Comments on: The Pillars of Unbelief — Kant http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/2011/10/dr-kreeft-the-pillars-of-unbelief-kant/ A Catholic e-Magazine about Integrating Faith, Family & Work Mon, 21 May 2012 05:01:26 -0400 hourly 1 By: yan http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/2011/10/dr-kreeft-the-pillars-of-unbelief-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-10717 yan Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:28:40 +0000 http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/?p=9522#comment-10717 Hello Professor, A very interesting article, I thought. My first reaction was, 'Kant did not teach that truth itself is subjective; rather he taught that whatever we KNOW is subjective. About the CONTENT of truth itself we must be agnostic, precisely because all our knowledge is of necessity subjective. But THAT there is truth we must admit as an implication of Reason, and the content of truth in itself [which we admittedly do not know, due to our being epistemologically confined to know only phenomena] is still OBJECTIVE, just not objectively KNOWABLE by us.' Granted that is a problem sufficient in itself to make Kant a destroyer, since if Kant is right, no one could prove God's existence with certainty the way St. Thomas did, nor could we accept through dicta truth about God and morality except through faith, and faith is not warranted by Reason, according to Kant. Nevertheless isn't it true that Kant didn't say that belief in God and immortality is HELPFUL, but rather that it is a necessary postulate of the practical reason? Is that merely the distinction without a difference which you claim it is? Surely Kant didn't assert that we should believe in whatever we think is helpful [e.g. Santa Claus.] However, I think ultimately, that what the practical reason says is necessary, may not necessarily be true. Is that correct? I would much appreciate your response. One more question, if you don't mind: the striking resemblance of the truths of practical reason to articles of Christian faith always made me think that this was Kant's way of 'faith.' Do you know of any facts from the life of Kant that would support that idea? regards yan Hello Professor,

A very interesting article, I thought. My first reaction was, ‘Kant did not teach that truth itself is subjective; rather he taught that whatever we KNOW is subjective. About the CONTENT of truth itself we must be agnostic, precisely because all our knowledge is of necessity subjective. But THAT there is truth we must admit as an implication of Reason, and the content of truth in itself [which we admittedly do not know, due to our being epistemologically confined to know only phenomena] is still OBJECTIVE, just not objectively KNOWABLE by us.’

Granted that is a problem sufficient in itself to make Kant a destroyer, since if Kant is right, no one could prove God’s existence with certainty the way St. Thomas did, nor could we accept through dicta truth about God and morality except through faith, and faith is not warranted by Reason, according to Kant.

Nevertheless isn’t it true that Kant didn’t say that belief in God and immortality is HELPFUL, but rather that it is a necessary postulate of the practical reason? Is that merely the distinction without a difference which you claim it is? Surely Kant didn’t assert that we should believe in whatever we think is helpful [e.g. Santa Claus.]

However, I think ultimately, that what the practical reason says is necessary, may not necessarily be true. Is that correct? I would much appreciate your response.

One more question, if you don’t mind: the striking resemblance of the truths of practical reason to articles of Christian faith always made me think that this was Kant’s way of ‘faith.’ Do you know of any facts from the life of Kant that would support that idea?

regards
yan

]]> By: EmanonElazon http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/2011/10/dr-kreeft-the-pillars-of-unbelief-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-7628 EmanonElazon Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:05:15 +0000 http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/?p=9522#comment-7628 Dr Kreeeeeeeeft! Why must you treat one of the most influential and brilliant philosophers of ALL TIME with such disrespect and shallow understanding? Your grasp of what Kant says is unmistakably broad, but it seems to be lacking in any real depth. Though much can be said for the positive influences of Kant on some of the foremost Catholic philosophers and theologians (phenomenology really is quite the way to go, just ask JPII), I would rather like to leave off addressing this and approach the highly nonacademic way in which you attempt to drive readers away from him. You call him "unreadable and dry". AAAAAND? Forgive me for sounding trite, but SERIOUSLY, no one reads a philosopher for his comedic or literary genius but because of the immense intellectual implications of their work. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of his argument. Secondly, NO ONE DISAGREES that we perceive the world through our senses. Tell me, what sense would it make to say that we can perceive anything at all that is not through our senses? How much of your knowledge of "facts" do you actually KNOW and do not accept by faith, o prideful and foolish man! ARISTOTLE WAS NOT GOD!!!!! You know, I have to give up. Were I to continue my dissection of this article, I would be at my computer for DAYS. I appreciate so much of your writings to the highest degree, Dr. Kreeft, but you did NOT pull through on this one. With all do respect, I suggest a more appropriate target for your spleen would be someone like Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul. (Poor Alexis Toth and our Eastern brethren) Dr Kreeeeeeeeft! Why must you treat one of the most influential and brilliant philosophers of ALL TIME with such disrespect and shallow understanding? Your grasp of what Kant says is unmistakably broad, but it seems to be lacking in any real depth. Though much can be said for the positive influences of Kant on some of the foremost Catholic philosophers and theologians (phenomenology really is quite the way to go, just ask JPII), I would rather like to leave off addressing this and approach the highly nonacademic way in which you attempt to drive readers away from him.
You call him “unreadable and dry”. AAAAAND? Forgive me for sounding trite, but SERIOUSLY, no one reads a philosopher for his comedic or literary genius but because of the immense intellectual implications of their work. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of his argument.
Secondly, NO ONE DISAGREES that we perceive the world through our senses. Tell me, what sense would it make to say that we can perceive anything at all that is not through our senses? How much of your knowledge of “facts” do you actually KNOW and do not accept by faith, o prideful and foolish man! ARISTOTLE WAS NOT GOD!!!!!
You know, I have to give up. Were I to continue my dissection of this article, I would be at my computer for DAYS. I appreciate so much of your writings to the highest degree, Dr. Kreeft, but you did NOT pull through on this one. With all do respect, I suggest a more appropriate target for your spleen would be someone like Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul. (Poor Alexis Toth and our Eastern brethren)

]]> By: WEDNESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/2011/10/dr-kreeft-the-pillars-of-unbelief-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-4193 WEDNESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:05:50 +0000 http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/?p=9522#comment-4193 [...] The Pillars of Unbelief: Immanuel Kant – Dr. Peter Kreeft, Integrated Catholic Life™ [...] [...] The Pillars of Unbelief: Immanuel Kant – Dr. Peter Kreeft, Integrated Catholic Life™ [...]

]]>