Leibniz was born, and raised, in Leipzig, Germany on June 21, 1646. He was the son of Friedrich Leibniz, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Leipzig. Friedrich died when Gottfried was six years old. When he was very young, Leibniz taught himself Latin and spent a great amount of time studying in his father’s library. At the age of 15, he entered the University of Leipzing. There he studied philosophy and mathematics. He graduated in 1663 with a thesis on the principle of individuation.

From 1663 to 1666 he studied law at the University of Leipzig. However, in 1666, he was refused admission to the doctoral program. Gottfried then went on to study at the University of Altdorf, where he received his doctorate in 1667. During this time he published a paper on legal education. This caught the eye of the Elector of Mainz.
From 1667 to 1672, Leibniz was employed as a lawyer and diplomat in the court of Mainz. During this period in Mainz, he wrote his Hypothesis physica nova.
These were still very troubled times within Christendom. Leibniz put his thoughts and efforts into the possibilities of a peace within the Holy Roman Empire and with it’s neighbors; specifically the king of France, Louis XIV. Leibniz came up with a peace hope based on a new Christian theology, which would allow Catholics and Protestants to come together on a higher theological level.
In 1672, in response to this hope, the Elector sent him to Paris as part of a diplomatic mission to Louis XIV. Leibniz would remain in Paris as a representative of the Elector until the Elector passed away in 1676.
In Paris, Leibniz came in contact with the natural philosophers, scientists, Huygens, Malbranche, Arnauld and others. Huygens had a strong influence on Leibniz; he introduced him to his own concepts of the nature of light, which were in contrast to the Newtonian conception. Leibniz later engaged in an extensive correspondence with Arnauld, who was Newtonian. Leibniz laid out his metaphysical system in counter to Newton’s.
Around this time Gottfried began his work on a calculating machine, which could add, subtract, multiply, divide, and find the roots of numbers as well.
In 1673, after leaving Paris, Leibniz traveled to England, where he met Boyle and Oldenburg. He showed them his new calculating machine. They then introduced him to the Royal Society, where he demonstrated his new machine. They, as a result, gave him membership to their society.
In 1675 Gottfried put together the outlines of his new differential calculus.
In 1676, after the death of the Archbishop of Mainz, the Duke of Brunswick at Hanover, Germany, called Liebniz to work as a personal librarian for him. After leaving Paris for Hanover, Gottfried endeavored a journey that lasted most of the rest of 1676. He returned to London and then traveled to the Netherlands where he met Leeuwenhoek in Delft and spent a month in Amsterdam with Spinoza.
Once he arrived in Hanover, he spent the rest of his days there, which were mostly spent in the preparation of a history of the house of Brunswick. Leibniz also took up work on a number of mechanical devices that utilized his mathematical and technical talents. Some of these devices were hydraulic presses, windmills, lamps, submarines, clocks, carriages, and water pumps. During this period, Gottfried developed a binary number system. He also developed key components of the discipline of symbolic logic. Leibniz also turned his attention to philosophy and completed works on metaphysics and systematic philosophy during the 1680s and 1690s.
Much of the last part of his life was lived in relative obscurity. Most of his work was unknown in his own times. Leibniz died on November 14, 1716 in Hanover. Even though Gottfried Leibniz founded and served as the first president to the Academy of Sciences in Berlin, his own death was not acknowledged there nor was it in the Royal Society of London.

        

The French novelist Voltaire satirizes certain institutions and beliefs in Candide in order to spread his messages across the globe. In his most famous work, Candide, he tells the tale of a young man’s adventures across the globe in search of his true love. While the title character travels, he learns to reject certain parts of society and the social structure. In Candide, Voltaire satirizes philosophy, romance, and religion.

Pangloss, a “professor of metaphysico-theologico-cosmolo-nigology” , is a strong believe in the optimistic philosophy. He and his philosophy are as absurd as his title throughout the novel. He believes that things cannot be otherwise and that all is for the best. Upon his arrival in Lisbon, he and Candide witness an earthquake in which the city is left in ruins. To explain the phenomenon, Pangloss says that “it is impossible that things should be other than they are; for everything is right”. This gives the reader the feeling that Pangloss in foolish because the deaths of thousands of people cannot be for the greater good. The philosopher is hung at a auto da fe but does not die. A surgeon purchases his seemingly and wakes him up during an operation. After he reaches Constantinople, he enters a mosque and, because he is Christian, is arrested and forced to work in the galleys. Despite all of the things that happened to him, Pangloss still maintains that this is the “best of all possible worlds”.

