|← Naturalism and Influence on Physical Programs||Success of Descartes →|
In Justification of the metaphysics of morals, as well as in his Critique of Pure Reason, and other ethical writings, Kant makes extensive use of the concept of free will. This is an important concept for him, and the problem here is simple. Supposedly, Kant says that we meet a man that succeeds in all respects: he has power, wealth, honor, health, good humor, and he is satisfied with his life, work and appearance and considers himself as a happy man. We ask ourselves: can we say about this man that he is happy? Obviously, we can. However, if you have a question about whether a person is morally happy, we answer: “It is not necessary”. By the way, in terms of happiness philosophers have much controversy while constantly asking the primary question: what is happiness, and whether it exists at all. In everyday life, as a matter of fact, it is recognized without any difficulties. A person feeling happy (or at least willing to be seen as happy) is well seen. If the other person is endowed with a good heart, he is usually happy, and it is nice to see people happy. However, thankfully rejoicing neighbors (and, conversely, sympathizing misfortunes), we mostly correlate a state and behavior. In other words, the life of a happy man is a set of qualities without which a happy, successful man for us is morally unattractive. Hence, in a normal daily life, we appreciate, more or less consciously, the moral grounds in a man, which would be a substantiate quality of action, and combination of circumstances, directly contributing to happiness.
Kant quite realistically finds such form of contradiction when some conditions and qualities of a happy man are not aligned with the moral bases. Initially, when Kant only introduces the concept of good will, it is still rather uncertain. Good will is something without which much needed human qualities, such as intelligence, wit, judgment, courage, determination, and commitment are unacceptable. They can also become extremely bad and harmful, if there is no good will. Good will is something without what a satisfied, happy person does not receive our admiration. It goes without saying that a reasonable, impartial observer can never be pleased by the permanent prosperity, even when a happy man does not have any feature of good will. Therefore, good will is, apparently, a necessary condition which is worthy to be happy.
We note the difference between Kant's moral philosophy and such an ethic, which is based on human happiness only and the pursuit of happiness. It is commonly called hedonistic. Kant argues differently. He invites a reader to reflect on what should comprise a truly moral relation to happiness. Striving to make problematic hedonism, Kant is not only against the hedonistic tradition of a proper, ethical thought. He has in mind some of the common ideological ideas, principles, and orientation in various systems, in everyday life.
In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant abstractly describes the contradiction between causality as a manifestation of the laws of nature and freedom. This is one of the cosmological antinomies, i.e. those which are pertaining to space; more precisely, it is the situation with freedom of a man in a boundless space. However, now the conflict condition and freedom advocates in his other incarnation, which is typical for a human action. Moreover, the actions of any person, regardless of the empirical individual-personal specifics, social and historical circumstances, distinguish the running world.
2. Principle of Falsifiability according to Mr. Popper
Many people formed a demand image of Mr. Popper as a philosopher of science, physics, mathematics, logic, and analysis of the growth of scientific knowledge, a rationalist, and a fierce opponent of metaphysics, who developed a demarcation criterion of falsification science. In 1935, in Vienna, the Popper’s book The logic of scientific research was published. Referring to many different problems in the theory of knowledge, Popper focused on refuting the two main pillars of logical positivism: principles of verification and conventionalism.
Essentially, Popper borrowed conclusions for a materialist Bacon F. in the 17th century on the enormous role of the knowledge of the facts (and their ascertaining) which deny this or that position which is already known. After all, even a very large number of supporting evidence in respect of a statement obtained by inductive generalization makes it very likely, but still not firmly reliable. In this case, only one, but undisputedly refutable fact to this inductive generalization is enough to be discarded as useless. A simple example of this is the transformation of a simple statement “All swans are white” into false when it was revealed that black swans live in Australia. Unequal “power” and role in the verification of meaning and validity of scientific theories that are inherent in confirming and refuting factors were called by Popper as “cognitive asymmetries”.
On the basis of this “asymmetry”, Popper proclaimed a replacement principle of verification (i.e., a positive test conducted; in other words, confirmation), a principle of falsification (i.e. just as real ongoing denial). It means that the test of scientific understanding and then the validity of scientific theories should be done, however, not through their confirmation, but mainly (if not exclusively) through their denial.
Popper closely linked his attacks on the principle of verification not only with critics to the one-sidedness of inductivism and psychology in the theory of knowledge (where he was to some extent right), but also to a denial of materialism and the theory of the development of knowledge as an ascent from relative to absolute truths. However, in his calculations he assumed that the principle of falsification is confirmed, i.e. verified.
The idea of determinism was already implicitly present in the forwarded Logik der Forschung (1934) methodology of falsificationism: the theories can be refuted at any time, no matter what a stern test they have been put though in the past. Inductivism and “confirming” methodology of logical empiricism assumed determinism. Released in 1950, Popper's article “Indeterminism in quantum physics and classical physics”, where it was proved that not only modern quantum but also classical physics was indeterministic, marked the adoption of Popper of both physical and metaphysical indeterminism. We will not deal with the first: Popper expressed many interesting ideas as debated by philosophers of science and scientists. We focus our attention on the problems of metaphysical determinism. Hence, the principle of falsificationism is more consistent with the objective errors in probabilistic calculus of possible events. This caused a negative reaction of Reichenbach, insisting on probabilistic safety study of induction. In 1950, Carnap published a book Logical Foundation of Probability, in which he sided with Reichenbach.
Finally, Popper's philosophy is not only critical, but it is polemical. Constructive ideas in it were always hatched in the fraud and denial of someone's views, such as logical positivists, totalitarian ideology, linguistic philosophers and others. In the 60-70's, his critical gaze was caught by Anglophone philosophy, which began an attack on the “last bastion” of traditional philosophy – philosophy of consciousness. Its meaning can be determined by Riley J.: “A tale of two worlds is a myth”. Therefore, it can be agreed that a falsificationism method has a right to exist since it is always easier to support something with proofs, than to confirm something through denial.