Kant And Blaise Pascal: A Theoretical Analysis
Immanuel Kant and Blaise Pascal offer contrasting opinions concerning reason, or man’s ability to come to conclusions on his own. In Metaphysics of Morals, Kant provides an optimistic view of reason, depicting that reason can attain certain conclusions. Pascal argues in Pensees that man is inherently flawed and can’t be certain from reasoning while faith, or belief in the supernatural, is the only thing that can create certainty. Kant’s positive outlook on human reason is a sound assertion, although it doesn’t necessarily create a rupture between faith and reason, because despite reason’s capabilities of reaching universal truths, faith compensates for potential mishaps made by reason and provides a more in depth knowledge when combined with
…show more content…
As seen with Kant’s argument concerning morality, man can reason many truths. However, these truths acquire a deeper meaning when considered in the broader scope of faith. As Paul II notes, faith “allows reason to attain correctly what it seeks to know and to place it within the ultimate order of things,” (Paul II 12). In the case of morality, man could reason to find the morality of an action, but it isn’t until he combines this reason with faith that he can conclude the full importance of his action on a larger scale and in relation to God and his fellow man. By doing this, man attains a unique perspective on the the implications of his actions that is not available solely through reason. Despite having a positive attitude toward reason, Kant’s assertion does not create a necessary rupture between faith and reason. Kant would disagree with Pope John Paul II’s viewpoint that reason and faith can work together to reach conclusions. When creating a system of morality, Kant asserts man relied on “reason alone” (Kant 59) as the manner in which man could determine morality. All concepts containing morality could be self contained within the mind, and therefore there was not a need for faith to help guide an individual to reach a truth. Reason is sufficient in attaining truth, and as a result faith would merely hinder the process of attaining
As seen with Kant’s argument concerning morality, man can reason many truths. However, these truths acquire a deeper meaning when considered in the broader scope of faith. As Paul II notes, faith “allows reason to attain correctly what it seeks to know and to place it within the ultimate order of things,” (Paul II 12). In the case of morality, man could reason to find the morality of an action, but it isn’t until he combines this reason with faith that he can conclude the full importance of his action on a larger scale and in relation to God and his fellow man. By doing this, man attains a unique perspective on the the implications of his actions that is not available solely through reason. Despite having a positive attitude toward reason, Kant’s assertion does not create a necessary rupture between faith and reason. Kant would disagree with Pope John Paul II’s viewpoint that reason and faith can work together to reach conclusions. When creating a system of morality, Kant asserts man relied on “reason alone” (Kant 59) as the manner in which man could determine morality. All concepts containing morality could be self contained within the mind, and therefore there was not a need for faith to help guide an individual to reach a truth. Reason is sufficient in attaining truth, and as a result faith would merely hinder the process of attaining