Kant and Jesus Art Culo
-
Upload
brenda9tovar -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of Kant and Jesus Art Culo
-
8/10/2019 Kant and Jesus Art Culo
1/6
International Phenomenological Society
Kant and JesusAuthor(s): Peter A. CarmichaelSource: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Mar., 1973), pp. 412-416Published by: International Phenomenological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2106954.
Accessed: 31/05/2013 14:31
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
International Phenomenological Societyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 31 May 2013 14:31:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ipshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2106954?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2106954?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ips -
8/10/2019 Kant and Jesus Art Culo
2/6
DISCUSSION
KANT
AND
JESUS
An
article in Mind of
April,
1970, by
S.
B.
Thomas
argues
that
theCategorical
Imperative
of Kant
and the Golden Rule of Jesus
are sides of the same coin, one side, the Imperative, "providing a
clarificationof the
rational
scope"
of the
other,
and, the other
"pro-
viding
the
spiritual
basis for the
correct
application"
of the
Impera-
tive.
Kant said of
the Golden
Rule:
. . .
it
cannot be a universal
law,
for it does not contain the
principle
of
duties
to
oneself,
nor of the duties
of
benevolence
to
others
(for many
a one
would
gladly consent that others should not benefit
him, provided
only
that he
mightbe excused
from
howing
benevolence to
them),
nor
finally
hat of duties
of strict bligation o one another,for on thisprinciplethe criminalmight rgue
against the
judge
who punishes
him, and so
on. -Critique of
PracticalReason,
translated
by T. K.
Abbott,6th ed.,
p.
48 n.
This is
untouched in Mr. Thomas'
argument.
And it
might be
carried even
farther.
Under
the Golden Rule a
masochist
would be
justified
n
torturing
thers,
nd
partners
n
debauchery
could
appeal
to it
sanctimoniously.At
large, if it
prevailed no
one
would know
what to
expect of
others. Life
would degenerate
to the
condition
memorialized by
Hobbes
as "solitary,
poor,
nasty,brutish,
nd
short."
Between this
and the
operation of the
Categorical
Imperative
the
difference s like
that
between
egoism and
high-mindedness:
the
Golden
Rule
enjoins
everyone
to make
his
ways a
standard
for
everyone
else; the
Categorical
Imperative
requires
everyone to
sub-
mit
himself o
universal
standards.
The
motive of
the one is
extended
self-satisfaction; f
the
other it is a
nascency
of mind, an
imperative
towards
pure
understanding
and a life
accorded with
it.
Instead of the
manifest antithesis
between the
two,Mr.
Thomas
believes he sees a mutuality nd ultimateidentity.The essence of his
argument
seems
to
be:
That a
communion of
feelings,
n
"existential
412
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 31 May 2013 14:31:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Kant and Jesus Art Culo
3/6
KANT
AND JESUS
413
stance"
reached
by individuals
in concert,
s the principle,
the
sub-
stance,
of
moral rules,
which only
formalize
stances;
that the Golden
Rule
is a
formalization
of
that
kind,
and the Categorical
Imperative
a furtherformalization, n accord with it; that this is supremely
apparent in
the
life of Jesus,
"the unfolding
of selfless
love, an out-
pouring
of
self for others"
(p.
198), which undercuts
moral rules
such
as
the
Categorical
Imperative,
and
makes them needless;
but that
this
does not
nullify
hem,
rather
t
shows
them
subordinate
to that
love.
We know
of
freedom
from aw in the
world of
fantasy
and
make-
believe;
forexample,
the wonderland
of Lewis Carroll and
the art
of
Charlie
Chaplin
(who
was a
phantom
buffetedby things
n the
for-
eignworld of natural law). This has no moral relevance.
Mr.
Thomas,
to
the
contrary,
sees in the
like
a transcendence
of
moral law. First
a release
fromall
such law.
This occurs
in a
deli-
quescence,
so to say,
of
moral decisions
into an existential
solvent
wherein
the
feelings
and
interests
of the agent
and of others
con-
cerned
(who
thus
become
coagents)
are
merged.
