Immanuel Kant :

The Critical Philosophy : Expressing his views about both rationalism and empiricism Kant says that, ‘they are justified in what they affirm,but wrong in what they deny.’According to rationalism knowledge cannot become certain and definite without innate ideas while according to empiricism it cannot be real without percepts.About rationalists Kant says that ‘they are the architect of many a world of thought without any guaranteed correspondence with reality.’According to empiricists we cannot have certain and definite knowledge through percepts while according to rationalists  definite and certain knowledge is possible only by reason and innate ideas.Kant says that both are true in there assertions but wrong in there denial.Kant rightly says :

‘It was thus easy to see that each of the contending parties had been guilty of one sidedness and in order to escape this a certain means must be assumed between the extremes,but it was a much more difficult matter to discover the due middle ground.Neither of the opposing standpoint is so correct as their defenders believe and neither so false as its opponents maintain.Where then,on either side the mistaken narrowness begin and how far does the justification of each extend.’

Kant did this great job of finding the middle ground.He rejected the negative aspects of both theories and accepted the positive aspects of both.According to Kant knowledge has two parts: one is its material and another is its form.We receive material from percepts and form from the categories of mind.As Kant writes :

‘Sensibility furnishes the material manifold,which of itself it is not able to form,while the understanding gives the unifying form,to which of itself it cannot furnish a content.Intuitions without concepts are blind.Concepts without intuitions are empty.In the one case,form and order are wanting,in the other,the material to be formed.The two faculties are thrown back on each other and knowledge can arise only from their union.’

Intuitions combined with concepts constitute knowledge.Neither concepts without intuitions nor intuitions without concepts can produce knowledge.Separate and disordered percepts can be put in order and synthesized only through categories.Kant says that though all our knowledge begins with experience,it does not follow that it’originates from experience.’As soon as we receive percepts,mind becomes active.Categories of mind give shape to percepts.These categories are apriori.According to Kant Hume should have analysized the certain and necessary knowledge of mathematics.Had he analysed the theories of maths,he would have been able to know the apriori factors of knowledge.

But Kant doesn’t deny the importance of empiricism.He says that :

‘There can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience.But by what means should the faculty of knowledge be aroused to activity but objects which acting upon our senses,partly of themselves produce ideas in us,and partly set our understanding at works to compare these ideas with one another,and by combining or separating them to convert the raw material of our sensible impressions into that knowledge of object which is called experience.In the order of time,therefore,we have no knowledge prior to experience,and with experience all our knowledge begins.’

According to Kant the philosophy of rationalism may be called dogmatism.As he says that dogmatism is the positive or dogmatic procedure of reason without previous criticism of its own faculty.According to Kant the faculty which gives shape of knowledge to percepts is called,reason.So it is the duty of epistemologist to establish those factors through which disordered percepts can take shape of definite and necessary knowledge.Philosophers before Kant didn’t perform this task.Kant made this contribution in the realm of philosophy.That is why Caired says that ‘ critical philosophy,in the sense of Kant,goes beyond this only in so far as it is an attempt to reach principles,which are prior not only to a particular controversy,but to all controversy.’

John Kemp rightly says about Kant that , ‘his critical writings are aimed,not at contributing to philosophical controversy,but at resolving the disputes and disagreements of both contemporary and traditional philosophy by showing that,although each major position has something to be said for it,all are nevertheless inadequate because they have not inquired deeply enough into the capacity of the human mind for thought and the attainment of truth.’

Classification of Judgements :

Kant has divided judgements on the basis of two different theories.First one is on the basis of origin of judgements and second one is on the basis of content.From the point of view of origin ,he has divided judgements into two categories : apriori and aposteriori.On the basis of content he has divided judgements in two categories again : analytic and synthetic.

Kant has used the word judgement for sentences.He has differentiated judgement from sentence,proposition etc. .Judgement is that in which we our views.So,it can be thought through the medium of language.According to Kant analytical judgement is that in which predicate is implied in the subject.For example if we say,scholar then this very subject implies the predicate as intelligence.In fact,in analytic judgements we use subject in its true sense so that it will indicate its predicate as well.We are not concerned with the facts,here.That’s why analytical judgements are necessarily true,according to Kant.The truth of analytical judgements are determined by the indication of the predicate by its subject.So,the facts of the real world are not needed here.This type of judgements don’t give us any new information.

While synthetic judgements are those in which predicate is not already included in the subject.For example,if we say that ‘ some boys are insolent’ then this quality of insolence is not already included in the subject,boys.Synthetic judgements are based on experience and add something in our  knowledge.But this type of judgements are not necessary ones.These are contingent.It may happen or not.May be so that ‘sun will rise in the east.’

According to Kant apriori judgements are those,which are beyond and prior to experience.The word apriori doesn’t mean prior to a particular type of experience but beyond every type of experience.For example the theory of causality is not based on experience,has been proved by Hume.But at the same time it is the foundation of all scientific knowledge.But we cannot deny its importance in the field of scientific knowledge.Apriori judgements ,according to Kant,are universal and necessary.

Possibility of Synthetic Apriori Judgements :

According to Hume,there are only two types of propositions : mathematical,universal and necessary judgements and scientific judgements, which are probable.According to this classification,statements of science are uncertain and probable.But Kant didn’t accept this assertion of Hume.He said that there is third type of statement possible which is based on factual knowledge and are universal and necessary as well.According to him, this type of knowledge is possible in the field of mathematics,physics and metaphysics.He called this type of judgements as synthetic apriori judgements.

But the judgements regarding mathematical matters are not related to facts.They are merely conceptual.So,Descartes’ view that we can know about God,soul and matter,like mathematical judgements,is wrong.Thinking about oneself is something different from realizing oneself.Judgement is something different from reality.We cannot know anything about reality through judgements.Anybody can define substance verbally,give judgements in favour of God but cannot prove his existence,factually.

Analytic judgements are necessary but not based on facts.While synthetic judgements are based on facts but aren’t necessary.But according to Kant, we can find true knowledge in physics and mathematics.He says that there are synthetic apriori judgements in maths and physics.

The Copernican Revolution :

According to critical philosophy,human mind is not a plain slate.Mind doesn’t follow the objects but objects themselves follow the mind.Knower is not dependent on known but known itself is dependent on knower.Mind can create only those type of knowledge which are according to its categories.Whatever is beyond categories,mind cannot know anything about that.Mind is not according to objects but objects are according to mind.

Before Copernicus,there was belief in the field of astrophysics that sun moves around the earth.But Copernicus turned the upside down by proving that earth moves around sun,not  sun around the earth.This revolution was called in the field of astrophysics as Copernican Revolution.

According to Sangamlal Panday,Kant didn’t want to establish any relation between mind and object but he wanted to establish relation between only between objects.He says that objects are related to each other and their relations are concepts of mind.In this way neither mind is independent of objects nor objects are independent of mind.Mind prevails in objects.It is their underlying reality.Kant has searched the underlying apriori reality of appearance.This apriori reality is logical.It hasn’t to do anything with idealism and realism.It is according to both.This very theory is called ‘critical rationalism.’

Kant says that , ‘The  mind’s own rule holds good in all cases because the mind has itself determined the nature of the cases’.

It doesn’t mean that knowledge is possible without percepts,as Kant has said that ‘ concepts without percepts are empty’.But,of course percepts need forms of categories to become of knowledge.That is why Kant has called  his epistemology as transcendental.He says that, ‘I call all knowledge transcendental which is not directly concerned with objects but with the way in which we cognize them,so far as it is possible to do so,apriori.’