Candide is madly in love with Cunegonde, the daughter of the Baron of Thuder-ten-Tronckh. In Candide, romance is what is the main cause of the characters’ hardships; in short, love is painful. In Chapter I, Candide and Cunegonde kiss and are caught by the Baron who chases Candide from the castle with “great kicks on the backside”, while Cunegonde is boxed on the ears by the Baroness. It is this great love which causes Candide to kill the Jew and the Inquisitor in Lisbon and to attempt to kill Cunegonde’s brother in South America. When Candide finally reunites with his love in Turkey, he is, ironically, no longer in love with her and is “seized with horror” by her ugliness. Furthermore, he no longer considers her to be a woman, but rather an “object” . This shows that love is but a childhood fantasy and not long lasting. French romance is also satirized in Candide. The French are inconsistent as far as love goes and quickly forget past romances. The Marchioness of Parolignac is shocked when Candide does not fall in love with her for “a Frenchman would have said, ‘It is true that I have loved Miss Cunegonde, but seeing [the Marchioness], I think I no longer love her’”.

The country of El Dorado and the customs of its people bring about a religious debate that dates back to the time of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. In El Dorado, the people “do not pray to [God for] He has given them all they need”. Furthermore, all of the county’s inhabitants are priests and there are no monks who “dispute, govern, cabal, and who burn people that are not of their opinion” . The Inquisition is also a subject of satire in Candide. In Lisbon, the Inquisition captures various people in order to preform an auto da fe. The reasons include marrying one’s grandmother, rejecting bacon which larded a chicken, speaking one’s mind, and listening with an air of approbation to a philosophy the Inquisition rejected. In Constantinople, Pangloss enters a mosque and picks up a bouquet of flowers that a woman dropped, is identified as a Christian, and is ordered “a hundred lashes on the soles of the feet and sent to the galleys”. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church, the Inquisition, and Islam are satirized in Candide.

Diction, exaggeration and symbolism transport the reader into Voltaire’s eighteenth century world. The reader is made to reject the philosophy of optimism, think badly of love at first sight and romance, and to look at the Church and Inquisition from the author’s perspective. Voltaire is very successful in bringing his point across to the reader and his work was one of the major influences on the Enlightenment and its followers. The works of Voltaire and his colleagues were a driving force in the formation of modern society. Voltaire, Francois. Candide. Trans. Anonymous. Ed. Stanley Appelbaum. New York: Mineola, 1991

In the Western tradition, Renaissance Philosophy referred to the period after Medieval Philosophy but before Modern Philosophy. There were no exact dates delineating the period, but many would roughly estimate it as extending from 14th to 17th centuries. Much of this period can also be seen as a reaction to and a move away from the ideas and schools that dominated the medieval period. As the Renaissance heightened its uprising against the reign of religion and therefore reacted against the church, against authority, and against Scholasticism, there was a sudden flourishing of interest in problems centering on civil society, man, and nature. These interests found exact representation in the three dominant strands of Renaissance philosophy: Humanism, Platonism, and Aristotelianism.

        

I. HUMANISM

I am a man, and nothing human is foreign to me.- Terence (Latin writer)

Etymologically, the word humanism came from the Latin word h?m?nus meaning kind man or humane. During the Italian Renaissance humanism was defined as a specific intellectual program. Humanism meant an appreciation for Classical learning and a revival of the concerns of Classical learning (those which were humanistic in the Greek sense and a turning away from what was seen as the obscurantism and scholasticism). In philosophy, humanism stressed the importance of human beings and their nature and place in the universe. The movement Humanism emerged in Italy and spread to France, Germany, the Netherlands and England toward from the 1300s to the 1500s.

Throughout the Middle Ages, God has always been the point of departure in philosophy. On the other hand, Renaissance humanist took man himself as their point of departure. Renaissance humanism was also characterized by individualism. For the humanists, man is not only a human being but a unique individual. The ideal became what we call the Renaissance man, a man of universal genius embracing all aspects of life, art, and science. Humanists also rejected the notion that man has a sinful nature and should despise life on earth. Thus, man has freedom to delight himself, and develop his potentials without limit.

The greater concern of the humanists was to educate man based on the study of the classical Greek and Latin works. This interest is not merely for scholastic purpose but was also practical. The imitation of the ideal and refined Roman authors was the best way to learn how to speak and write well. Due to that, humanists studied philology (the science of the meaning and history of words) and history (the accounts of noble and wise men of classical antiquity).

Renaissance philosophy was concerned primarily to the field of ethics. The leading humanists were Francesco Petrarca, and Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola.

Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch)

Petrarch was considered as the first great humanist and may even be called the father of humanism. Petrarch cannot be considered a philosopher in the sense of conceiving original philosophical ideas. He was more of a propagator of the moral teaching of the ancient philosophers, specifically the Latin thinkers. He also rejected medieval scholasticism and insisted on the continuity between pagan and Christian creativity. Some of his famous works were Ascent of Mont Ventoux, On His Own Ignorance and That of Many Others, A Disapproval of an Unreasonable Use of the Discipline of Dialectic, and An Averroist Visits Petrarca. His various works showed him at different times of his life.

Petrarch influence was more great and lasting than his contemporaries because of his literary and artistic style that touched the hearts of his readers intensely.

Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola

Pico, count of Mirandola, thoughts and learning has always appealed to the scholars. He received an extensive education due to his social position. By the age of 23, he openly posted 900 theses with various subjects, offering to defend them publicly. Because of his thesis on Cabbalistic he was accused by the Church as heretic.

Pico recommended the absolute value and centrality of man, his cosmic responsibility, his freedom and responsibility. These ideas were expounded in his renowned Oration on the Dignity of Man which was divided on two parts. The first part attempted a general justification of the study of philosophy while the second part explained his interest in philosophy. The Oration emphasized the unity of truth despite the contrasting schools of philosophy. He attacked astrology in Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem due to his desire to defend human liberty. While his work Hepthaplus was a mystical account on the creation of universe.

CHRISTIAN HUMANISM
Some Renaissance scholars were not interested in studying classical literature. They were concerned on how to identify and cautiously edit the texts where Christianity was based like the Bible, letters of Saint Paul, and other works of the fathers of the church. They sought to apply the methods of humanism in Christianity.

Desiderius Erasmus

I know perfectly well what a bad name folly has,
even among the biggest fools I’m the one, the one and only
-from his work, the Praise of Folly

Wisdom, wit, and elegant Latin style were the characteristics of Erasmus works. He wrote the Greek New Testament with critical notes and Latin translation, as an alternative to the Latin Vulgate. His De Ratione Studii (On the Method of Study) and De Pueris Satim ac Liberaliter Instituendis (On Teaching Children Firmly but Kindly), expressed his educational views.

During the Reformation, Erasmus refused to take any side. However, he attacked religious superstition and abuses through his famous satire The Praise of Folly. In this book, he criticized the overemphasis on ceremonies and procedures while neglecting Christian spiritual virtues. His book also denounced the moral quality of Church leaders.

Sir Thomas More
Like Erasmus, More believed that it was important to eliminate the abuses, inequalities and evils that were normally accepted in his time. When he entered the Parliament, he proposed for the decreased of appropriation of King Henry VII which cost him the imprisonment of his father.

More withdrew form public life until the royal throne was inherited by King Henry VIII. More led a peaceful public life until he refused to support King Henry VII request for a divorce from Catherine Aragon, which eventually cost him decapitation.

Utopia was Mores best-known work where he described a perfect society where there is no rich or poor, strong or weak, only a common concern for the welfare and bliss of everyone. These conditions were in contrast to the English society of his time.

II. PLATONISM
From the 15th century onward the dialogues of Plato and works of Neoplatonism (a school of Greek philosophy during the 3rd century which was spearheaded by Plotinus) became available in the original Greek in western Europe. As a result of this new grip with the original texts, Platonic influence on Renaissance became even more complex and difficult to recognize than those on medieval thought. Medieval Platonic traditions (notably by the Augustinianism) endured, and new ones developed from the direct reading of the Neoplatonic texts. European thinkers realized that the Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato was in some ways a perverted and one-sided one; hence they developed their own allegedly more genuine understandings of Plato on the basis of direct readings of his varied works as they found to be philosophically appealing.

In the 15th century, Cosimo de’ Medici sponsored a Platonic Academy at Florence, of which the greatest figures to emerge were its founder, Marsilio Ficino who translated all of Plato and Plotinus into Latin, and the humanist Pico della Mirandola author of the Oration on the Dignity of Man. The Platonism of this academy was really a form of Neoplatonism, but with a Platonic Christian twist which stressed love as the route through which the individual could return to God. The influence of the Platonism of the Florentine Academy was extensive that it may be seen not only in the writings of later Italian philosophers but also in the iconography of Italian Renaissance painting, in 16th-century French literature and was particularly marked in England. The most impressive development of this post-Renaissance movement lay in the works of the Cambridge Platonists during the late 17th century.

Marsilio Ficino
In 1462 Ficino became head of the Platonic Academy of Florence. Ficino revised the thought of Plato in a Renaissance perspective. Ficino imagined the world as perfectly harmonious heavenly melody reflecting GODs face.

