Thoughts on Kant . . .

I had an interesting conversation with a woman at CCU. We got to talking about an assignment that was given to us in our Metaphysics class. She seems like a smart person, but she hasn't read very much, which she admitted. Since she hasn't read very much, but what she has read has alarmed her. For example, she said Kant jarred her - even made her feel like she couldn't look in a mirror. She needed the assurance that what she was looking at, what was reflecting back to her, was something real. Kant would, of course, admit it was real; the only catch is that it is real in the sense of being a part of the 'phenomena', or 'things as they seem to us', or 'things as interpreted through our 'categories of perception'.

Without any other philosophers to help her, she becomes disillusioned, trapped in the cacoon over own senses. I mentioned the Medievals, and how they regarded the senses as doors to true reality, rather than prisons within which we don't get at reality at all. But she scorned the Medievals because she doesn't think them critical, or because they believed in God.

She doesn't want to invoke God in any philosophy for her. I told her I have no problem doing this as long as I have some rational assurance that it is true. She looked at me rather strange, as if to suggest that the very possibility of it being true was a foregone conclusion. It wasn't even an option, which is a frame of mind I have trouble relating to.

I did get a chance to introduce her toƒ the philosophy of Kierkegaard, and other Continental philosophers. Continental philosophy is disdained by much of the faculty at Coastal. I mentioned that Kierkegaard's conception of God is much more attractive - from my experience - than that presented at your Church on the corner, or that which tends to be presented by institutionalized Christianity. Her face was peculiar at this point. Much of what I was saying was met by raised eyebrows, but not the kind that would suggest smugness, but that which might suggest shock. But not the kind of shock that is sometimes accompanied by disgust. It was accompanied by a sort of 'newness', a new fragrance, alien, and yet - perhaps - desired. But her guard was up because there was still a lot of talk about God, which was off limits.

Kant seems like a big obstacle to her. He hasn't bothered me much. I disagree with him at the threshold. We have different starting points. But she is trapped because her and Kant share the same starting point. Why should I grant Kant's initial assumption: the distinction between the world as it is and the world as it appears to me. I know my senses sometimes deceive me; but then sometimes they don't. And when they don't, I'm getting at the world as it is in itself. And even if my modes of perception confine me to the world as it seems to me, why sink into despair? Perhaps Heaven is a place where we have different kinds of cognitive faculties, which enable different modes of perception, allowing our minds to have varied categories of thought through which to perceive reality. But that I don't have it right now doesn't make me despair.

Besides, I see no argument for Kant's assumptions. I have no problem siding with the Medievals. I think our senses put in touch with reality. I have no reason not to think this. And Kant hasn't given me a good reason.

Just some thoughts . . .