“That which alone can make a world the object of divine decree and the end of creation is Humanity (rational being in general as pertaining to the world) in its full moral perfection, from which happiness follows in the will of the Highest Being directly as from its supreme condition” (61 Marginal pagination)
This reading of Kant speaks of the prototype figure that is the son of God, the human being well-pleasing to God. Although it is clear that humans in the natural world cannot inherit the features of this prototype supreme being, is it possible for individuals to resemble the perfect morality of this supreme being by being willing to “execute in person all human’duties” (61) and spread the goodness all around the world?
This passage alludes to words such as “supreme” and “full moral perfection,” concepts that suggest the ideal, but which are not not typical of the human race. In this reading, Kant describes what a perfect human being would look like for God. This mortal being that he describes is not just any ordinary person but, “the idea of him proceeds from God’s being” and is God’s “only-begotten Son” (61/80 Cambridge edition). In other words, he is a prototype of a human with perfect moral disposition. Kant states that because humans are evil by nature, the idea of them embodying a similar model for the utmost “good,” without some sort of influence, is unlikely.
Thus, according to Kant, one must embody this prototype as if it was a duty as humans to live by and resemble this ideal of moral perfection. Yet, Kant denies the fact that the human being will ever attain this state. He says that even if there existed a being that could exhibit “the example of a human being well-pleasing to God” (63), he would be considered supernatural. Also, how could it be that this particular being, who possesses the same needs, the same inclinations, and sufferings as any other ordinary human, be so different from any other? Instead of ameliorating the situation regarding moral perfection, he would “stand in the way” (63) and be reducing the possibilities for others to mirror this image. This supernatural being, who has not gained his good qualities but who has inherited them from heaven, is too unbalanced compared with the ordinary man or woman.
Another difficulty in attaining this perfection in morality, is the fact that all humans have “started from evil” and therefore, even if one is completely submerged into “the path of goodness” (72), that person would not be able to erase all previous unlawful acts. Thus, if one is born and continuously raised with the good principle in mind, only then, could he/she possibly be more apt at preserving a moral and good disposition. However, how realistic is this? Kant states that the memory of having committed evil in one’s past, affects that person too personally to erase the guilt completely.
I have a few problems with what your saying and do not get me wrong I am not saying your wrong but I read this passage both in the book and here in your post and I see something a bit different then what your saying. Particularly In the first sentence of passage where he says “That which alone can make a world the object of divine decree and the end of creation is Humanity" (Kant 61) I feel here he is saying that we as humans have the ability, and actually have created this divine idea. Then your post continues with the correlation of God to Man, and Kant's views on this. It is exactly this which I am unsure on; I am having trouble seeing what your saying. So maybe someone in our class can maybe help clear some confusion or maybe even correct my interpretation of the passage.
ReplyDeleteThe reversal in this excerpt is exactly what makes Kant's philosophy so revolutionary, so, first off don't be too discouraged. I feel as though it might be helpful for you to have a look at the Deleuzian account of Kant's philosophy in regards to time and movement, and his work as a metaphorical Copernican Revolution. The anthropomorphic element (or dualistic aspect) of JC as a manifestation of omni-benevolence is as example that I believe follows the concept of time/movement and maxim/action quite smoothly. I was interested in discussing further the impossibility of JC, perhaps next class?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Armend's interpretation. I think Kant is saying in this quote that humans alone have the ability to make the world divine, but only if we were morally perfect. In doing so, we attain happiness, since we are following the will of the Divine.
ReplyDeleteI think Kant's view on this is that we are not morally perfect, so the idea of the Divine falls apart. We can make the world divine, but we are inherently evil, so religion has no divine ground. There is no redemption until we work on our morality, hence moral duty and rational religion. The end is religion and divine happiness.
The dilemma is that we can never erase our evils. I see Roy's point that this makes the divine unattainable. I think Kant creates this system to help "save" humanity, but it falls apart by him positing this issue. Nonetheless, if one were to attempt to be morally perfect, one would be closer to the divine than any other.