I was reading Plato to help my roommate with his paper, which lead me again to philosophos.com, reinstating my love for philosophy, to start reading a dusty volume of Kant’s theological thoughts in Religion in the Bounds of Mere Reason. His thought is that we mistakenly place objective reality to something not a part of the objective realm. He believes we should, as Socrates, Aristotle and Descartes (to name a few) would have us do, orient ourself in our thinking. We need to reason out our beliefs, for this is all we have to know the objective world around us.
He starts off saying to orient is to find the horizon, literally to find the sunrise. So we know the sun rises from the east, right? From that we can assume where North, South and West respectively. But can we? If my right and left are confused, what I think is North is actually West! He would say that to orient ourself in thinking we need a firm grasp of our subjective reality.
Once we have mastered this can we venture forth in the objective realm. But wait, here comes a condition: I mustn’t confuse my subjective thought with another’s! Pretend you’re in a darkened room, remembering some objects in there to help orient yourself to find your bag of M&M’s. Someone in the same room who has a clearer view of the room calls out to you and say, “Go left!” Er, his left or yours? Lesson to hold is this: my subjective reasoning is meant for me, and can help lead others around either in circles or to their destination. You just have to reason within yourself whether when receiving that info if you can trust what they’re saying, clearly using your own subjective thought.
Now we can orient ourselves in this objective realm, placing our subjective markers in it to better understand where I stand in it and then where to go (provided you have a destination). Kant will say that all of the objective realm is so vast that even if we’ve collaborated with all of the past people who’ve come and gone will not suffice in reaching the bounds of our own objective reality! A deterrent in knowing God, or as he would call the supersensible. Funny how he means beyond our senses, yet supersensible…
Now, pretend you’re in this darkened room with some ideas of the objective realm with a clear idea of your subjective reasoning, and in this supersensible reality that you’re checking out you say that this object in front of me is a column. Well, guess what! It’s a statue of a man doing a push-up with his index finger! This is how he’s going to say we cannot know whether God is infinite or not. You cannot use your senses (subjective reality) on Him (supersensible reality) to make claims about Him (objective reality). The room, too, is always changing, as though when you’re not looking someone is moving the objects around, either with good purpose or malicious intent.
Kant will say that the thing to do is to stay out of the supersendible realm, orient ourselves within the objective realm, and then look into the supersensible realm. If you find no contradictions, then leave it as a possibility, but not a fact! There’s so much work here and since we cannot orient ourselves in the supersensible, we should not venture forth or else we will be lost.
Now, what are we to say? He is correct? Am I wrong in saying that God is infinite because I cannot know this?
My reply: first, an object in the objective realm must exist as a part of the objective realm. Redundant, maybe, but very important.
Two, an object that is no longer a part of the objective realm does not mean it never was a part of the objective realm.
Three, assume God, wanting to make Himself known, enters the objective realm.
A, He lives, breathes, eats, and so on and so forth until He perishes.
B, We cannot know whether He objectively exists or not based only on this: all we have are objects writing from their subjective view on this supposed objective reality.
! (It’s supposed to be a small I), most of the past we have subjective accounts of an objective reality.
!! It is up to me whether I agree with the accounts of Jesus, Washington and Heath Ledger of their objective reality, the probability of their existence coming closer to 100% the closer they are to my objective reality
C, We have subjective accounts of not only His existence and workings on Earth, but that He rose Himself from death and as a part of objective reality He enters the supersensible realm.
D, As we have no objective proof of His existence or non-existence, all we can say is that this is a possibility but is not a fact. So far, we agree to what Kant says.
Fourth, assuming all of what is said is true, I can only use my subjective reasoning to validate its truth. An object that has left objective reality, even if it still exists, can only be presented in a subjective realm.
Fifth, though Kant would leave it at that, I will go one step further and say that if God could enter the objective realm, then He should be able to enter the subjective realm as well, given that He is what we normally define God as being omnipotent, omiscient and benevolent.
Finally, I say that He has entered my subjective reality, as I opened the door for Him to do so, by not only allowing His existence to be possible but wanting Him to reach me, in a subjective manner.
He came into my life, proving me His existence, and showed me that much if not all of the written subjective testimonies presented in the Gospels have undeniable objective truth.
I will mention three things in closing: 1) Kant’s reasoning for the writing comes from the idea that proponents with the mind set that we can objectively know certain and key attributes of God such as eternal and infinite came from a phrase “beyond reason.” He looked at that and thought “without reason”, and being a man with great reasoning capabilities, had a strong inclination to defend that which he so rightly held onto.
2) Though he mentions the supersensible, he only attributes this to God, where I would want to add more to it and make it more of a realm rather than just Him. For instance, space and time would fit in this category. We say we feel it and see it, but we only witness its effects. Take a fish: it knows not what water is for it can only live in it. It might start to have an idea about it as its pulled out, but it would be a near-death experience were it to be able to recount what happened and share what it witnessed to other fish. We are much the same with space and time. Determinism falls into this category, as will love and many more supersensible things.
3) You can know God. It will come from a subjective standpoint, but as Kant would have it, without the subjective we would not be able to operate in this objective reality. How much so, then for the supersensible reality! Kant is right that we cannot go to it, but he failed to see that it can come to him, just as He can come to you. Let go of everything. Give your life over for the chance to know Him. See that you are a sinner, that you cannot release the shackles of sin’s weight on your own, and that He is willing to release you if you would turn from it to Him and call out to Him. I promise you, just as He has with me and many others, He will find you. You just have to want it, and ask.
