God’s existence vs. God’s non-existence is one of Kant’s 4 “antinomies of pure reason”. So look up “Kant’s Antinomies” on Google.
"Soul" is English for the Greek word "psyche" and the Latin "animus". Aristotle tells the readers of his work "Peri Psyches" [About souls; or "On The Soul"] that those who consider life to be like "fire" take ZEIN (to boil) as their term for "life principle" [And why Greeks called animals ZOON] whereas those who consider life to be more like moisture and coolness take the term PSYCHE to mean "life principle" from KATAPSYXIS which means "to refrigerate" [Peri Psyches; BK I, Ch. 2. 405b lines 26 -29].
Kant’s parents belonged to a “Pietist” sect of Christians, but after their deaths he didn’t attend services. So it is dubious that he concerned himself with religious questions like immortality (of human souls) either before or after Hume allegedly “woke him from his dogmatic slumbers”, which were not religious in character.
His actual “dogmas” were Logic, in the tradition of Christian Wolff, and Metaphysics, since he held the chair of logic and metaphysics at Konigsberg University —- after being turned down for the Mathematics-Chair.
Kant was “oddly” disturbed by Hume. Hume was a bright enough, despite refusing to distinguish sensitive from intellectual powers —- which is WHY he was called an “empiricist” [“The senses originate knowledge.”]. But Hume was primarily a literary critic and a historical revisionist, who annoyed competent British empiricists, such as Priestley [the discover of oxygen]. So Hume wasn’t an actual empiricist. He was a logical sceptic whom Kant couldn’t refute. So Kant developed an elaborate “Critique of Pure Reason”, to accept/justify Hume’s sceptical premisses but “refute” Hume’s conclusions —- a strange work.
To underscore Kant’s “oddness” one only need look at the opening lines of his much easier to read [than “The Critique…”] “Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals.” [another absurd “critique” of Hume’s explication of the IS [metaphysical] OUGHT [moral] fallacy of moral misreasoning], quote:
Ancient Greek philosophy was divided into 3 SCIENCES: physics, ethics and logic. This division conforms perfectly to the nature of the subject [What subject? KB], and one need improve upon it [What “it”? Greek philosophy? KB] perhaps only by supplying its principle … [Foundation… Preface IV, 387].
The above is a complete and utter Kantian fiction/fantasy. The Greek sciences par excellence were GEOMETRY and ARITHMETIC, which Kant fails to mention —- possibly because he was turned down for the Mathematics “Chair” (?)!!! Physics was a mess of contradictory and contrary theses, prior to Aristotle —- so much so that Socrates refused to further consider “physical speculations” [i.e. theoretical physics] after being disappointed by Anaxagoras’s “INCONSISTENCY” [Phaedo 97c - 99a]. Ethics was never considered a “science” by any of the ancient Greeks, quote
"And goods also give rise to similar fluctuations because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth and others by reason of their courage. We must be content then in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are ONLY FOR THE MOST PART TRUE and with PREMISSES OF THE SAME KIND to reach conclusions that are NO BETTER … it is evidently equally foolish to accept PROBABLE REASONING from a MATHEMATICIAN and to demand from a RHETORICIAN SCIENTIFIC PROOFS." [Nicomachean ETHICS, BK I, Ch. 3. 1094b lines 19 - 28]
Post Aristotle, abstract mathematics, physics and cosmology/theology were SCIENCES to ancient Greeks [Metaphysics BK VI, Ch. 1; 1026a lines 18 - 20; “There must then be 3 theoretical philosophies, mathematics, physics and what we may call theology…”]. Fairly liberally (for modern liberals) Aristotle admitted that if his “Prime Mover” [God; Theos/Zeus; Deus in Latin] did not exist, then Physics [The science of nature/phusis] would be the “first science” and Mathematics the “2nd science”. Even the alleged “discoverer” of Logic (Aristotle) didn’t call it a SCIENCE, but, rather, an “art” derived from analysing grammar and rhetoric.
Read Kant at your peril. He is one of the major reasons as to why “Germans” have started 2 World Wars within fairly recent memory and are the worst “political scientists” or “ethicists” possible. But they are good at physics and industry —- which makes them dangerous —- having power but lacking wisdom. Germans [to overgeneralize] don’t understand “Western Philosophy” and one of the big reasons for that failure is IMMANUEL KANT.
There’s something odd about being suspended thousands of miles above water or land and being completly comfortable and secure. The feeling is almost a contradiction of your real placement in space.
I’m over the Atlantic and it is so beautiful to watch the sunrise. When flying at a speed that surpasses the suns appearance it’s kind of like chasing time. It seems to me that at a constant speed properly maintained, one could live in a world of their prefered time of day. I would like to live my life at this time right now, on a plane, half asleep, with my family, surrounded by strangers, and a familiar sunrise
Per Plato’s ship of state metaphor, there are congruent facets on the ship that can be interpreted as a view of democratic governance. With the owner/captain of the ship having qualities of mediocrity and gullibility and an understanding of Plato’s perspectives on the greater part of society being average, this metaphor suggests that this ship owner is representative of society at large. As the quarreling sailors scheme and execute the owner with poison and drink, Socrates begins to show us the type of leaders that this dichotomy germinates. Due to the manner in which the sailors take lead of the ship, Socrates suggests that it wouldn’t be very wrong to think of Athen’s political leaders are similar to the sailors and the men deemed “stargazers” by Athenian leaders are the truest captains (pg.192). Knowing that the Athen’s of Socratic and Platonic time periods was an admissive direct democracy, we can further ascribe this metaphor to Plato’s criticism of Athenian democracy. Plato’s metaphor of the ship and state is this argument: when persuasion, murder, and coercion are viable mechanics of validating leaders, then leaders will be rather skilled in said mechanics than the necessary skills of a leader. The leaders of democracy will be skilled in becoming leaders and not skilled in being leaders. This criticism of democracy can be validated in many modern instances. For example, the issue of campaign donation quantities being a direct factor in the election of an American politicians. With Plato’s arguments, these American leaders become skilled in campaign donation acquistion which is an irrelevant factor in political leadership. The American politician that wins by virtue of capital and its ability to persuade voters with exposure is symmetrical to the sailor that coerces the position of captaincy.