Then
to the
Chris-
tian
there accrues
an existential
wherewithalfrom
the life of
Jesus
for the resolution
of every
moral
problem.
In the
life of
Jesus,
who
taughttheGoldenRule, even theCategorical Imperativeis "instanced
personally"
(p.
199).
The actualization
of
such
a
state
is
conceivable,
but
at
a cost
hardly
affordable n
the world. It
would require
that everyone
merge
his desires
and
interestswith
everyone
else's.
Marriages,
fraternities,
holy orders
are
probably
the nearest approximation
to that
perfect
communion.
How far short
they
fall The nearer
theymight
approach
it,
the
narrower their
scope.
The result would
be an
impoverishment
of life, ncludingdivine ntimations nd realizations farexcelling any-
thing
n fellow-feeling.hey
would come
nowhere
near to
satisfying
the moral
requirements
of
the world.
As little does their
principle,
the Golden
Rule,
match
the
Categorical
Imperative.
If
you
undercut
all moral
law,
there s no
ready way
of
resolving
a moral
question.
Nothing
s
right,
wrong,
obligatory,
eserved,
unless
for
you
and such
others
as
may agree
with
you.
If
you
think an
end
of the world
is
imminent,possibly
an ad hoc
or
situation
ethic
will
serve,under which you may abandon home, family, but No; this is
an abandonment
of ethics
altogether.
f the world
endures
and men
do
not stifle themselves,
everything
s different.
Then
some.
law,
ideally
such
a
one
as
the
Categorical
Imperative,
s a
necessity.
Under
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 31 May 2013 14:31:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Kant and Jesus Art Culo
4/6
414
PHILOSOPHY
AND
PHENOMENOLOGICAL
ESEARCH
the Categorical
Imperative
who would
object to being judged?
For
in
avowing it
we apply
it to ourselves.
It epitomizes
an entire
moral
world,
impartial,
enlightened,
xalting.
The pertinency f the "out-pouring f self forothers," ts efficacy
for undercutting
he
Categorical
Imperative,
is not
apparent.
In
an
imaginarymicrocosm
where
the
spirit of
charity
imbued
all
and
egoism
did not
exist,moral
rules
would
indeed
be needless.
Self
would
hardly
be
recognizable.
On the
earth everything
differsfrom
that.
Selves everywhere
re under
tension
and must
struggle not
for
mas-
tery
but
for
iberation
from
ll
kinds
of
limitation
nd
for the
fruition
of their powers.
The
world
does not
afford
a limitless,
even an
ade-
quate, supply of the article Mr. Thomas requires
-
charity,
ove
nor
are
there
means
for wondrously
generating
t
at
will.
If this
is denied and we are
said to
be
qualified
to
surmount
our
limitations,
not
just
in extremitiesbut ordinarily,
hat is a proposi-
tion
which must
be
probatively
ustified,
not just
believed.
Ignoring
or indulging
shortcomings,
hrough
charity,
complaisance,
love,
or
what not,
may
deaden or
discourage self-development,
o the cost
of
all. Love
is
precious
but
is not always
the indicated need,
whether
of
children
or
of a people.
Mr.
Thomas
thinksthe
Categorical
Imperative
might
nduce
self-
righteousness.
This would
be an accident
if
so;
and
self-righteousness,
or
simple egoism
extended,
s the essence
of
the
Golden
Rule.
Under
the
Categorical
Imperative
the
tendency
s
towards
amor intellectualis
dei;
I must
endeavor
to
rise to a
plane
where
I
may
see as the
ideal
observer
sees
(as
God
sees,
according
to
some
authors
who
have
aspired
to the
like).
The
proposition
that
the
Imperative
was
exemplified
n the
life
of Jesus,which Mr. Thomas asserts, is hard to comprehend.Jesus,
whose
life and
way,
says
Mr.
Thomas,
are
to be
shared
by
the
Chris-
tian,
counsels
people-
not
to
judge
one
another.
