Hey I had a question about Kant!! How does he explain other people have free will? Here is what I understand, but maybe Ive got something wrong here that can be cleared up: There are 2 worlds/realms/whateverthingies The Noumenal and the Phenomenal. Will is in the Noumenal, but everything you experience is in the Phenomenal. Great. This means, when I act on will it doesnt need to be described the way a phenomenal act would - with causality, and time, and space, and stuff. So what I dont understand is: If I see someone else doing something, well, thats part of the Phenomenal, and like everything else experienced this way CAN be explained with causality and time, and crap. So it seems Kant leaves room for YOU (the reader?) to have free will, but not the apes you see around you. the following quote is from the Wikipedia article on The Groundwork but I think it also could describe the Critique of Pure Reason: Kant remarks that free will is inherently unknowable. Since even a free person could not possibly have knowledge of their own freedom, we cannot use our failure to find a proof for freedom as evidence for a lack of it. The observable world could never contain an example of freedom because it would never show us a will as it appears to itself, but only a will that is subject to natural laws imposed on it. But we do appear to ourselves as free. I know he expresses many ideas about this topic in the Groundwork. And, I know how the story ends Get it?[kingdom of ends haha] but, before he wrote the groundwork how would he have answered this? Is this addressed in the Critique of pure reason? Sure I appear to myself as free, but do others appear as free?
Posted on: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 02:18:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015