02.09.2013 Views

stankovic, sasa thesis.pdf - Atrium - University of Guelph

stankovic, sasa thesis.pdf - Atrium - University of Guelph

stankovic, sasa thesis.pdf - Atrium - University of Guelph

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

pathologically” (CPR 802/B830). Is not the essence <strong>of</strong> all pathology the inability to will? The<br />

material-will is a lower will in the sense that it is not a will at all. How does a will become higher<br />

will? That the will is pathologically affected does not mean that it is necessitated. “For a will is<br />

sensuous, in so far as it is pathologically affected, i.e. by sensuous motives; it is animal<br />

(arbitrium brutum), if it can be pathologically necessitated. The human will is certainly an<br />

arbitrium sensitivum, not, however, brutum but liberum. For sensibility does not necessitate its<br />

action” (CPR A534/B562). Something other than the matter <strong>of</strong> the will must determine the will<br />

for it to be a will at all.<br />

The will becomes the higher will when it is determined by something that is true <strong>of</strong> the<br />

human will as such. But what is that? No matter <strong>of</strong> the will is true <strong>of</strong> the human will as such no<br />

matter how many people agree on it. “But suppose that finite rational being were thoroughly<br />

agreed with respect to what they had to take as objects <strong>of</strong> their feelings <strong>of</strong> pleasure and pain and<br />

even with respect to the means they must use to obtain the first and avoid the other;…this<br />

unanimity would still only be contingent. The determining ground would still be only<br />

subjectively valid and merely empirical and would not have that necessity which is thought in<br />

every law, namely objective necessity from a priori grounds…” (CPrR5:26). In other words, no<br />

matter <strong>of</strong> the will is true <strong>of</strong> the human will as such even if all people agreed on the matter. But<br />

what is it then that is true <strong>of</strong> the will as such? Nothing other than the form <strong>of</strong> willing itself. In<br />

other words, the only thing that is true <strong>of</strong> the human will as such is the willing itself. “Now, all<br />

that remains <strong>of</strong> a law if one separates from it everything material, that is, every object <strong>of</strong> the will<br />

(as its determining ground), is the mere form <strong>of</strong> giving the universal law” (CPrR 5:27). Therefore<br />

Kant’s point is that the will becomes higher will when it is determined by the form <strong>of</strong> willing<br />

itself. “All material practical rules put the determining ground <strong>of</strong> the will in the lower faculty <strong>of</strong><br />

95

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!