced by Kant, introduced his own interpretation of the noumenal realm, which he referred to as the “Will”. In Schopenhauer’s philosophy, the Will represents an underlying metaphysical force that drives all phenomena. He believed that this will was the ultimate reality behind the appearances observed in the phenomenological world. Schopenhauer ascribed certain negative attributes to the will, viewing it as a blind and irrational force, a striving that seeks expression in the diversity of phenomena. He argued that the suffering and conflicts in the world are a result of the Will’s  nature. Schopenhauer theorized that by examining the phenomenal world, one could infer certain characteristics of the underlying noumenal reality. His argument rested on the idea that the Will is not something alien or external to human experience but is an intrinsic aspect of our being. Schopenhauer thought that by observing various manifestations of the will in our desires, drives, and even in our irrational or unconscious motives, we could catch glimpses of the deeper, underlying reality. In this way, he suggested that a careful study of human experience could serve as a window into the noumenal realm. However, it is still only based on intuition rather than true observation as one cannot interact with the noumena. It entirely remains a subjective interpretation rather than a conclusive or empirically grounded assertion.

However, I could do the opposite and say that the Will is a benevolent force based on intuition and then I can claim that since the phenomena needs a cause, the noumena needs a cause as well. Therefore, God is not identified with the noumena but beyond reality itself as its creator but this will still be based on intuition. I will say one thing is for certain, in my first-person experience, the world certainly feels “real”! One needs to prove that the mind creates not only an accurate representation of the world but presents the world as it truly is to return to realism and reject the phenomena-noumena distinction. Kantian idealism suggests that our perceptions are mediated by cognitive processes, and the world as it appears to us might not necessarily capture the ultimate reality or the noumena. Therefore, asserting that if the world accurately corresponds to our mind’s creation or representation of it, then there is no need for this distinction. At the end of the day, the concept of possibility presupposes something actual, and so there is a being which, if it did not exist, then nothing would be possible; but such a being is absolutely necessary.