Let me compare two intellectuals who come from the same country and whose lives are separated by about two hundred years - Immanuel Kant and Joseph Ratzinger - and ask the following question: which of these two men accords a greater role to reason in human life?
The answer is: Ratzinger. By far.
For Ratzinger everything in life is subject to rational inquiry. For Kant some methaphysical questions, including the ideas of God, freedom and immortality, do not belong to the province of reason. They belong to the province of faith. According to Ratzinger you reach God by a rational process at the top of which you encounter faith. Faith is complementary to reason, a rational necessity of reason (see my previous post). According to Kant faith and reason are two different and competitive provinces of the human mind. God belongs to the province of faith. Either you believe in God or you do not believe in God - no questions asked because, in any case, you could not answer them by reason.
By leaving a whole sphere of human life outside the province of reason and putting it under the province of faith, Kant restricts the role of reason in human life and enlarges the role of faith to such an extent that it would leave the Pope appalled. After all, as a Pope, Joseph Ratzinger is seen as the guardian of faith whereas Kant is regarded as the father of modern rationalism. I believe reality is exactly the opposite. When comparing the two men, Ratzinger is the rationalist, Kant the faithist.
For Ratzinger, believing in God is the distinguishing mark of the learned, rational man. And if one man can reach God by reason all other men can, because God endowed all men with reason. God is thus a public affair as everybody can get to Him by a faculty of the human mind that is common to all men. Believing in God is not a matter of personal, subjective choice. It is a rational imperative. Those who do not believe in God are either ignorant or immature.
For Kant everything is different. Believing or not believing in God is a matter of faith, ultimately a matter of personal, subjective choice: "Deu-lhe para ali...", as the Portuguese people would say. There are no objective standards to evaluate this choice. The idea of God becomes a private affair, and so does religion. Human values for so long the public domain of religion become themselves private and optional.
How would Kant and Ratzinger get along if they were to meet today?. The answer is: they would be fierce intellectual adversaries. Ratzinger considers cultural relativism the greatest sin of modernity. He has an articulate theory about where relativism comes from: he blames it on Kant.
The answer is: Ratzinger. By far.
For Ratzinger everything in life is subject to rational inquiry. For Kant some methaphysical questions, including the ideas of God, freedom and immortality, do not belong to the province of reason. They belong to the province of faith. According to Ratzinger you reach God by a rational process at the top of which you encounter faith. Faith is complementary to reason, a rational necessity of reason (see my previous post). According to Kant faith and reason are two different and competitive provinces of the human mind. God belongs to the province of faith. Either you believe in God or you do not believe in God - no questions asked because, in any case, you could not answer them by reason.
By leaving a whole sphere of human life outside the province of reason and putting it under the province of faith, Kant restricts the role of reason in human life and enlarges the role of faith to such an extent that it would leave the Pope appalled. After all, as a Pope, Joseph Ratzinger is seen as the guardian of faith whereas Kant is regarded as the father of modern rationalism. I believe reality is exactly the opposite. When comparing the two men, Ratzinger is the rationalist, Kant the faithist.
For Ratzinger, believing in God is the distinguishing mark of the learned, rational man. And if one man can reach God by reason all other men can, because God endowed all men with reason. God is thus a public affair as everybody can get to Him by a faculty of the human mind that is common to all men. Believing in God is not a matter of personal, subjective choice. It is a rational imperative. Those who do not believe in God are either ignorant or immature.
For Kant everything is different. Believing or not believing in God is a matter of faith, ultimately a matter of personal, subjective choice: "Deu-lhe para ali...", as the Portuguese people would say. There are no objective standards to evaluate this choice. The idea of God becomes a private affair, and so does religion. Human values for so long the public domain of religion become themselves private and optional.
How would Kant and Ratzinger get along if they were to meet today?. The answer is: they would be fierce intellectual adversaries. Ratzinger considers cultural relativism the greatest sin of modernity. He has an articulate theory about where relativism comes from: he blames it on Kant.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário