A Fresh Look at the Position of the Thing-in-Itself According to Kant and Hegel Based on the Metaphysical Foundations of David Bohm’s Quantum Physics

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D Student of philosophy, Department of Western philosophy, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Uuniversity of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

2 Ph. D of philosophy, Department of Western philosophy, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Uuniversity of Isfahan, Iran

3 Professor of Philosophy, Department of Theology, Faculty of Humanities and Law, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Kant addressed the distinction between the two domains of phenomena and the thing-in-itself by considering time and space as two conditions of cognition. The result of such a distinction, which is the basis of his transcendental idealism school, was limiting cognition to the domain of phenomena and the impossibility of cognition of reality and the thing-in-itself. As the greatest philosopher of the modern period, and by adopting such an approach, Kant left unanswered the acute duality which he had inherited from his predecessors and left his successors to encounter this problem; the most important of these successors was Hegel. Hegel, who considered duality to be the source of the need for philosophy and his school to be comprehensive of the previous philosophies, holds the establishment of such a comprehensive philosophy to requisite prevalence over dichotomies where the central point of such shortcomings was that very duality that was present within them. By establishing the school of absolute idealism and through the belief in the essential foundation in which the mind and external reality are unified, he saw both the underlying duality in Aristotelian and Platonic thought to be an obstacle for the actualization of his absolute ideal, as well as Kant’s thing-in-itself. Therefore, he denied the thing-in-itself by acknowledging its contradictoriness; however, he was then faced with the challenges that arose from omitting it. These challenges include deducing nature from logic as well as the issue of the existing probabilities in nature; in the first instance, we are faced with the problem of how particular nature can be deduced from general absolute thought and in the second with the problem that Hegel does not provide a rational solution for the existing probabilities in nature. These very challenges move us towards a fresh look at the thing-in-itself according to David Bohm as one of the greatest physicists of Quantum Physics. He studies the thing-in-itself by distinguishing between the two views of ontology and epistemology, the result of which was the distinction between the whole (as reality) and things (as phenomena). Through this distinction, in the ontological approach, he considers the essence of the whole (foundational reality) to transcend the mind and matter and thus, unknowable (the transcendental idealism stance) and denies the possibility actualization of Hegel’s absolute idealism; the result of this is acceptance of Kant’s thing-in-itself. In the epistemological approach too, despite being aligned with Hegel, he considers holomovement to consist of a dynamic movement. However, he departs from Hegel’s view (supposing a human being to be a carrier of the geist and the possibility of the actualization of absolute knowledge) and chooses Kant’s by distinguishing between two types of dynamics (1. The dynamics present in normal incidents and things and 2. The dynamics present in the holomovement). The results of such a study include the following: a) the possibility of addressing some metaphysical issues in the new age and evaluating them through scientific-philosophical criteria; b) strengthening Kant’s stance regarding the thing-in-itself; 3) the overlap of the relationship between physics and philosophy in the study of existence and reality as a common matter that is discussable in both domains and d) the limitation of human thought in the cognition of the true foundation of the universe.

Keywords


Appel, M. (1375 AP/1996-97). Sharhi bar Tamhidat-i Kant (Muqaddame-yi bar Falsafe-yi Intiqadi) [An introduction to critical philosophy] (vol. 1). (M. R. Huseini Beheshti, Trans.). Tehran: Markaz-i Nashr-i Daneshgahi. [In Persian]
Beiser, F. (1391 AP/2012-13). Hegel, 1st ed. (M. Huseini, Trans.). Tehran: Quqnous Publications. [In Persian]
Beiser, F. (1993). The Cambridge Companion to Hegel. Printed in the united state of America. University Cambridge press.
Bohm, D. & Hiley, B.J. (1998). The undivided universe: published in London and New York.
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate order: London and New York: Routledge classics.
Copleston, F. (1375 AP/1996-97). Az Fishte ta Niche [Fichte to Nietzsche], 2nd ed. (D. Ashuri, Trans.). Tehran: Ilmi va Farhangi & Suroush Publications. [In Persian]
Copleston, F. (1370AP).Tarikh-i Falsafe (Filsoofan-i Inglisi) [History of Philosophy, (English philosophers)], Vol. 5 (A.Jalal al- Din Alam, Trans.). Tehran: Elmi Farhangi & Soroush. [In Persian]
Gulshani, M. (1385 AP/2006-07). Tahlili az Didgah-hayi Falsafi-yi Fizikdanan-i Muʿasir [an analysis of the philosophical views of contemporary physicists], 2nd ed. Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies Publications. [In Persian]
Hegel, G (1977).Hegel s Phenomenology of spirit: tr.A. V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1390 AP/2011-12). Padidar Shenasi-yi Jan [The Phenomenology of Spirit], 2nd ed. (B. Barham, Trans.). Tehran: Kando Kar Publications. [In Persian]
Inwood, M.J. (2002). Hegel: London and NewYork: Routledge.
Jaspers, K. (1372 AP/1993-94). Kant. (M. A. H. Naqibzadeh, Trans.). Tehran: Tahuri. [In Persian]
Kant, I. (1362 AP/1983-84). Sanjish-i Khirad-i Nab [A Critique of Pure Reason]. (A. Soltani, Trans.). Tehran: Amir Kabir. [In Persian]
Kant, I. (1388 AP/2009-10). Tamhidat (Muqaddame-yi baraye har Mabaʿd al-Tabiʿa-yi Ayende ke baraye Yek ʿIlm Arze Shawad) [Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics]. (G. A. Haddad Adil, Trans.). Tehran: Markaz-i Nashr-i Daneshgahi. [In Persian]
Kant, I. (1996). Critique of pure Reason. (Trans by Werevs). Pluhar. Indianapolish, Hackeett publishing company.
Kant, I. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason. (Tr. & Ed.) P.Guyer & A. wood. Cambridge University Pres.
Miller, A.V. (1969). Hegel's science of logic: NewYork, Humanity Book Publication.
Nichol, L. (2003). The Essential David Bohm: London and NewYork: Routledge.
Norman, R. (1976). Hegel s Phenomenologh a Philosophical Introduction: Great Britian Sussex University Press.
Singer, p. (1389 AP/2010-11). Hegel, 1st ed. (I. A. Fouladmand, Trans.). Tehran: Tarh-i No Publications. [In Persian]
Stace, W.T. (1388AP).Falsafe-i [Hegels Philosophy].Vol.2, 7th ed., (H.Enayat, Trans).Tehran: Elmi Farhangi Publishing Co. [In Persian]
Tahmasibi, S. (2017). The Metaphysical Foundation of David Bohm’s Quantum Physics. Philosophical Meditations, 7(18), 125-155. [In Persian]
Talbot, M. (1387 AP/2008-09). Jahan-i Holografik [The Holographic Universe], 5th ed. (D. Mehrjuyi, Trans.). Tehran: Hermes Publications. [In Persian]
Talbot, M. (1390 AP/2011-12). ʿIrfan va Fizik-i Jadid [Mysticism and the New Physics], 2nd ed. (D. Mehrjuyi, Trans.). Tehran: Hermes Publications. [In Persian]
Taylor, C. (1392 AP/2013-14). Hegel va Jamiʿe-yi Modern [Hegel and Modern Society], 4th ed. (M. Haqiqi, Trans.). Tehran: Markaz Publication. [In Persian]
Wallace, William. (1975). Hegel's logic: New York. Oxford university press.
 
CAPTCHA Image