Immanuel Kant,
who in search of his God, meets a friend, who claims, ‘I have experienced so
many earthly Gods, but don’t know if you’re dazzled by an idea which is
incomprehensible to be grasped through my experience. I guess, you are carrying
a burden of dogmatic myths, which has no place under the realm of human
knowledge.’
Kant- I don’t
think if God as an idea could be believed by a person who floats in a river of
materiality. I can understand your limitations my friend- your eyesight is too
weak to be trusted.
Hume- Oh I see!
Perhaps I’m too little to understand an idea which is mystically obscured, and
far away from any sort of explanations. But, I don’t think if you have any
explanation about God my dear friend?
Kant- Look,
every idea can’t be explained in terms of cause and effect. Can you explain the
birth of universe by your experience? You can’t go beyond certain time and
space to unravel any such knowledge. Does it mean the very birth of Universe is
un-explainable?
Hume- Of course,
it’s explainable, but that explanation shall be far away from an objective
truth. Suppose that somebody says, ‘I had a dream last night, whereas a person
of white colour was flying in the sky and he made a prophecy about my death.’
You will conclude certain outlines, certain features of your God in your
imaginations. It is nothing but a complex idea, consisting of some information
which are already known hitherto through various myths. I can safely say that
construction of God, for me, is a complex idea which can’t be accepted until I
have experienced it in my sensorial world.
Kant- I don’t
believe every phenomenon can be explained by a tool of causality and effect.
There are certain things which are end in itself. And those things are
incomprehensible to sensuality. That’s why I think all knowledge are human’s
knowledge. Your knowledge about a dog is not necessarily truthful for a dog who
has his own way of life. In a way, your sensorial world is like a frog in a
well, happy and proud about his knowledge. Look beyond your senses, perhaps
intuition will guide you towards the pure reason. Only when you could reach
nearer the truth.
Hume- Thank you
for your suggestions my dear friend. But, your idea of intuition is nothing but
appears as certain conjectures which entails certain misleading effects. As far
as pure reason is concerned I know only a human reason which guides me to
travel adjacent to my passions and desires. I know only these two sovereigns
which are two great friends of Mankind. Of course, vilifications of these two
friends, by all rationalists, won’t be able to decimate the very utility of
them, for they play a vital role in inventions and discoveries for the Mankind
in order to make their life better.
Kant- I’m amazed
the way you have composed a romantic song for your two friends who are credited
for the enslavement of our reason. It is passion which tends us prone to an
animal instinct, though, we’re not governed by passions and desires. We have
mastered our nature by pure reason. We’re no ordinary animal who is committed
to flames. We’re the masters of this universe, because we have an inherent
capacity to master our nature.
Hume- You sound
like a child who thinks his father is the best person in the world; he is
different from all other persons, though he is as fallible as any other else.
How do you find a man different from an animal when we hear a man kills others
for the sake of amassing wealth, ravishes a girl out of lust, and loots a poor
to become a rich man. Where does his reason wander when he looses a moral
sense, as a human being, and a sense of wonder? I think, at least an animal,
even though kills other animals, not for amassing wealth but for his
preservation, security and necessity of food. They don’t have an ego problem,
however we live and die for the sham glory; which doesn’t exist at all. Tell
me, if other animals are not better than us in a way you look human nature?
Kant- I agree
that sometimes animal appears better than us. But who is at fault? Do we not
know what is just and unjust, unlike an animal? But, our ethics are
overshadowed by passions and desires; I guess we enter into a territory where
God fears to tread.
Hume- Your
accusations against my friends are out of the place. Don’t you think if
passions and desires are as natural as the very birth of this Universe? Then,
why don’t you blame your God for sinister creations?
Kant- God does
not create anything which yields disastrous consequences for Mankind. Passions
and desires are the product of human imaginations. God has given us a faculty of
reasoning to differentiate between what is just, good and what is evil?
However, your desires appear to be offender of moral laws which are nowhere but
within us.
Hume- My
experience exemplifies a different story dear friend. Mankind, though claims
about superiority of moral laws over the law of physics. But, all such moral
laws are governed by various religious verses. These religious scriptures are
the father of all the religious conflicts. It appears that you prefer a reign
of religious dogmas over historic truth; abstractions over materiality; blind
faith over reason.
Kant- I don’t
prefer a conflict oriented world over harmony. My understandings of moral laws
are transcendental in nature. These are categorical imperatives which are
governed by one of the most fundamental principles of humanity which is, Man is
not a means but an end itself. If a Man is an end in itself where is the place
of other instrumentalities?
Hume- I argue my
case with this appeal to you and to all philosophers; ‘Let us thoroughly
sensible of the weakness, blindness, and narrow limits of human reason; let us
duly consider its uncertainty and endless contrarieties, even in the subjects
of common life and practice.’ The existence of any being can only be proved by
arguments from its cause or its effect; and these arguments are founded
entirely on experience.’
Kant- But, I
think you’re avoiding my questions. I can take it as if you don’t have answers
about a world which is seldom experience by a Man, unless faith sails in a
river of uncertainty. ‘I have to deny knowledge in order to make a room for
faith.’ However, you want to fly over a kingdom of heaven with the help of
skilled knights, though you don’t have faith in the existence of the kingdom of
heaven itself.
Hume- I have
experienced my friend that only science can lead us towards light. Faith is
blind; an anatomy of darkness whereas humankind is reduced to parasitic
dependencia. Only knowledge can bring back light in platonic cave.
Kant- I think,
the purpose of philosophy is not to uncover knowledge but to bring wisdom into
play. There were so many wise people in Greece, however it was Socrates who had
that wisdom and the love for the truth.
Hume- You’re too
abstract to be grasped by the commoners. Your ideas shall receive an end in
post enlightenment era.
Kant- But,
whenever humanity will be in danger due to excessive worship of materialistic
science, it’s faith in harmony, which will lead human kingdom from
disenchantment to the peace. I’ll meet you that day once again when your materialistic
kingdom shall be replaced by a harmonious spiritual human kingdom.
Posted By: Mrityunjay Kr. Singh (Research Scholar, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi)
