Home
Mobile version
spiked plus
About spiked
What is spiked?
Support spiked
spiked shop
Contact us
Advertising
Summer school
Top issues
Abortion
Arab uprisings
British politics
Child abuse panic
Economy
Environment
For Europe, Against the EU
Free speech
Jimmy Savile scandal
Nudge
Obesity
Parents and kids
Population
USA
View all issues...
special feature
The Counter-Leveson Inquiry
other sections
 Letters
 Review of Books
 Monthly archive
selected authors
Duleep Allirajah
Daniel Ben-Ami
Tim Black
Jennie Bristow
Sean Collins
Dr Michael Fitzpatrick
Frank Furedi
Helene Guldberg
Patrick Hayes
Mick Hume
Rob Lyons
Brendan O’Neill
Nathalie Rothschild
James Woudhuysen
more authors...
RSS feed
survey

abc def ghi jkl mno pqrs tuv wxyz index
Survey home
Introduction
Survey responses
RSS feed
Anjana Ahuja
Julian Baggini
Philip Ball
Marlene Oscar Berman
Gustav VR Born
K Eric Drexler
Marcus Du Sautoy
Edmond H Fischer
John Hall
Tim Hunt
Wolfgang Ketterle
Leon Lederman
Matt Ridley
Raymond Tallis
Frank Wilczek
Lewis Wolpert
Julian Baggini
writer, journalist and editor of The Philosophers’ Magazine


Kant is a notoriously complex thinker, but he glossed his greatest contribution to philosophy in just two, crystal-clear sentences: ‘Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects . . . We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of metaphysics, if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge.’

The consequences of this ‘Copernican revolution in metaphysics’ are still being felt today. At one extreme, there are those who take the lesson of Kant to be that objectivity is a complete impossibility, and that all supposed knowledge is merely created, and more often than not an expression of power. Others take the lesson in a more sober way and claim that all Kant requires of us is to give up on a hopeless quest to know ‘things in themselves’ independent of experience. But that doesn’t require total scepticism about truth and objectivity. It simply requires a more subtle understanding of what these notions mean, and an acceptance that we cannot achieve a ‘god’s eye view’ of reality.

Those who claim to be carrying the flame of the Enlightenment often ignore the insight of one of that movement’s greatest thinkers. We have become reluctant to admit that knowledge is essentially framed by the human mind for fear of sliding down a slippery slope that ends with the irrationality of total relativism. But unless we take into account Kant’s Copernican revolution, our paeans to reason and truth will amount to no more than naïve praise of a long-dead myth.