He himself freely
judged
others.
For
instance,
some
who
hesitated
to dine
without
first
washing the
hands
drew from
him the excoriation,
"Hyplocrites"
(Mark
7:5-6),
and numerous similar
instances
are
reported
(e.g.,
Matthew
6:5, 7:5,
15:7,23:13).
Mr.
Thomas
speaks
of
having
a "feel" for "the
existential
stand-
point of Jesus" (pp. 192, 194) and he is satisfied that "the fact of
Jesus . .
.
proves
the
existence
of
the
Eternal
Himself
beyond all
shadow
of
existential doubt"
(p. 198).
This
is hardly pertinent
o
the
relation
of
the
Categorical
Imperative
to the
Golden Rule
but
is
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 31 May 2013 14:31:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Kant and Jesus Art Culo
5/6
KANT AND
JESUS 415
indicative of a
sedation or transformation f reason which
occurs
on the "existential stance." Is
existential certitude any more telling
than
existential doubt?
Is
either of them probative at all? Passion,
anguish, feeling of any kind
-
what have they to do with law? No
more than with the multiplication
able. They are immune to law and
law
is immune
to them.
Privately,phenomenologically, hey may in-
spire the constructionof
a
wonderworld having fanciful aws or no
laws.
Nothing
of
the kind
touches
the
Categorical Imperative. Its
jurisdiction
is the world
of
action
where
laws are
indispensable and
sedition brings sanctions, even including death.
Nor
can
the
Categorical Imperative
be
watered
down
to
where
it would
say, "Confer, ommune, attain
mutuality."
t
implies
none of
the "existential stance" Mr.Thomas conceives.Rather, t is an uncon-
ditional, unequivocal command
of
reason (the
ratio
of
ethical
exis-
tence)
to
all
individuals,
directing
their action now.
The
supposition
that it
merges
with,
s one
with,
the Golden
Rule
is untenable.
That
would
mean,
on
Mr.
Thomas'
version,
that
the
fellowship attained by
a
small
band of
congenial spirits
is
the
same
thing
as the universe
of
moral
agents governed by
Kant's
principle.
The
one
says,
"Make
your
own desires the
standard for
all";
the
other
says, "Submit yourselfto a universal standard."
The
idea that
the Categorical Imperative
needs
a
"spiritual
basis"
for
its
"correct application" is
quite fanciful.
There is no
question
about
correct
application
of
something
that
applies universally
that would
be
like
a
correct
application
of
the law of
universal gravi-
tation.
And
a
spiritual
basis for
applying
the
Imperative
-
what
would
that
be? A
palliative,
an
indulgence
of some
kind? From the
undercutter and nullifier of
the
Imperative?
That seems
hardly
serious.
Since Mr. Thomas holds
that the Golden
Rule
and
the
Categorical
Imperative
are
virtually dentical despite their manifest antithesis,
one
may
ask
what there
is
in
his
argument
that
brings
him
to that
thesis.
In a word
it is his
"existential stance." On
that,
moral
rules
are
undercut, yet
the two in
question
stand:
annulled, they
are
yet
not annulled.
Since
that
is a
logical
impossibility,
ts
implicans,
the
alleged stance,
is
itself ogically undercut,
or
falsified. Conceivably it
might tand just
as a
psychological,
make-believe
tate,
but not in the
implicative capacity supposed, since the alleged implicate is a self-
contradiction.)
So
it
is
out
of
make-believeor
falsity
that
the
two
incompatibles
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 31 May 2013 14:31:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Kant and Jesus Art Culo
6/6
416
PHILOSOPHY
AND
PHENOMENOLOGICAL
RESEARCH
are "reconciled"
and Kant
and the Golden Rule he rejected
are set
at one. But,
from nothingcomes
nothing.The stance itself
undercut,
nothing rises
from t.
So the great philosopheris not compromised.
PETER A.
CARMICHAEL.
LOUISIANA STATE
UNIVERSITY.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 31 May 2013 14:31:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp