Why does Kant want morality to be universal? The reason is that he wants its existence to be perceived by reason. And reason perceives universals. (note 1) Now some universals are laws like laws of math. Some universals are other types of predicates. But Kant knows that he can't make morality into a universal like laws of math. Remember he was highly influenced by Hume. So he wants the universal morality to be a universal "ought".
He also wants a certain ambiguity about its nature, but not about its existence. This is his opinion for dinge an sich (things in themselves). ("Unconditioned realities" in the language of philosophers.)
Use the modification of Kant by Hegel. With Kant by himself you can't get reason to perceive the character of ethical laws. You need Reason to get to where Kant is trying to go.
[I should mention you always need to modify Kant. The surface level of what he says is sometimes wrong. But if you look into the deeper idea behind the words he is often implying a true and deep idea.]
That personal freedom and economic freedom are valuable really seems to be from the separation of realms and different grounds of validity.
[note: The third formulation of the Categorical Imperative is “the Idea of the will of every rational being as a will that legislates universal law.” (4:432)]
At any rate, let me just say that I think the human problem needs a lot more that political or economic solutions. The problem is not just the dimension of morality, but the basic question what is the meaning of life? (This was the primary question of the 1960's, and sadly the answer to most people was political Liberation movements or fanatic Jewish or Eastern religious cults.)
I admit I have no great answer for this. But I do have an idea. It starts with Maimonides. Because Maimonides managed to mediate between the two poles of Reason and Faith and formed a kind of synthesis or lightening rod. With him there is no contraction between Aristotle and the Torah.
The ground of holiness is different from that of reason. The radical Maimonides synthesis between Torah and Aristotle seems to me to need some improvement. First of all I am a Neo-Platonist. This is by education and also it is the way I think. Reading Plato when I was a teenager it think contributes to me tendency to say unpopular opinions and not be afraid to do so. I think clearly the example of Socrates contributed to this. But at any rate, I see spiritual reality just as real as atoms and molecules.
The thing which complicates this issue is often a doctrine that seems promising, seems to have a long string of crazy people attached to it. Since what makes spirituality interesting is its human element --it is impossible to separate it from the actions of people following a certain doctrine. What I mean is if the Talmud was just some intellectual exercise that had nothing to do with people, then first of all they would not be interesting. So the fact that they have to so with people means that people following their teachings have to indicate to us to some degree the qualities of that doctrine.
However I do agree with Maimonides in that we should deny ‘there are good reasons for the polarization between faith and knowledge (which became an empirical feature of European modernity). There are no such reasons, on Maimonides' view,
The question is of course why is there no conflict? Is it because because Jewish theism – proved hospitable to and incorporated rational inquiry from the beginning, in the form of Greek philosophy.
However there is a ground of spirituality that is different from reason. The ground of spirit and the ground of reason in some way are in conflict because the principles are different but they are not in conflict in that both are important parts of what it means to be human.
If this is not clear just think of a circle of values. The closer you get to the top the more numinous value you have and less form. The more towards the bottom the more form and less numinous content
Notes
(note 1) Universals. I have (let's say for an example) two white pieces of paper in front of me. Do they have something in common? Yes. Whiteness. So Whiteness is a universal. It is something that individuals have in common.
Appendix: One reason why Kant ought to be important to people is he provides a nice modification of Plato and neo Platonism. This is to where Jewish Philosophers were trying to go after the Rambam, [e.g. Crescas and Abravenal,] The Rambam was going pretty much with Aristotle and this seems to me to be a problem because knowledge of the physical form does not give knowledge of universals plus some basic problem in the Metaphysics. Maybe the Rambam can account for these problems? It would be nice to know if he does. But I do no have Guide with me to do the research to see if he does. [I mean it is likely that he did hint to some answers in the Guide but I have not heard that anyone has found such hints.]
He also wants a certain ambiguity about its nature, but not about its existence. This is his opinion for dinge an sich (things in themselves). ("Unconditioned realities" in the language of philosophers.)
Use the modification of Kant by Hegel. With Kant by himself you can't get reason to perceive the character of ethical laws. You need Reason to get to where Kant is trying to go.
[I should mention you always need to modify Kant. The surface level of what he says is sometimes wrong. But if you look into the deeper idea behind the words he is often implying a true and deep idea.]
That personal freedom and economic freedom are valuable really seems to be from the separation of realms and different grounds of validity.
[note: The third formulation of the Categorical Imperative is “the Idea of the will of every rational being as a will that legislates universal law.” (4:432)]
At any rate, let me just say that I think the human problem needs a lot more that political or economic solutions. The problem is not just the dimension of morality, but the basic question what is the meaning of life? (This was the primary question of the 1960's, and sadly the answer to most people was political Liberation movements or fanatic Jewish or Eastern religious cults.)
I admit I have no great answer for this. But I do have an idea. It starts with Maimonides. Because Maimonides managed to mediate between the two poles of Reason and Faith and formed a kind of synthesis or lightening rod. With him there is no contraction between Aristotle and the Torah.
The ground of holiness is different from that of reason. The radical Maimonides synthesis between Torah and Aristotle seems to me to need some improvement. First of all I am a Neo-Platonist. This is by education and also it is the way I think. Reading Plato when I was a teenager it think contributes to me tendency to say unpopular opinions and not be afraid to do so. I think clearly the example of Socrates contributed to this. But at any rate, I see spiritual reality just as real as atoms and molecules.
The thing which complicates this issue is often a doctrine that seems promising, seems to have a long string of crazy people attached to it. Since what makes spirituality interesting is its human element --it is impossible to separate it from the actions of people following a certain doctrine. What I mean is if the Talmud was just some intellectual exercise that had nothing to do with people, then first of all they would not be interesting. So the fact that they have to so with people means that people following their teachings have to indicate to us to some degree the qualities of that doctrine.
However I do agree with Maimonides in that we should deny ‘there are good reasons for the polarization between faith and knowledge (which became an empirical feature of European modernity). There are no such reasons, on Maimonides' view,
The question is of course why is there no conflict? Is it because because Jewish theism – proved hospitable to and incorporated rational inquiry from the beginning, in the form of Greek philosophy.
However there is a ground of spirituality that is different from reason. The ground of spirit and the ground of reason in some way are in conflict because the principles are different but they are not in conflict in that both are important parts of what it means to be human.
If this is not clear just think of a circle of values. The closer you get to the top the more numinous value you have and less form. The more towards the bottom the more form and less numinous content
Notes
(note 1) Universals. I have (let's say for an example) two white pieces of paper in front of me. Do they have something in common? Yes. Whiteness. So Whiteness is a universal. It is something that individuals have in common.
Appendix: One reason why Kant ought to be important to people is he provides a nice modification of Plato and neo Platonism. This is to where Jewish Philosophers were trying to go after the Rambam, [e.g. Crescas and Abravenal,] The Rambam was going pretty much with Aristotle and this seems to me to be a problem because knowledge of the physical form does not give knowledge of universals plus some basic problem in the Metaphysics. Maybe the Rambam can account for these problems? It would be nice to know if he does. But I do no have Guide with me to do the research to see if he does. [I mean it is likely that he did hint to some answers in the Guide but I have not heard that anyone has found such hints.]