While according to Y. Masih,the subject of Kant’s criticism is not concerned with any object but this is the method of mind to know the objects necessarily and universally used by knower.The apriori categories of mind synthesize percepts.First of all percepts taking shape from space and time become systematic percepts.It is necessary for the percepts to go through space and time.Space and time are apriori forms of mind.But through space and time we can know only separate objects.To create judgements we need categories of understanding.Kant says :

‘Reason must approach nature not as pupil but as a judge,who compels the witnesses to answer the questions which he himself proposes.’

But the question arises that can we know something about supra-sensible things like God,soul etc. .Here Kant says that we cannot know any supra-sensible entity.Without percepts we cannot use empty concepts.If we will try to know something about supra-sensible entities,then it will create transcendental illusion.Since knowledge regarding physics is based on sense- experience so we can know something about it but we cannot know anything about metaphysics.

Forms of Sensibility :

Roger Scruton writes that, ‘Kant argued that space and time ,far from being concepts applicable to intuitions, are basic forms of intuition,meaning that every sensation must bear imprint of temporal and sometimes of spatial organization.’

According to Kant time is the form of ‘inner-sense’while space is the form of ‘outer–sense’.Space and time are forms of sensibility.According to Kant space and time are apriori concepts.He says that there is only one space and one time.All spaces form parts of a single space and all times parts of a single time.That’s why Kant sometimes calls them as ‘apriori intuitions.’

The realm of space-time is limited to the phenomenal world.Noumenal world is beyond space and time.Noumenal reality is unknowable.We can say only this that whatever is knowable is permeated with space and time.We cannot say that whatever exists is permeated with space and time.Space and time is real for phenomenal world while it is imaginary for the noumenal world.Our practical life is based on experience.Percepts pass through space and time and take form of knowledge according to the categories.So,we can say that space and time exist only there,where percepts are.Anything which is beyond the reach of percepts is beyond the reach of space and time.Space and time are forms of our mind.They are universal and apriori.

Due to space and time the judgements of mathematics are synthetic apriori.They are universal and necessary only due to space and time.Geometry is based on space while algebra is based on time.Machanics is based on space and time both.

Our experience is possible only due to space and time.All our knowledge passes through time while knowledge of external world passes through both space and time.Every type of experience,whether it is mental or of external world passes through time.But sensations regarding external world passes through space also.These are spectacles through which we can have experience.Our practical life is necessary confined to space and time.Space and time are not objective realities.They are our subjective mental forms.These are the doors through which all our experience passes and reaches to the categories to take the form of knowledge.These are necessary pre-conditions of knowledge.Space and time ,both are one and particular.

It is due to space that we experience something as behind – ahead,here – there,near – far etc. .Without experiencing spaciality we cannot experience  objects.First of all we experience spatiality after that we experience objects.It is impossible to experience external objects without experiencing spaciality.

In the same manner we cannot experience the co-existence or before –after or succession of events without time.First of all we experience time,only after that we experience the succession of events. Without experiencing time we cannot know anything about any event or object,whether it is mental or physical.Without the experience of space and time we cannot experience any spatial and temporal relations.

We can separate any particular event regarding space and time from our mind but not spatiality  temporality.We don’t imagine space and time on the basis of experience but experience itself is possible due to space and time.So,space and time are apriori though these are apriori but there aren’t categories.These are merely pure sensibilities but not based on sense-experience.Both space and time are eternal,infinite and indivisible.We cannot divide these.Various spaces and various times are merely our imagination.Due to direct perception these are called pure perceptions.These are indeterminate perceptions.Still these are apriori and universal.Categories are general ideas while space and time are particular indeterminate perceptions.The relation between space and particular pieces of space are of infinite and finite not of universal and particular.The relation between cowness and cow is something different from the relation between space and particular part of space.The same is the case with time.As Kant writes :

Time is nothing but the form of internalsense,that is,of our intuition of ourselves and of our internal states.Space is nothing but the form of all phenomena of the external senses.It is the subjective condition of our sensibility,without which no external intuition is possible for us.