In his Theologia Platonica (Platonic Theology) and Liber de Christiana religione (Book on the Christian Religion), he discussed the convergence of philosophical truth and religious conviction. His thought was also expressed in a collection of letters and in De vita libri tres (Three Books on Life), a series of tracts on medicine and astrology.

Ficino devoted the remainder of his life to the translation and interpretation of Plato and the succeeding Platonic school, which he attempted to integrate more closely with Christian theology. His interpretation of Platonism greatly influenced European though especially his teaching that man naturally tended toward religion, distinguishing him from the lower animals, and that all religions had a measure of truth.

Nicholas of Cusa
The Platonism of the Florentine Academy was a Christian one of a humane and liberal kind. This was probably at least partly due to the influence in Italy of Nicholas of Cusa who worked out his own very original version of Christian Platonism with influenced by the German mystical tradition.
Cusa was skilled in theology, mathematics, philosophy, science, and the arts. In De docta ignorantia (On Learned Ignorance), he described the learned man as one who is aware of his own ignorance. In this and other works he usually borrowed symbols from geometry to demonstrate his points, as in his comparison of man’s search for truth to the task of converting a square into a circle.

III. ARISTOTELIANISM
One of Renaissance most important philosophical characteristics was the development of a reinvigorated Aristotelianism. The humanistic Aristotelianism originated from the academic teaching tradition of the universities mainly of Italian Universities, Bologna and Padua, where Pomponazzi and Zabarella are notably active. Aristotelian tradition central concerns were the fields of logic and method, natural philosophy and metaphysics.

Toward the end of the 13th century Aristotelianism was very influential to universities in Italy and Paris. There was a significant difference between the way Aristotle was taken at Paris and in the Italian universities.

In Paris the Aristotelian philosophers were either theologians or students of logic and of natural philosophy in the faculty of arts who had to defend themselves against powerful theological faculty. The Italian universities had no faculties of theology; and from the beginning Italian Aristotelianism developed as the preparation for medicine rather than for theology.

Nevertheless, Aristotelianism was still the standard doctrine of some universities down to the end of the 18th century and even longer.

Pietro Pomponazzi
Pomponazzi interpreted Aristotle in the light of the humanism in his time. In his De immortalitate animae (on the Immortality of the Soul), Pomponazzi contended that the immortality of the individual soul cannot be demonstrated on the basis of Aristotle or of reason, but must be accepted as an article of faith. In developing this view, he maintained that moral action is the only proper goal of human life. He declared that virtue is its own reward and vice its own punishment. He also answered the moral and pragmatic arguments on immortality.

In his De incantationibus, he turned on several features of religion, which he reduced to their natural causes. He consented to the belief that the origin of religions were caused by stellar influences.
Naturalistic humanism was started by Pomponazzi and culminated in Zabarella.

        

Essentially, – Hume supported that there could be total-absolute-certainty in mathematics, e.g. mathematically held logical certain truths. All mathematical equations- analytical and logical equations- must be sound and therefore, according to Humean Skepticism, the only certainty by fact. Kant’s argument states that math, is not analytical, concluding, the argument Hume had presented in the Treaties, could not be true. Rather, argued Kant, all mathematical statements cannot possibly be analytic and on the contrary are a priori synthetic statements and are not certainties as Hume had proposed. Kant’s argument was: All analytic posteriori contain necessarily the predicate in the context of the subject. Kant stated 5+7=12: Because nothing of 5 and nothing of 12 make us think of 7, and because there is nothing of 7 and nothing of12 that indicate 5, then the know ledge that 5 and 7 are 12 is an a priori synthetic statement. Thus, it proved the problem in Hume’s statement of analytic equation that must be a posteriori, (no analytic a priori possible) and thus Kant’s new equation was accepted as the valid statement. Eventually Kant would acceptably disprove the argument for Humean Skepticism, initially using a synonymous (pragmatic, practical) ideas and reason several examples of a priori knowledge that proves truth in outside certainties that were reached through a priori reason. But, Kant too had areas of question in his reason, because he drew some of his logic from Hume’s Treatise, the very critique that concluded Skepticism and was widely criticized. This leads to criticism of Kant as far as to call Kant a Skeptic, but for good reason. However, Kant did not contradict himself by using similar techniques as Hume because he did not always come to the same conclusions. Kant was using a specific strategy to draw certain conclusions necessary for him to defend his philosophical ideas necessary for him to set up a counter moralistic argument to Humean Skepticism founded on his initial criticism of Skepticism, which necessarily needed to prove uncertainty as opposed to certainty in order to make way for faith the driving force of his philosophy that can be criticized and praised.

This would ultimately lead Kant to quasi challenge and refute Skepticism illustrated by David Hume in the Treatise of Human Nature. And Kant used many different philosophical forms that will be criticized and questioned. But before we get into the arguments, there are some concepts (foundations) that need to be discussed, before we can proceed into the comparison and contrast- what Kant used to attack skepticism e.g. through the mathematical “certainty” gap while still maintaining certain necessary conditions.

Analytic and Synthetic are statements applicable, consistent with Kant (this is his school of thought on the two), to subject predicate statements. An analytic statement is any statement that has the predicate in the concept of the subject. An example would be an unmarried man is a bachelor. In other words, the subject is analyzed to form the predicate. A synthetic statement is a statement that the predicate is not contained in the subject and adds something new e.g. Tommy is a bachelor. To continue elaborate on this it is also the case that analytic statements cannot be denied without self-contradiction. However a synthetic statement can be denied without self-contradiction. Thus is supposed that analytic statements are true and are therefore necessary, and synthetic statements are not supported, so they may be false, so they are contingent, contingent being neither necessary nor impossible.

Although Hume’s book is simply designed and he argues his points all but perfectly, one bad apple will spoil the bunch, and certainty is that apple, that apple would rot the bushel of Hume’s work. Like a skilled military tactical unit (trying not to make a very bad anachronism), Kant slipped in through the opening of “certainty” (“mathematical certainty”) and marched on in to arguments for skepticism. Ironically by disproving something certain Kant was opening up area for his own objectives.

What Kant would ultimately be destroying; Hume’s radical skepticism based on the ideal that the mind is no more than an elaborate series of sensations and from this he concludes that cause-and-effect in the natural world stems from the conjunction of two impressions that have no evident correlation (sounds good right). Understanding this statement Hume purposed that in the natural world there were no certainties but rather only devices of high probability always subject to change, exception being mathematics (however being an a posteriori analytical certainty). Dividing these ideas up he called them simply abstract and practical ideas. And since reason had no use other than to serve the emotions, according to Hume, then our epistemology was solely a belief-based system based on relations and abstract ideas. To further his argument Hume declined the notion of “a priori” ideas and termed all metaphysics as unnecessary, bad idea.

However Kant’s use of both analytic and synthetic truths was evolved through Hume’s distinction between relations of ideas and matters of fact such as cause and effect. To reiterate, from the introduction, the central ideas in Hume’s Skeptical analysis the basis of induction and causality, knowledge of the external world and the self, arguments and proofs for the existence of God would became the key issues of Kant’s arguments.

But, Kant would later (seemingly) counter David Hume by stating two key premises that would lead to the foundation of knowledge. It is necessary to a degree to prove that there are things that we can know with certain. In his argument Kant concluded that Knowledge was derived through the “synthesis of experience and concepts;” without the faculties of sense we would be unable to be aware of an object, but without an understanding of that object, we would not form a conception about that object. In an analogy we can see that a game with only the game pieces but no instructions would be unplayable in the same sense as a game with only instructions but no pieces. This can be stated simplest by the statement “sensibility without understanding is blind, and understanding without sensibility is empty.” This process of gaining knowledge involved the following two premises. Space and time are given to the faculties of everyone as a priori intuitions. Both space and time are not inherent in the properties of objects; they are projections by the mind on the external world. These intuitions are independent or separate of and preceded the sensory impressions.

There are categories of thought used to structure the way we understand reality. These categories classify reality according to its “quality, quantity, modality and relation.” Therefore Kant would be able to observe a dog and instantly understand and recognize it existed because according to his argument the conciseness of his own existence allowed him to prove the existence of objects in space and time outside of him. So then it follows in form from this that certain limits must be put to the knowledge he could have of the dog. One could know about the appearance of the dog, which was Kant’s world of “phenomena” but the reality or the world of “noumena” was eternally outside our comprehension or knowledge. Thus the substance of the dog or the thing-in-itself is unknowable. And so in response to Hume who states we cannot know it is there. Kant concluded that we can know it is there, however, we cannot know what it is in-itself that is there concluding epistemologically that there is knowledge to a certain degree- and not the opposite. Now if it seems I have gotten of subject look back at that last statement and for good reason.

