Michael Hampe “Immanuel Kant did not believe in theology” – kath.ch

Immanuel Kant, one of the greatest philosophers of the Enlightenment, was born 300 years ago. Kant was deeply religious and ‘did not believe in rational theology’. In the ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ the philosopher refuted the ontological proof of God. Why Kant’s “sapere aude!” is still relevant today and was not a declaration of war on faith, explains philosophy professor Michael Hampe.

Annalena Muller

“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-induced immaturity.” What does this most famous sentence by Immanuel Kant actually mean?

Michael Hampe*: To acquire knowledge it is not enough to strive for truths; hard work and courage are required. Working hard because it takes a long time and is tiring to figure something out; Courage, because what you discover may not suit you. When people are lazy and anxious, they prefer to rely on others to think. This reliance on others is the path to immaturity, because you then become dependent on the insights of others. And the blame for this immaturity stems from the fact that you have not overcome your own laziness or fear, even though you could have overcome them.

“Enlightenment is the way out of the immaturity we have brought upon ourselves,” wrote Immanuel Kant in 1783.

«Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own insight!” the sentence continues. Can this call also be understood as a declaration of war on the interpretive sovereignty of the churches?

Hampe: I don’t know if Immanuel Kant drafted declarations of war. The text “What is Enlightenment” goes further by comparing the roles people have in their official capacities with what these people say publicly outside their offices. One of the most important offices in Kant’s time was of course the pastorate. But officers and teachers are also obliged by their official duty to be loyal to their ‘master’, who at that time was usually a prince. As a civil servant you are not allowed to rail against the king or the church. Kant agrees.

“In the 18th century, there was no concept of publicity and freedom of speech.”

But he also noted that the official’s role ends when the person leaves official business and enters the public eye. Kant points out that there is such a thing as a public figure who is not a civil servant. And in this role you have the permission, even the obligation, to use your own mind and suspend loyalty to your employer…

… According to this insight, professor Michael Hampe is not allowed to criticize ETH in the media, but the private individual Hampe is…

Hampe: Exactly. And this differentiation and the call for individual courage was something that itself required courage in Kant’s time. In the 18th century, there was no concept of a public sphere in which free speech was permitted. Secular people and even church leaders became upset when something they didn’t like was said publicly in their private time by someone they employed. Then you can get into trouble. To endure this, then as now, courage was needed.

Then, as now, public criticism of secular and ecclesiastical princes required courage, says Michael Hampe.

Immanuel Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ is considered one of his most important writings. In short: what is it about?

Hampe: (laughs) In short, it’s about the impossibility of applying arguments that work in mathematics to non-mathematical objects…

…it could be a little longer…

Hampe: The so-called ‘metaphysics’ believed that proofs leading to insights in mathematics should also be possible when investigating subjects such as ‘God’, ‘the human soul’, ‘the world as a whole’.

Can you explain that a little more clearly?

Hampe: Mathematics is about objects such as numbers. As abstract objects they cannot be experienced sensually. We don’t trip over the number three or π in the living room, even if we have one or two apples in the round fruit bowl. We assume that π exists somehow because we can derive the number mathematically and use it successfully in all kinds of calculations, especially when it comes to circles.

“It was long believed that proofs such as those produced for mathematics could also be applied to God.”

There has long been the idea in theology and philosophy that such deductions and proofs about properties of non-sensory objects should also be possible for non-mathematical objects.

Allah for example?

Hampe: Exactly. If God is someone of whom one cannot have sensory experience, the question arises: can proofs such as those produced for mathematics also be applied to God. Can anyone prove the existence of God or his omnipotence? Kant denied that.

Kant thus contradicted more than 500 years of rational theology. The Catholic Church wants to prove God in a logical way, at least since Peter Abelard’s ‘sic et non’ (1122)…

Hampe: …the “late” Kant no longer believed in rational theology, that is true. In the ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ he shows that it is an impossible project. According to Kant’s theory, it is not possible to make statements about God, the soul and the world as a whole that are on the one hand universally valid and on the other hand not limited to specific sensory experiences.

Peter Abelard (†1142), on the right in conversation with his beloved Heloisia, is considered the founder of rational theology.

If you can’t prove God mathematically, does that mean you can’t know anything about God?

Hampe: Kant himself was a religious person. He meant that he limited knowledge to make room for faith. He would probably have simply said that we cannot make intersubjectively justified statements about God and that there is no science about him. Whether one can have personal religious experiences that one associates with the word “God,” and even whether one must “postulate” him and immortality within the framework of a practical philosophy, as Kant puts it, is another matter.

Can you explain that?

Hampe: Kant does not rule out the possibility that there are religious experiences and moral needs related to religion. He just says that such an experience cannot be conceptually controlled. Here for example (Hampe points to framed photos above his desk): We both agree that these frames are red.

“We both agree that these picture frames are red.”

But if I tell you that I had an epiphany last night, you can believe it or not. There is nothing in this room that you or I can physically point to that would justify my revelation. I can agree with the statement that the photo frames are red. The explanation that I had an epiphany is not.

But doesn’t that mean there is no God?

Hampe: No. It just means that you cannot provide proof of the existence of God. But Kant did not want to eliminate the idea of God, as Nietzsche later did. That wasn’t his concern.

Immanuel Kant received a deeply religious, namely pietistic, upbringing. How did this shape his morals?

Hampe: Morality plays a major role in Kant. For Kant, the connection between morality and religion is very close. The famous categorical imperative also comes from Kant. The common vernacular had a “previous version,” if you want to call it that, in the “Golden Rule”: “What you don’t want anyone to do to you, don’t do to anyone else.”

“Act in such a way that the maxim of your action may become a general law.”

Categorical imperative, Immanuel Kant

Behind the categorical imperative, Kant also considers what actually motivates moral action. So do we act morally because we strive for social success? Or do we follow a moral law that we find within ourselves as ‘rational beings’?

What exactly is morality?

Hampe: According to Kant, morality is the process of becoming rational in practice, whereby one brings one’s own emotionality into some accordance with what is necessary for rational reasons. According to Kant, we act morally when we act out of respect for the moral law, the categorical imperative. This respect is a motivating feeling. The knowledge of the structure of the categorical imperative, on the other hand, is the result of rational insight.

This year marks the 300th anniversary of Kant’s birth. What else does Immanuel Kant have to say to us today?

Hampe: I think a lot. Anyone who wants to understand something, that is, claims knowledge, must work hard and be courageous even today. Being lazy and anxious is dangerous then as it is now, because other people can fool you. “Sapere aude” is therefore still correct and important today. And perhaps that is especially true in the age of fake news.

*Michael Hampe (62) is professor of philosophy at ETH Zurich. His areas of work are the philosophy and history of the empirical sciences, critical theory and metaphysics, science and the public, and techniques of self-knowledge.

The rights to all texts belong to the Catholic Media Center. There are costs associated with further distribution. Storage in electronic databases is not permitted.

Related

Related Posts