Categories of understanding :

Reason gives shape and order to sensations.This very function of reason is called concept.These concepts work through categories.Unrelated,disconnected percepts become connected,related due to categories.Disconnected percepts wouldn’t be able to give us knowledge.They take the form of knowledge when they are connected by categories.Forms of sensibility merely receive percepts but understaning actively synthesizes them.Categories are forms of understanding.Forms are not external objects.These are forms imposed on objects by mind.

These forms of understanding are universal and necessary.Due to these forms,percepts become universal and necessary.These are imposed on objects of experience.For example,while perceiving any table we perceive its qualities like colour,size,shape etc..At the same time we know about its existence,its being a unit,its substantiality etc. .All these are concepts of mind imposed on objects.At the same time these are universal and necessary.Due to the universality and necessity of categories knowledge becomes universal and necessary.But these categories are apriori and imposed on experience.We cannot know these categories through experience.

Transcendental and Metaphysical Deduction of Categories : The question is : from where do these categories come? Categories are universal and necessary.These are apriori,but apply on experience.Experience is not possible without these categories.These categories are capacities of judgements.We express something about categories in these judgements.So,judgements aren’t possible without categories.There are as many types of categories as many types of judgements are there.There are twelve types of judgements in the formal logic.We deduce twelve types of categories from these judgements.This is the transcendental deduction of categories.These categories are of twelve types.

Twelve types of judgements are :

1. Quantitative :Quantitative judgements are of three types :

a. Universal      b. Particular   c. Singular

2. Qualitative : Qualitative judgements are also of three types :

a. Affermative  b. Negative    c. Infinite

3. Relatonal : Relational judgements are again of three types :

a. Categorical   b. Hypothetical  c. Disjunctive

4. Modal : Modal judgements are also of three types :

a. Problematic  b. Assertic    c. Apodictic

On the basis of above twelve judgements there are we deduce twelve types of categories which are as follows :

1.Quantitative :

a. Unity   b. Plurality  c. Totality

2. Qualitative :

a. Reality   b. Negation  c. Limitation

3.Relational :

a. Inherence and subsistence  b. Causality and dependence  

c. Causality

4. Modal :

a. Possibility – Impossibitity  b. Existence – Non – Existence c. Necessity –Contingency

Above are the twelve types of categories determined on the basis of judgements.

Phenomena and Noumena :

There are three types of realities : Noumenal ,Phenomenal and Illusory. Illusory objects are merely creations of our mind.They don’t exist in reality.Phenomenal reality is objective.It is based on external and internal world.It  has practical existence.While the basis of these phenomenal reality is noumena of which Kant has called things –in –themselves or thing-in-itself.

According to Kant though we cannot know noumena yet we can think about them,because conceptually it is not self-contradictory.At least we can think about it as something which can be known by intellectual intuition.This is the limiting concept.It shows the mind its limit that it cannot go beyond the realm of sense-experience.On the contrary, phenomena is both thinkable and knowable.It is within the realm of categories.

While talking about internal reality Kant says that we cannot know ourselves as we are in ourselves but only as we appear to ourselves.Knowing oneself is something different from being aware of oneself.We don’t possesss intellectual intuition to know ourselves.While on the phenomenal level we are able to know our feelings,desires,passions etc. .But we can think about the self-conscious self.

We cannot transcend our experience.Since noumenal reality is supersensible,we cannot know anything about that.That is beyond the range of our sense-organs.Our sensory knowledge is based on percepts but we cannot have percepts of the things-in-themselves.But we can have apriori knowledge of science and maths.Due to space and time there is necessity and certainty in maths.Scientific knowledge is based on categories.But this knowledge of science and maths is phenomenal only.But Kant believes in the existence of noumena as the basis of phenomena.This is the limiting concept.  

Our worldly knowledge is based on perception.Through sense-organs we know only the appearance of things not what they are in themselves.Things-in-themselves are supersensible.Noumena  cannot be intuited by the intellect because we do not possess intellectual intuition.We cannot apply categories on things-in themselves.We can never know that there is something corresponding to the category of substance.Hume has already rejected the theory of causality on the basis of experience.But according to Kant we cannot deny the existence of noumena.Since we don’t know anything about it we cannot deny its existence.

The Ideas of Reason – Soul ,God and World as a whole :

Rational Psychology :

Existence of  soul is the presupposition of knowledge.In Kant’s words Transcendental Unity of Apperception is the presupposition of knowledge.But it is merely logical consequence of knowledge.We cannot prove its existence.Through introspection we can know only momentary desires,emotions etc. .But we try to prove eternal,infinite soul because we cannot deny its existence.Thilly writes :

‘In reasoning thus,rational psychology draws conclusions not warranted by the premises;it uses the terms self,subject and soul in different senses,and is guilty of a fallacy which Kant calls a paralogism.’

Kant says that on the basis of momentary percepts and ideas,we don’t have any right to draw the conclusion that there is a self-existent,simple,indecomposable,self-identical soul substance,which is changeless.It is necessary that thought should come together in a single consciousness.Rather there wouldn’t be any link between the knowledge of past,present and future.Memory can be accepted only on the basis of the existence of soul and the existence of memory is already proved fact.But we cannot prove the existence of soul or free will.But rational psychologists try to prove this.In Kant’s view this is merely mental speculation and only idea.

Rational psychologists have accepted it as substance,from the point of view of quality it is simple and eternal.Accoding to Kant this is the paralogism of rational psychology.

Rational Theology : Theologists form the idea of whole,try to personify it.We consider it as the highest reality,self-sufficient,eternal and simple without taking into consideration its existence as idea ,only.This idea of rational theologists is called,God.This idea is the ideal of rational theologists.Thilly writes :

‘We first make an object of it;that is ,a,phenomenal object,then we make an entity of it,and then we personify it.’

This person of our imagination is God.Theologists try to make God an axiom and by giving arguments they try to prove His existence.But by argument they can prove only the idea of God,not His real existence.Kant calls it as contradiction of rational theology.Theologists have given three proofs for the existence of God.These are ontological.cosmological and teleological proofs.Kant has rejected all the three as merely viewpoint.

Ontologists say that since we have idea of a perfect Being in our mind,so there must necessarily exist a perfect being according to that idea.Kant has rejected this argument by saying that we can prove only the existence of the idea of God by giving argument in favour of idea not the existence of God.By having the idea of hundred rupees we cannot gain hundred rupees,in fact.

Cosmologists say that since everything has a cause,so this cosmos must also have a cause for its existence.Kant says that causality is a category of mind and we cannot apply it on noumenal realities.Again we can prove only the final cause by this proof,not the existence of God.Again it will lead to infinite regress i.e. God must have its another cause.

By teleological proof theologists try to prove the existence of an  entity ,who is responsible for the teleology in the cosmos.In a sense they try to say that matter cannot create the cosmos.There must be an efficient cause of this universe.

In the Transcendental Dialectic Kant writes that these ideas of God,soul and cosmos as a whole are merely figments of our imagination not reality.We cannot know anything about these noumenal realities.Phenomenal reality is the limit of our knowledge.

But he says that these are not meaningless concepts.Though we cannot know anything about them but at the same time we cannot deny their existence as matter of faith.These are limiting concepts to show understanding its limitation.

Rational Cosmology :

World as a whole is the presupposition of rational cosmologists.They study about the origin of the world as a whole.According to Kant ,to know the cosmos as a whole is not matter of knowledge.It is beyond our knowledge to know the external world,as whole.When we try to know the external world as a whole,we create,in the words of Kant antinomies.Kant calls these as antinomies of rational cosmology.He tries to show the contradictions in the views of rational cosmologists by analyzing their arguments.They try to proceed from the conditioned to the unconditioned.They form the idea of nature as whole.