But ultimately it was the use of synonymy in context of the analyticity that destroys Hume’s analytical approach to mathematics and non-a-priori understanding of reason (or should I say no reasonability). By synonymy, I mean the pragmatic approach towards analytical statements. For example, the quasi-analytical statement- a bachelor is an unmarried man. One could argue this out of the analytical because the supposed subject and predicate are synonyms e.g. the same exact thing. Then there are two ways to approach the statement after noting their defined equality. Because they mean the same thing then there is no predicate and really no subject. So then the statement doesn’t even fit the genera of an analytical statement. And this is really what I think Kant recognizes about the mathematical certainty statement e.g. 2+2 means the same thing as 4 and so there is no strong analytical approach here at all. W. V. O. Quine makes this same point, in his paper “Two Dogmas in Empiricism” published first in Philosophical Review 60 in 1951 e.g.

“The characteristic of such a statement is that it can be turned into a logical truth by putting synonyms for synonyms; thus (2) can be turned into (1) by putting ‘unmarried man’ for its synonym ‘bachelor.’ We still lack a proper characterization of this second class of analytic statements, and therewith of analyticity generally, inasmuch as we have had in the above description to lean on a notion of ‘synonymy’, which is no less in need of clarification than analyticity itself.”

The other route one might take would be to argue that the statement falls directly into Hurley’s blue box of fallacy. It doesn’t take a much reasoning to see what is next- begging the question. The same way the bible says God exists – God exists, math says 4 = 4 or 2+2 = 4. But that is really just a roundabout way conclude they are simply synonymous. And so Kant makes provides the evidence that math is not a certainty because it is what he concludes synthetic. But before we continue pragmatically into synthetics and analytics lets first look at the a priori and a posteriori distinction (they go hand and foot really).

The a priori and a posteriori distinction is the distinction between knowledge based on reason alone being a priori, and knowledge based on experience being a posteriori, what Hume argues is the only way we know. A priori knowledge, math for example, needs no more than the causal action to know the effect. Knowing two, two, and four is all one needs to know to understand that two plus two is four and this is what rationalist argued as well as Kant. This is also where Hume made the mistake of specifics (choosing one side over analyzing both). A posteriori is simple in that the knowledge could not have been possibly obtained with out experience e.g. cannot know what a dog is with out first encountering a dog or described one. This is where Kant is smart and chooses to use both to form his reasoning and ascertains. For example- he states that the when we interpret and are thinking expresses the act of existence and existence is already given a priori. The way to imagine one’s self is however, not given and requires some sort of self-intuition. This is stuck in a priori form such as time. And there exist no self-determining act that would precede determining. So the spontaneity of thought precedes what is determined and this relies on the sensible, a posteriori, determined for examples of appearance. Eventually he would argue that there were ways to experience the self ergo that way being a priori. Kant further argued on the boundaries of knowledge. He breaks down knowledge by accepting a priori, posteriori, analytic, and synthetic distinctions to provide a foundation for what would finally be his critique of reason and degradation of Hume critique on reason. But Kant got much of this reason or at least conceptual formulation from Hume. What does this mean? Based on the faults found in Hume’s critique, or at least the portion I selected for this analysis, there may also be faults in Kant’s selections. And on top of that is the underlying theory I have presented- that Kant really attacked Hume’s Skepticism by way of synonymies (pragmatically on a broader sense). This leads to some problems as well ergo as far as calling Kant a borderline skeptic.

So to elaborate on that claim that has well waited its turn. Kant “noticed” that Hume presented an essential argument to every claim of the human knowledge. To question Hume, he must show, not that knowledge is possible, but exactly how it is possible. I think Kant combined a Skeptical argument towards metaphysical knowledge with the argument that particular universals and necessary situations are involved in having experiences and relating those experiences. Therefore it becomes possible to have real knowledge (a priori) about the appearances of all possible experiences (a priori), e.g. the time space and time experience, and about the kinds of categories that all experience is shown and described in. However, any and all efforts to use this beyond all possible experience only leads into “contradictions” and most important to my “plot” or argument- Skepticism.

