It seems to me that there is everywhere an attempt at present to divert attention from the actual influence which Kant exercised on German philosophy, and especially to ignore prudently the value which he set upon himself. Kant was first and foremost proud of his Table of Categories; with it in his hand he said: "This is the most difficult thing that could ever be undertaken on behalf of metaphysics."
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is considered one of the most (if not the most), influential philosophers of all-time. Many philosophers after Kant based their entire philosophies on Kant's Table of Categories, hence entire cultures arose as result of Kant.
Nietzsche points out Kant had an abundant pride. Kant identifies his own work (the transcendental induction) as possibly the most difficult thing yet to be undertaken thus far in metaphysics. This induced enormous awe and stirred German pride.
Let us only understand this "could be"! He was proud of having DISCOVERED a new faculty in man, the faculty of synthetic judgment a priori. Granting that he deceived himself in this matter; the development and rapid flourishing of German philosophy depended nevertheless on his pride, and on the eager rivalry of the younger generation to discover if possible something—at all events "new faculties"—of which to be still prouder!—
Kant's pride is contagious for young philosophers. They believe that Kant's discovery of the faculty of synthetic judgement could be the most important contribution to metaphysics. But, because it only could be, German philosophers threw themselves onto Kant's path in hopes of finding the most important contribution. Driven by their own pride, they set out to “discover” new apriori faculties, thereby continuing the work of Kant.
But let us reflect for a moment—it is high time to do so. "How are synthetic judgments a priori POSSIBLE?" Kant asks himself—and what is really his answer? "BY MEANS OF A MEANS (faculty)"—but unfortunately not in five words, but so circumstantially, imposingly, and with such display of German profundity and verbal flourishes, that one altogether loses sight of the comical niaiserie allemande involved in such an answer. People were beside themselves with delight over this new faculty, and the jubilation reached its climax when Kant further discovered a moral faculty in man—for at that time Germans were still moral, not yet dabbling in the "Politics of hard fact."
Let's take a closer look at Kant's claim. How did he discovery synthetic judgement? He did so by a “means of a means (faculty)." However, Kant doesn't use five words to say this; he was garrulous! He wrote in profundity and appealed to the proud spirit of German overabundance and foolishness.
And when Kant saw the jubilation over his new faculty, he went one deeper: he announced the discovery of an even newer moral faculty! The German people must have been in awe over such an accomplishment!
Then came the honeymoon of German philosophy. All the young theologians of the Tubingen institution went immediately into the groves—all seeking for "faculties." And what did they not find—in that innocent, rich, and still youthful period of the German spirit, to which Romanticism, the malicious fairy, piped and sang, when one could not yet distinguish between "finding" and "inventing"! Above all a faculty for the "transcendental"; Schelling christened it, intellectual intuition, and thereby gratified the most earnest longings of the naturally pious-inclined Germans. One can do no greater wrong to the whole of this exuberant and eccentric movement (which was really youthfulness, notwithstanding that it disguised itself so boldly, in hoary and senile conceptions), than to take it seriously, or even treat it with moral indignation. Enough, however—the world grew older, and the dream vanished. A time came when people rubbed their foreheads, and they still rub them today. People had been dreaming, and first and foremost—old Kant. "By means of a means (faculty)"—he had said, or at least meant to say. But, is that—an answer? An explanation? Or is it not rather merely a repetition of the question? How does opium induce sleep? "By means of a means (faculty)," namely the virtus dormitiva, replies the doctor in Moliere,
Quia est in eo virtus dormitiva, Cujus est natura sensus assoupire.
You could say the idea of “faculties” went viral. All German philosophers aimed their studies at the discovery of new “faculties,” and this is all due to Kant. However, over time, the idea of faculty waned. Soon the German people regained their wits and returned to the basic idea Kant laid before them: “By means of a means." And now looking at it with new eyes, they saw that the answer Kant provided was simply a restatement of the question itself; nothing more.
For example, why does opium induce sleep? The physician Moliere replies in a Kantian way: “Because there is a dormative faculty in it, whose nature is to put the senses to sleep." By simply stating a faculty exists for the function is in some way comedic.
But such replies belong to the realm of comedy, and it is high time to replace the Kantian question, "How are synthetic judgments a PRIORI possible?" by another question, "Why is belief in such judgments necessary?"—in effect, it is high time that we should understand that such judgments must be believed to be true, for the sake of the preservation of creatures like ourselves; though they still might naturally be false judgments! Or, more plainly spoken, and roughly and readily—synthetic judgments a priori should not "be possible" at all; we have no right to them; in our mouths they are nothing but false judgments. Only, of course, the belief in their truth is necessary, as plausible belief and ocular evidence belonging to the perspective view of life.
Instead of asking "how are synthetic judgements a priori possible?", we should instead ask, “why are these judgements necessary?" These judgements are only necessary for those Germans who believe them to be necessary! It doesn't matter whether they are “true” or “false.” In the end, it comes down the a conviction, a wanting to believe.
And finally, to call to mind the enormous influence which "German philosophy"—I hope you understand its right to inverted commas (goosefeet)?—has exercised throughout the whole of Europe, there is no doubt that a certain VIRTUS DORMITIVA had a share in it; thanks to German philosophy, it was a delight to the noble idlers, the virtuous, the mystics, the artiste, the three-fourths Christians, and the political obscurantists of all nations, to find an antidote to the still overwhelming sensualism which overflowed from the last century into this, in short—"sensus assoupire."...
So what did Kant achieve? He gave German philosophy a means for defeating sensualism. By claiming the essence of the universe lies in these synthetic apriori judgements (in reason), he gave an answer that comforted the “noble idlers, the virtous, the mystics, the artiste..." He gave them a reason to continue to live by their own prejudices and convictions.
To reply you need to sign in.