There are four such antinomies in which both thesis and anti-thesis can be proved.First antinomy is regarding the origin of the cosmos.It gives both contradictory arguments that it has beginning in time and has no beginning in time and is eternal.Another argument is regarding its infinity and finite nature.That objects are infinitly divisible and that they are not infinitely divisible.Third antinomy is related to the freedom and determinism.That there is freedom in the world and that everything in the world takes place according to the laws of nature.Fourth antinomy is related to the Ultimate Reality .This argument again gives contradictory judgements that there exists an absolutely necessary Being,either as part of the world or as cause of it;and that there is no such Being,either within the world or outside it as the cause of it.

Freedom and Immortality :

Freedom of Will :

Kant says that reason demands the unconditioned in order to complete the series of condition.Reason cannot rely on understanding since udderstanding cannot ascend  from conditioned to unconditioned.Yet reason needs a causality determined in itself for every series of conditions.That is why reason creates for itself the idea of spontaneity which can begin to act of itself,without requiring to be determined to action by an antecedent cause in accordance with the law of causality.This is the origin of the transcendent idea of freedom.Like all rational concepts the idea derives subjectively from the nature of reason.This very tendency exposes reason to a natural illusion.There is a tendency to take these ideas for real things and so to gain access to realities beyond the limits of experience.Bernard Carnois writes that it seems legitimate to apply to freedom the expression ‘rational belief’ which Kant employs to characterize the requirement of reason in its theoretical use.

Kant has written, ‘I have to deny reason in order to make room for faith.’Whatever is impossible for reason is possible for faith.In the Critique of Practical Reason Kant has proved freedom of will,immortality of soul and existence of God by faith.According to Kant man is free in deciding something,so he is liable for each and every deed be  performed by him.So,practical reason determines the concept of freedom by giving it an objective reality.Since this moral law is the law of will so it must be independent of the conditions of causality.A free will doesn’t have any antecedent.It can be practically determined.But it is not a matter of experience.Since all phenomenal things appear under the conditions of space and time,we don’t find something parallel to the idea of freedom.All phenomenal thing come under the law of causality.Free will doesn’t have any antecedent.We cannot intuit free will.

Kant writes that of freedom is the stumbling block of all empiricists but the key to the most sublime practical principles for critical moralists,who see,through it,that they must proceed rationally.’

Concept of freedom is the basic concept of Kant’s ethics.According to his famous maxim ‘ought implies can.’ The right action must always be possible.Man must always be free to perform.Devoid of freedom morality will be meaningless.But at the same time this freedom contain a contradiction.It is through the concept of freedom that the ideas of God and immortality gain objective reality and necessity in the sphere of pure reason.

According to Kant,freedom is that kind of causality in which the actions of a rational being are not determined by a cause other than itself.Natural causality on the other hand,is that form of causality which is found in non-rational beings whose actions are determined under external influences or causes.As Kant says that free will is a will that wills nothing.Free will is not independent of all laws,but independent of natural law.A free cause conforms to the law,but it is law of itself.Freedom,therefore,must consist in autonomy or self-determination.

Korner says that the moral freedom of man is not merely a freedom from nature,but also a freedom from external supernatural powers.Hence a free will is a will which conforms to the moral law.This is the formula of categorical imperative or the supreme principle of morality.

A free will must be entirely independent of all sensuous conditions.The will being being free from empirical or sensuous conditions,its determining principle can only be the law itself,taken in abstraction from the matter of law.A moral agent has to obey that law which can be willed universally without contradiction and regardless of consequences.Since it is entirely independent of all sensuous conditions,the consciousness of the moral law forces us to presuppose freedom.On the basis of the consciousness of moral law we can justify the actual possibiltity of freedom.Freedom is the condition of the actual willing of a universal moral law.Roger Scruton writes, ‘Kant’s moral philosophy emerges from the amalgamation of the idea of transcendental freedom with that of an imperative of reason.

