The Critical Method of Kant

The critical or transcendental method of philosophy employed by Kant takes stock of the arguments of empiricism and rationalism and builds a new system of tremendous importance in the history of philosophic thought. Kant follows the method of the analysis of the conditions and limits of knowledge. He points out that, though the material of our knowledge is supplied by the senses, the universality and the necessity about it comes from the very nature and constitution of the understanding, which is the knower of all things in the world. But the world which we thus know through synthetic a priori knowledge is not the real world, for, it is built by the materials supplied by the senses, which gain the characters of universality and necessity when they are brought into shape by the categories provided by the understanding. The world of reality cannot be known by the powers that man possesses at present. If we had been endowed with a consciousness-in-general or an intellectual intuition uninfluenced by the judgments and categories of the understanding, it would have been possible for us to know the reality as such; but as this kind of consciousness is not possessed by us, we cannot know reality. What we know are just empirical facts or phenomena constructed by percepts and concepts common to all men. The postulates of reality that reason advances are only necessities felt by it and not realities in themselves.

In the philosophy of Kant reason reaches its limits and also becomes conscious of these limits. The strata of the senses, understanding and reason are thoroughly investigated and critically examined and their weaknesses exposed. So far all is good. But Kant would seem to many to discourage all effort towards the acquisition of a knowledge of reality, making the very search for knowledge a hopeless affair. To him, knowledge is a synthetic relational product of the logical self. He feels that the ideals of metaphysics which the reason cherishes are just regulative principles which seem to have no reality beyond being mere hypotheses. He makes philosophy in the sense of metaphysics an impossibility, holding that all knowledge is phenomenal. One of the defects of his system lies in his thinking that intuition is confined to sense-perception. He seems to feel that man cannot have non-mediate experience except through sensory contact. Though he is profound enough to conceive of an intellectual intuition transcending the senses and understanding, he does not raise it beyond a mere logical concept which does not share the nature of reality. Though theoretically possible, his intellectual intuition seems to have no practical value. The fact, however, appears to be that Kant was not aware that he himself had in him intimations of this intellectual intuition, while he declared the world to consist of appearances and posited the things-in-themselves as unknown but existing realities. He comes to the borderland of reality and then retraces his steps, as if frightened by its stupendousness. Swami Sivananda would join hands with Kant in holding that the world is phenomenal; but to him, the intuition of Reality is not a mere intellectual possibility but the very basis of life itself. Swami Sivananda recognises that the Supreme Self, which is the foundation of all existence, is to be known in a unique and non-rational way and that this Self-knowledge cannot be expressed through the categories of the understanding, which work in agreement with the material provided by the senses. The knowledge which one has of the Self cannot be ground in the mill of the senses and reason, for, it is non-relative and constitutes an integral comprehension. It is beyond all conceivable proofs of knowledge, for it is the basis of all proof. To Kant, God is an object of faith, but to Swami Sivananda He is an object of experience. It is only when we narrow down the experience to the logical and empirical realms that we are inclined to dub it as a postulate. The philosophy of Swami Sivananda does not begin with postulates; it is an exposition of spiritual experience.

Kant’s critical method was taken much further and completed by Hegel in a staggering system of idealism built by means of what he termed the dialectical method. This method of Hegel consists in the constructive dialectical process of opposition and reconciliation. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis are its moments. The existence of the finite and its assertion of itself as such is the thesis. This thesis naturally evokes the existence and assertion of the finite that is its opposite. This is its antithesis. The relation between the thesis and the antithesis implies a reconciliation of these two in a higher synthesis brought about by the evolving force of the Whole, which transcends the isolated factors of the existence and the assertion of the thesis and the antithesis. This reconciliation results in the cooperation of the thesis and the antithesis and in a blend of the existence and the assertion of the unity of the synthesis. Then this synthesis itself becomes a thesis to which there is an antithesis. The two again get unified and transcended in a still higher synthesis. This process of dialectical unification in higher and higher syntheses continues in various grades, progressively, until the Absolute is reached, where all contradiction is finally and fully reconciled. For Hegel, the forms and matter of Kant constitute an organism in which they blend to make up the universal Whole. Forms are one with matter; thought is one with reality; knowledge is being. The internal and external are identical processes. The categories of Kant are the framework, not merely of thought, but of reality itself.

According to Hegel, logic and metaphysics are one and the same. The study of reason is the study of reality, and metaphysics is the science of reality. The real is the rational, and the rational is the real. Hegel dismisses Kant’s idea that the categories of knowledge are outside reality and cannot be applied to the realm of reality. In criticism of Kant he says that “thoughts do not stand between us and things, shutting us off from things; they rather shut us together with them.” He contends that the categories of knowledge are present in the universal nature of reality itself and are not confined merely to the knowing subject. The categories become the processes of the development of thought through the dialectical movement of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, or affirmation, negation and reconciliation. Knowledge becomes identical with reality. Thought and being get blended together in the Absolute.

Hegel gives us a concept of Reality. But he is not concerned with the possibility of realising it in one’s being. A careful study will show that the dialectic of Hegel does not give us knowledge of Reality, but only tabulates and examines the categories involved in one’s attempt to grasp rationally the nature of Reality. Swami Sivananda’s absolutism is very different from Hegel’s, though there are many resemblances between the two. We shall have occasion to discuss these systems in greater detail in the course of our study. For the present it is enough to know that Swami Sivananda stands for intuition and realisation or Anubhuti, and not merely for a rational concept of it. The method of Hegel will not find it easy to establish how thought and reality, logic and metaphysics, are ultimately one. It is only with difficulty that one can prove the presence of the categories of knowledge in the framework of reality. The dialectic as conceived by Hegel will fail in this attempt. Hegel, too, had a touch of a super-rational inspiration in him, without which he could not have posited the unity of the Absolute, which is beyond sense-perception, though he was very much averse to anything that could not be subjected to the laws of reason. The real is grasped only in being.

The Socratic method of philosophical disquisition consists in arguing out the entire anatomy of the subject in question, in the manner of a dialogue. The prima facie view is refuted by exposing the inconsistencies and contradictions involved in accepting it as true. The teacher professes entire ignorance all the while, finally eliciting the truth from the mouth of the questioner himself, by the ingenious method of subtle examination, through questioning, dividing and analysis. This technique of argument is based on a complete knowledge of the fundamental component elements of the subject of the argument and their relation to the constitution and condition of the intellect and reason of the opposite party concerned in the discussion, and also on grounding the argument in the most basic facts acceptable to that party. The Socratic method can be summed up in the following processes: (1) The assumption of an ignorance of truth by the teacher, which has been called the Socratic irony: This attitude of intellectual humility and basing oneself on the most fundamental of propositions in an argument is, as with Descartes, essential to unravel the depths of truth. (2) The method of dialogue or conversation as an effective technique in the discovery of truth: This is based on a grasp of the presence of the knowledge of the true and the good in every person at the bottom of his being, in spite of hasty conclusions that one may make regarding things due to immature observations and pet prejudices. This common ground of truth among men can be brought out to the surface by careful analysis, argument and investigation, by question and answer. This is often called the art of philosophic midwifery. (3) The establishment of correct concepts or definitions before trying to know their application in life’s particular instances. (4) The art of proceeding from the observed particular facts to more general truths, i.e., adopting the inductive method of reasoning. The method of Socrates is also deductive in the sense that it draws out the consequences and implications of certain concepts and judges their validity.

The analytical method of Socrates was followed by the synthetic dialectic of Plato, which concerned itself with discovering the causal relation between thought and being. Plato’s dialectic method mostly consisted in the grouping of scattered particulars into a single concept or idea and the dissection of this concept or idea into classes, i.e., the generalisation and arrangement of the idea. The arriving at a fact depends on the establishment of a correct concept or notion or principle. It is not possible to know, for example, what the true is or who a good man is, unless we first settle in our knowledge the nature of truth and goodness.

According to the pragmatic method, everything is real when it tends to fruitful activity and results. The character of fulfilling the primal interests of man should be the guiding principle in philosophy. Human interest is the touchstone of philosophical endeavour, of all activity—physical, mental, moral or spiritual. Values are to be judged by results, and the test of truth is workability. We need not discuss here the methods of the logical positivists, the naive realists, and the like, as these are not very relevant to endeavours directed towards arriving at absolute truth. The psychological method of Descartes, consisting of enquiring into the origin of ideas, Bergson’s intuitional method in biological evolution and Spinoza’s geometrical method, are other techniques of great consequence.

The way of the Rig-Veda and the earlier Upanishads is purely intuitional. Seers entered into the heart of Reality in intense concentration of mind, in meditation, ecstasy, rapture and attunement, and proclaimed to the world in their simple language and powerful style that Nature is, in truth, one. The Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Sankhya and Mimamsa philosophies bolstered up a thoroughly realistic method of the analysis of experience. The Yoga system pursued the psychological techniques of inner discipline, while the Vedanta followed the purely spiritual approach to life, backing it up with a rigorous logical scrutiny and examination of experience. But, all these Indian systems have one thing in common: to them all, philosophy is an intensely practical affair, the art of wise living, the way of the attainment of salvation and freedom of the self.

The method of philosophy in general is not to study things piecemeal, as physical science does, but to make a comprehensive study of the totality of experience provided to us through all avenues of knowledge. Science has its special provinces of observation and experiment; but philosophy, having as its goal the solution of the riddle of existence in its completeness, cannot be content with partial observation through the senses. In its vast studies philosophy takes into consideration the objects of experience derived not only through the senses, understanding and reason, but through mystical communion and realisation, with which science, evidently, has no concern in the least. Philosophy is a critical reflection on what is implied in experience, in order to enable man to come in direct contact with it. All men have, no doubt, experience, but not all are endowed with that higher faculty of reflecting upon what is buried deep in experience. This higher reflection is the function of the philosopher, and it is this that distinguishes him from the mass of mankind. The common man takes the world to be physical in its constitution, isolated from his own subjective self, and believes in the independence of the laws of Nature over which he seems to have no control. But it is a superior understanding that discovers the super-sensible fact of the organic relation, which the outward universe has with man’s essential intelligence. Man is not a puppet pulled by strings held by an arbitrary Nature. Life is not a mere marionette-play, in which man made to dance by strings pulled by a capricious director. The universe is friendly, and man is not only an organic part of it but has in him the potentiality of knowing, ruling and coming into at-one-ment with it. Philosophy, therefore, corrects the commonsense notions of the unreflective mind and thus becomes a great panacea for the ills of life caused by ignorance and impotency on the part of man.

The validity of genuine philosophical truths lies in their universality and necessity, and are not in need of any further verification of their tenability. They are illuminated by the torch of intuition, and hence any external verification of their validity is not only not necessary but meaningless. They are always characterised by immediacy, universality and necessity and, consequently, by infallibility and perfect veracity. They hold good for all minds in all conditions, for they spring from the depths of knowledge. There are certain features of reality pervading even ordinary experience, recognisable through subtle contemplation and reflection. It is the purpose of philosophy to study these pervasive features of reality making themselves felt in experience, so that by means of these visible features man may be in a position to rise directly to an intuition of what they feebly indicate. It is a mistake made by many thinkers to reject all super-rational experience as irrational and to debar it from the field of philosophical studies. Facts that reason cannot know are not therefore infra-rational. When it becomes impossible for reason to comprehend certain truths, it is not rational to reject them as anti-rational. We cannot subject super-sensible facts to the categories of our knowledge, but they can be logically deduced from such facts, without our being irrational. What the commonplace student of philosophy actually means when he says that super-sensory realities are irrational is that they are totally dissimilar to all phenomena that are known to him through the senses. Dissimilarity to rational concepts is not always irrationality. What is beyond reason is known in a knowledge which is private from the point of view of the one who has it, but universal in itself. The impossibility of communicating such knowledge through the usual visible means of the world has led many to the false notion that it does not exist at all. Concepts evolved from sense-experience are powerless in judging the nature of the ultimate Cause of all causes—the indubitable Self. No one can deny his own self or his being conscious of his self; nor can one deny that this consciousness is beyond the senses and reason.