Why does Kant say that self-discipline is freedom? In general, freedom and self-discipline are opposite concepts, so why did Kant unify them?
Hello everyone, here is a small broadcast reading, earlier we introduced Kant's concept of morality, Kant regards morality as a kind of truth in the field of human social practice, in the field of reason, truth has universality and necessity, this is the characteristic of truth, and in the field of practice, morality also has universality and necessity, morality is the absolute law or command that all people, including themselves, pursue, it is like the truth in the rational world, equal treatment, no exceptions, including himself, Kant's moral concept is very strict, Strict enough to commit suicide or to waste one's abilities is an immoral act. The reason why there is such a harsh moral concept is that Kant's morality is actually based on reason, or more accurately, based on the standard of truth, which is the truth in human practice.
In Kant's second book, The Critique of Practical Reason, Kant's famous "Three Critiques", the question is also answered: How is freedom possible? And morality, reason, and freedom, in Kant's case, are actually unified, inherently consistent, which seems a little strange. Speaking of freedom, you may think, what is so difficult about freedom? Do whatever you want, eat whatever you want, is this a kind of freedom? In Kant's view, this is just an act according to natural instincts, which cannot be called freedom, which is called nature at the higher point and laissez-faire at the lower point.
Kant's conception of freedom is different from, or rather the opposite, of freedom as we usually understand it. Because freedom and nature are relative, freedom is an ability to transcend nature, which can be called freedom. If nature acts according to nature's nature and instincts, then freedom acts according to the principles of reason. Freedom is a power peculiar to man, and nature is a power that all animals have. We often say: self-discipline is freedom, which is Kant's concept of freedom, because self-discipline is a symbol of reason, an ability to restrain desires and instincts with reason, which is the expression of man's free will, so self-discipline can be equated with freedom.
As for how to have freedom, Kant relies on moral ideas. Kant said that morality is a mirror.
There are two key sentences: morality is the reason for knowing freedom; freedom is the reason for moral existence.
What does that mean? For example, when you are very hungry, you see a piece of bread in the bakery, you will not eat it casually, this is immoral, you will be ninja hungry, keep rational, and at this time, you really have freedom. In this scene, morality allows us to restrain the animal instincts of inner nature, or rather, morality makes us aware of the existence of freedom, which is Kant's first sentence: morality is the cognitive reason for freedom, and we are the concrete appearance of the abstract concept of freedom through moral action.
So what does it mean that freedom is the moral raison d'être?
Because man has freedom, he can have morality, and we said earlier that in Kant's view, morality and reason are the same, morality is the product of reason, it is constructed by reason, and freedom and reason are the same, only with reason can there be freedom, free behavior is rational behavior, freedom is an ability to transcend nature, this is reason. Freedom, then, is the moral raison d'être. Because there is freedom, because there is reason, we have morality. Morality is external freedom; freedom is inner reason.
Kant believes that man is distinguished from other animals because he has reason, and other animals can only act according to the laws of nature, while only human beings, because they have reason, they also have freedom, and they have the ability to transcend nature. Kant's view of freedom is actually similar to Spinoza's view of freedom, but it is also different.
The philosopher Spinoza said that freedom is the knowledge of necessity. Or we can also say that freedom is a necessity that transcends nature, and in this way Kant and Spinoza's understanding of freedom is the same. In Spinoza's view of freedom, "nature" is actually divided into two kinds, one is nature as cause, and the other is nature as effect. For example, flowers, trees, mountains and rivers are a kind of fruitful nature, they are passive, unconscious. There is also a kind of nature that "produces nature", or the nature that creates nature, which is the cause or law of nature. This nature is a physical concept, to be understood as a whole, as a whole of nature, which is the sum of all its parts, and this nature is God or God.
In Spinoza's view, God rules the world through the laws of nature, and everything that happens in the material world is inevitable; only God in the world is completely free, and man can try to remove the bondage of the outer, but can never obtain full free will. Thus Spinoza says that "freedom is the knowledge of necessity." The higher a person's level of understanding, the deeper his understanding of nature, and the more thoroughly he grasps the laws of nature, then the more free he is in the face of nature.
This is where Kant's view of liberty differs from Spinoza's, which presupposes that God is an omniscient and all-powerful being with the most comprehensive freedom, while in Kant's view, reason is the source of freedom, not God, and man can attain full freedom through reason.
Well, that's all for today, and through two articles, we've delved into Kant's ethics and morality, three crucial concepts, reason, morality, and freedom, which hopefully inspire you. If you like my article, please pay attention to the small broadcast reading, we will see you in the next article.