Philosophy cannot establish the
existence or non-existence of the thing-in-itself. By establishing general principles, we can't know the limits of our ability to know. Progressive development, however, can approach complete knowledge. No skeptic can doubt the reality and certainty of mental representations and mental events that are immediately given through consciousness.
Skepticism doubts the possibility of knowledge about the existence or non-existence of the thing-in-itself. Kant, however, was guilty of
begging the question in that he presupposed that the thing-in-itself exists and causally interacts with observing subjects. Kant and Reinhold claimed that the reality of objects can be known from the representations in the mind of the observing subject. This is inferring objective reality from subjective thought. Such an inference is the
fallacy of drawing existential conclusions from logical premises. Kant's critical philosophy is self-contradictory. He said that things-in-themselves cause sensations in an
observer's
mind. Kant applied
causality to
noumena. But, in his critique, he had claimed that causality is a
category of the
understanding that can only be applied to
phenomena. Kant posited real existence to the postulates of
God,
Free Will, and
Immortal Souls. But this is more than is necessary for
moral theology, which only requires belief in them as
Ideas of
Reason. The
science of
psychology does not require that the soul have faculties. Rather, psychology is a detailed description and systematic classification of actual mental events. If we were to take critical philosophy seriously, we would commit ourselves to resolving experiences into two parts — a system of universal subjective forms on one side, and a mass of amorphous, meaningless objective matter on the other. How can we be sure that Kant's obligation to be moral is the result of freedom? It might be the result of some irrational natural force. ==Reactions==