The Philosophy of Life Before Death and Afterwards

Epistemology

Epistemology

Critique of the Critique of Pure Reason

Immanuel Kant first wrote The Critique of Pure Reason in 1781. The philosophy book in general covers the faults of type of reasoning, metaphysics and types of epistemological knowledge. Regarded as a seminal work in philosophy, The Critique of Pure Reason has been upheld as a logical standard of a particular world view. I hold various contentions against the book, namely the idea of the validity of a priori knowledge and categorical imperatives.

All knowledge exists through experience and only experience. Induction is an illusion of the mind, as if to say that there is a universal truth to logic induced that only comes through what we have known previously. A statement like two plus two equaling four is an example of knowledge that is induced. The truth is, the constituent parts of that statement can only be derived from deduction, or the experience of deducing that answer. As we grow up, the brain's neurons evolve and mature from mirror neurons into larger more stable entities. Mirror neurons effectively take in as much information as they can elastically, re-conforming and 'stretching' with the knowledge they gain. We can only learn what has been learned before or deduce an argument from what we know. In a physical universe, nothing can be induced in terms or knowledge even if a prior experience never gave us that knowledge before, or even if the answer is some form of a universal truth or constant.

A priori proof, or an argument induced from a theoretical basis, would indicate predeterminism. Imagine if mathematics, despite being a human construct was truly the language of the universe. This would indicate some higher-level prioritization towards the language itself instead of the physical experience. Essentially, like as if a computer program were simulating the universe, the fundamental nature of mathematics would take precedent over what exists for the pure reason of existing. A posteriori proof--or the deduction from experience-- until further explanation implicates just causal determinism but does not rule out free will in itself. What is deducible from reality is what is empirically available to be measured and constructed into a chain of events for us to observe, without some higher order logic as the fundamental truth of the universe. Mathematics in the sense of a priori knowledge is a learned construct deduced from reality to explain its own causal existence.

Another critique of the book is of the categorical imperative. It is the best imperative but the hardest standard to live one's life by. If all actions become universal actions, what is considered for actions-- to borrow a term from criminal justice-- that have no sufficient mens rea? Express intentionality in the state of mind of being at a certain place could lead to a circumstance due to such actions, leading to a grievous output. For example, if one triggers a cascade of events in a butterfly effect sequence the initial action as a maxim ripples through the universe without concern of consequentiality. Let's say an innocent action for example, like, letting go of a mouse that is caught in a trap in your house. For the purposes of this philosophical proposition, the mouse has an incurable (as of now) and undetectable form of plague or a disease equivalent in proportionality. By choosing to let the mouse live and letting your universal maxim (which is the sparing of the life) take hold, your universal maxim now dictates that certain forms of life take preference over humanity even though the maxim was indebted to life in general. In effect, if you let your maxim become universal essentially you say that each action following such maxim is now due to your consequentiality. Such things in practicality are infeasible in retracing the steps of causal events and infeasible in the treatment of human beings; if a man is to let a mouse live for a want to save a life and people die because of his action, even indirectly, is it his fault? Why should we go to such an extreme length to dictate as if maxims are applicable universally, or at least at the very minimum in this case, ethical maxims?