Naturally, this did not go unnoticed, and his contemporaries were quick to indulge. Kant said he had solved all skeptical questions and problems all the while delineating their arguments (but once again, not as he though- pragmatic synonym). There were those radical enough to argue that Kant welcomed a new heightened era of skepticism. Some Kantianism critics insisted that in his theory, nothing could be known or supported about any of the objective truths and when question of what could be know the only supportable answer was subjective necessity of his views. Of many notables who supported this was G.E. Schulze who defended in secreting against Kant in a book titled Aenesidemus’ that one of the first Kantian critiques. And Salomon Maimon the Jewish philosopher highly respected for his intellect by Kant and criticized that, although there can be a priori concepts, the application to experience is always convoluted regardless if they may apply because they can only be discovered by experience. Consequently, the possibility of knowledge can never be documented with “certainty”(how ironic). And certain truth, based on concepts, is possible only of human foundation e.g. math, and the question can be raised, do they have objective certainty and truth? – None proven. He also argued that Kant had provided no clear way to distinguish causal sequences of events from non-causal ones. His special interests were with Fichte’s (German) view, where in anticipation concluded he would direct it towards Kant’s inconsistency in supplying a notion that an unknowable-thing-in-itself were to underline the world as we know it. The thesis that human creativity is the basis of truth presented and developed this time by leading German Idealist Johann G. Fichte was seen as a new way of going beyond Skepticism. Another of the Kantian skeptical criticisms, this time by J.G. Hamann, saw in Hume’s and Kant’s Work a new basis for fideism. And right out of any philosophical dictionary, always my trusty penguin- Fideism is the thesis that religious belief is based on faith and not on either evidence or reasoning. Recalling earlier in my analysis- …and so in response to Hume who states we cannot know it is there. Kant answers that we can know it is there… - And finally backing some sort of supported skepticism, on the ascertain Kant must be trying to use as a reason for faith, he ultimately is compared to the just that, faith over reason.

Not trying to bring up weaker points but in the interest of coincidence and irony, I like to sometimes evaluate who is indirectly influenced. And there is one that is fitting- Soren Kierkegaard, influenced by Hegel, influenced by Kant. And some considers Kierkegaard the first existentialist but over all that he was a knight of faith and its truest sense and seemed to argue against certainties and for belief.

To reiterate and come to the climax or conclusion, Kant’s primary means of refuting Hume is the introduction of the distinction between a priori and a posteriori and analytic and synthetic judgments designed to enable Kant to maintain the possibility of the existence of synthetic statements a priori because they would serve as (new point) philosophy of the science of metaphysics. So after introducing the analytic and synthetic distinction purposely separate from the a priori and a posteriori distinction- Kant designates a proper metaphysics could only consist of a priori and synthetic judgments because their content could then be real and have the greatest chance at certainty e.g. why mathematic fit the scope- argued to be a human creation all together, because maybe Kant did not want them to become necessity or absolute truth; that would compromise his goals. But the whole scope falls under synonymous pragmatic ascertains as opposed to analytical which it were supposed to replace and possibly does. Possibly we are then supposed to learn and to support why Kant choose to assault Hume’s work the way he did regardless of the semantics of it all. His ultimate goal was to set up a system where he could make these pragmatic ascertains, such as the way he knowingly used synthetic, a priori the way he did in defense ultimately of metaphysics.

He did so in his first and essential groundwork, critiquing pure reason, the foundation for all his other critiques e.g. practical reason, judgment. And of course he wanted to leave holes left holes in certain areas of his work, in order provide reason a choice. Hume’s Skepticism and certainty had to be attack, regardless of their validity. Any certainty in Kantian theory upsets the zenith of Kantian philosophy. Faith, morality, and freedom all are directly affected by certainties. “Certain” knowledge to Kantian ethics is dangerous. We must learn to make a choice and if certainty exists we are kept from that choice that one added freedom that equates to absolutely free. This is to support his idea of the highest moral actions and maxims. Can we know a priori how we are supposed to act? No because if we knew a priori then it wouldn’t be freedom it would be forced upon us, morality that is, like our sense of time and our sense of space or the phenomena. We may know about the appearances of things e.g. Kant’s world of phenomena of the tree, but the reality e.g. the world of noumena is forever beyond our comprehension. Kant set the structure of his critique of pure reason up this way as well, so he could defend his other ones. If we all knew, all there was to know of something that would compromise our morals because it could shift why we are doing good or compromise good as well. So how do we know- we learn, but how do we learn?

Some argue that we are conditioned and that is our process of learning. But that is not in the philosophical interest of Kant that is more of psychological interest of Pavla. Instead we learn by acting. Why was skepticism such a treat to Kant that he presented the argument that could do nothing but bring distress to such an argument that ultimately, after closer analysis has holes in it? Why not come up with a better argument that works just as good? Why did he go about his plans the way he did?

Kant had a specific agenda, to answer the last question, and it asked questions as well. Those questions were not why questions, but rather what questions. What can we learn and know, what is right and moral, and what are the reasons for wanting to know them e.g. what can we hope to find?

In our analysis we have answered all the questions directly and indirectly. We can only learn and know enough to give us a reason for morality. Too much knowledge strips us of our maxim moral be. We are conditioned to morals because we don’t know what enough about the noumena of things to just have morals. That’s why Kant has us treat each individual as an end and not a means because who is to say what they are worth in the whole scheme of things. And we can only have faith in God and we are propositioned to have this faith because there is reason to believe in God, freedom, and most important immorality. That is why Kant takes the position initially to go with synthetic and pragmatic arguments against Skepticism.

Skepticism has no hope and there is no hope in analytical a posteriori statement or certainty and especially when that certainty does not need to be learned. An analytical statement teaches us nothing. Synonymous-pragmatics teaches us more ultimately, because we stand the greatest chance to learn more form synthetics than anything. Not being able to learn would be striping freedom. And we would be preconditioned as apposed given the chance to be conditioned, have a chance; but not simply to behave in a conditioned way, rather to act so that the feasibility of our action agrees structurally with the prospects of the world. As the words show, this is not reducible to an exclusively ethical question. We are here with the general task of and for education. It is not nearly enough for us as free beings to handle intelligent instrumentality and not enough to attain and achieve some conditioned skills. Instead we should aspire morally toward “Acting as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law.”

Kant didn’t condone Humean Skepticism because that was the ultimate immoral action to not believe in anything. Ultimately this is why I feel and asserts Kant as pragmatism because he true belief leads to maxim action (true morality). Kant was awakened from his dogmatic slumber and recognized the good attributes in Hume’s Skepticism but he also saw the danger. Knowing there was no way to prove ultimately Skepticism was wrong he attacked the one thing he could. People can still choose to doubt everything and be reasonable because there really are counter examples for it all and even as Kant asserts. His contemporaries accuse him of Skepticism because he sets out a system not based on knowing them most but one that works for the right moral reasons. He shows in his critiques of everything and his ultimate end the categorical imperative that we can only believe and that we can hardly know anything.

He also knew he would be wrong sometimes but unlike skepticism that can’t stand when poked, deontology is still around strong today as an accepted moral philosophy, in fact regarded highly. He discovered a base that had a solid a priori knowledge along with the synthetic reasoning and it stands on its own. Another thing that he knew and is why he like some of Hume’s work, despite the criticism he knew it may take. Immanuel Kant concluded and I agree, that David Hume had a good argument. He argued that there were very little certainties that we could have knowledge of and less knowledge to have than that, and Kant smartly adopted this for his system. This allows his deontology to work so “pragmatically” well. Whether or not any of it is possible e.g. God, freedom, immortality, doesn’t matter because morality (like Hume’s certainty) is impossible to defend with out it (faith/belief). Kant might argue that Hume’s argument, as good as it could have been, had no chance because of the morality behind Kant’s actions.

Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford, UniversityPress, 1978.

        

Human nature is a big thing. It represents who you are and what you are like. Han Fei is a Chinese legalist. He believes that humans are naturally born evil. That’s crazy. No one has heard of anyone being born evil. Han Fei states that “suffering a small pain is the way to obtain a great benefit…..” On the other hand, Greek Philosopher Aristotle believes that everyone is alike and can’t be born evil. He also says that people can be corrupted and that people need happiness. That’s good to know. “ Clearly the intelligence of the people is not to be relied upon.”, Han Fei states. He believes that people are evil with jealousy. I think that Greek philosophy is more successful because it shows that people aren’t born evil.

The structure of the government is the powerhouse of an empire. There have to be certain rules and laws in the government to make it a strong empire. Aristotle states that “all citizens alike should take their turn of governing and being governed.” He also says that that democracy is the best form of government. Our fore fathers learned from Aristotle and how government should operate. This is the basis of our government today. Our strong democracy is based on citizens taking turns, being elected. A government by the people and for the people. On the other side of the table, Han Fei believes that dictatorship is the way to go. People have no power what so ever. Only the government. He believed that was the best and most efficient way to rule an empire. I think that Aristotle won this battle. His view of government is more convincing and successful than Han Fei.

The roles of people determine a lot of things; who and what a person can and can’t control. Han Fei declares that “men became naturally spoiled by love, but are submissive to authority.” He thinks that people should obey the government and do what they are told to do. No rewards whatsoever. He believes punishments should be severe so that people would fear them. Aristotle believes the opposite of Han Fei. People should live happily and be victorious. “The citizen should be molded to suit the form of the government under which he lives.” Basically, a citizen should act as if he is apart of the government. Everyone should vote for the government, Aristotle believes. Education was big for the Greeks and Aristotle believes that every one should be educated. It’s the way to go. Aristotle’s view of the role of people is uplifting instead of obeying everything the government tells you to do, which can feel oppressive.

Greek philosophy won the battle. I am convinced that it is better that Han Fei’s philosophy. Aristotle’s view on human nature, structure of government, and the role of people is the foundation of our democratic system that we have today.