The meaning and value of human existence——Kant's perspective

To be alive, we need to pursue the meaning and value of existence.

is so, in the final analysis, because life is limited and mortal.

Assuming that people live forever and can try various lifestyles indefinitely, and can come back every time, what meaning and value do they need to pursue? Such problems will never arise at all.

However, the reality of

is that there is only this one in one's life and cannot be repeated.

You have chosen a way of living this life, which means giving up all other ways. Because of this, you have to consider how to make it meaningful.

Therefore,

We can say that people need meaning as the foundation of "life", precisely from the fear of "death".

Correspondingly, the extent to which a person avoids thinking about "death" also means to what extent he avoids thinking about "life".

In short, the meaning of life lies in the finite nature of life.

Once a person becomes a human being and has wisdom, he will realize his finiteness and fear of death.

But as a rational being, human beings are not reconciled to this. They always want to transcend finiteness to seek infinity, transcend the short-term pursuit of eternity, and transcend to inevitably achieve freedom...

Therefore, the question of " ultimate care " follows produce.

After all, philosophy originates from ultimate care, and the problem of metaphysics cannot be avoided.

Human reason is not satisfied with its own finiteness. It tries to transcend this finiteness, pursue infinity and eternity, and reach the supreme realm of freedom and ideals. This is the mission and mission of metaphysics.

Has this ideal been realized?

Since ancient Greece,The philosophers have established for themselves the grand ideal of making metaphysics a science.

In modern times, most of the Enlightenment thinkers regarded themselves as intellectual elites, believing that knowledge and rationality are the hallmarks of human beings, and they themselves undertake the mission of advancing knowledge, advocating science, and educating the public.

However, with the advancement of science, this world has become an inevitable world that runs strictly in accordance with the law of cause and effect. Where can there be a place for freedom? Man lives in accordance with the laws of nature, where is freedom?

The great alternative enlightenment thinker Rousseau The article "Does the Renaissance of Science and Art Contribute to the Purity of Customs" written in 1749 can be described as shocking. He realized that there was a problem with Enlightenment-the progress of science brought about the decline of morality.

Inspired by Rousseau, Kant realizes that the status, value and dignity of a person is not how much scientific knowledge you have, but the standard for measuring it is whether morality is noble.

He said: "I used to think that only knowledge can benefit mankind, so I am proud of knowledge and despise those ignorant people, but Rousseau corrected my prejudices and taught me to respect people. "

Based on this, Kant criticized metaphysics.

But he doesn't want metaphysics, he just thinks that if you follow the traditional way of thinking-let metaphysics become science, it will only be a dead end.

Because there is an irreconcilable contradiction between the spirit of scientific rationality and the freedom pursued by metaphysics, the implementation of scientific rationality into the realm of metaphysics will definitely make freedom lose its place.

In short, as a kind of instrumental rationality, scientific rationality cannot replace the role of value rationality.

The development of science and technology has been advancing all the way, but it cannot solve the spiritual problem.

In response to this,

Kant’s main question is: in a world strictly restricted by natural laws,Are people free?

If not, then man does not have the value and dignity different from other existences?

If yes, where is it?

In order to solve this problem, Kant first solved the universal necessity of scientific knowledge by launching a "Copernican revolution" (not that knowledge must conform to the object, but the object must conform to the innate cognitive form of the subject of knowledge).

Since the object can only be known to me through the form of my knowledge, it means that the things behind this form cannot be known to me. In other words, our scope of knowledge is limited to the former, and cannot go beyond it.

Kant's conclusion is called agnosticism .

This conclusion seems negative, but if we think about the problem from another angle, Kant finds that it is precisely because there is an unknowable field outside our field of knowledge that is not restricted by the form of knowledge, and infinite freedom is logically possible. On the other hand, if everything is knowable, there is no freedom at all.

In this way, morality based on freedom is also possible.

This is what Kant said: "I want to draw a line for reason, so as to make a place for faith."

The true meaning of Kant's sentence is:

The field of science, knowledge The realm can only achieve inevitability, there is no freedom at all. I must limit knowledge and limit rational understanding, so as to leave room for morality and metaphysics. All in all, leave a way out for freedom.

(picture from the Internet)