According to Kant when the actions and choices of men are regarded as events in the spatio-temporal world ,they must be subject to empirical laws and hence they cannot be free.Another causality,that of freedom,called by Kant ‘transcendental freedom, must be able to alter the conduct of the agent.

Immortality of Soul :

All the arguments,freedom of will,the existence of God and the immortality of soul rejected in the Critique of Pure Reason,are reinstated in the Critique of Practical Reason,as postulates of morality.A postulate is a theoretical proposition,so it cannot be demonstrated.Prof. Benerjee says :

‘Kant takes it for granted that the immortality of soul can never be demonstrated on theoretical grounds and at the same time thinks that if the only other ground on which we can stand,namely,the practical,is found to demand that immortality should be not a mere idea,but objectively real ,then the human soul can be said to be immortal;otherwise not.’

Morality demands perfection and we cannot become perfect in this life.The highest good can be realized only in the life to come.A person who does good to others may not become happy in this life.So,we have to assume this that he will become happy in the next life.As Kant says:

‘Happiness is the condition of a rational being in the world,in whose whole existence everything goes according to wish and will.’

Man cannot curb his animal spirit,his desires of material happiness,only after effort in many lives.It is not possible to become perfect in one life.So,immortality of the soul is necessary condition of morality.Realisation of this end of perfection is demanded by reason on the sole condition of moral law or that the supreme good should be willed.As Kant writes :

‘The achievement of the highest good in the world is necessary object of a will determinably by the moral law.’

But it is possible for a completely rational being to will of the supreme good at every moment of life.So a completely rational being is a holy being whose will is in perfect harmony with the moral law.As Kant writes :

‘….complete fitness of the will to the moral law is holiness,which is perfection of which a rational being in the world of sense is at any time capable.’

For a man, with desires and inclinations,the conformity of the moral law is possible only by endless progress.Kant himself writes :

‘This infinite progress is possible,however,only under the presupposition of an infinitely enduring existence and personality of the same rational being.This is called immortality of soul.’

At the same time every being must retain his unity of self throughout the infinite progress towards perfection.The presupposition of personal immortality is necessary for the possibility of highest good.Thus immortality is the logical consequence of morality.

Y. Masih writes that this condition of morality doesn’t prove the immortality of the soul but only indefinite lif

Rejection of Speculative Metaphysics :

‘Metaphysics is thought by Kant as the philosophical inquiry into the first principles which is categorized in accordance with contemporary practice,under three heads,God,freedom and immortality;it is the investigation by rational methods of the nature and attributes of God,the existence and presuppositions of human freedom(free will)and immortality of the human soul.’

                                                                                                   John Kemp

The philosophical errors into which metaphysics has fallen are divided by Kant into three groups.Some appear in the branch of metaphysics known as rational psychology,which is the attempt to discover truths about the nature of the soul by philosophical reflection,as contrasted with an empirical investigation into associated phenomena;others in rational theology,which is the attempt to discover proofs of the existence of God and truths about His nature,again by philosophical reasoning, as opposed to empirical investigation or divine revelation.But although Kant attached importane to errors in these two branches of metaphysics,they do not seem to have provided much stimulus for his fundamentally critical attitude to all existing metaphysics;fallacious or otherwise unsatisfactory attempts to prove the immortality of the soul or the existence of God can be refuted,he thought,without casting doubt on the whole metaphysical enterprise.But with the third branch of metaphysics,rational cosmology,the situation is different;here conflicting arguments appear within metaphysics and yet,on the ordinary metaphysical assumptions,both sets of conflicting arguments appear to be equally valid.The resulting contradictions and antinomies as Kant calls them are  roundabout course of philosophical thinking is necessary before the resolution can take place.

R. P. Singh writes , ‘Kant limits human cognition to the sphere of the phenomenon.Such an attempt is aimed at justifying the realm of faith wherein lies the basis of his moral laws.’