The Synthetic A Priori Judgment
The possibility of metaphysics is the possibility to grasp the Idea. It is the question whether we can grasp analogously the principle of life or not. It must be Kant's mistake that he replaced this question to the possibility to the synthetic a priori judgment. For, metaphysics relates to the grasp of life, which does not directly relates to the synthetic a priori judgment of mathematics or physics.
Thus he formulated this problem: "How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?" His solution, in essence, was that experience provides the content (the synthetic element) and the mind provides the structure (the a priori element) that determines the way in which the content will be organized and understood.
Freedom and Morality
If we are determined by natural necessity, we have no freedom as if it were the action of insect dominated by regulated instinct. If there is no freedom of will, there is no room for choice, where there is no responsibility. However, even if the choice is not a complete obedience to moral law, we can still choose our direction towards moral perfection. Hence there is morality and also freedom.
Freedom belongs to our rational side, while necessity belongs to our sensible side. Freedom is the self-cause that can intend in any way a purpose for life.
Kant's human being is torn between the sensible being and the rational being. The sensible side tends to follow inclination and impulse, while the rational side tries to respond to moral law. The Paradigm of Christ gives clearer view how this human situation occurs. In the diagram of the Paradigm of Christ, life develops itself through the diametrical movement of division and unity. At the moment of division, as life deviates from the ground heading towards the edge of life, it is painful for life to obey the moral law. On the contrary, at the moment of unity, life responds easily to the request of moral law. The moral impulse towards unity establishes the intelligible order.
The Paradigm of Christ is the radical structure of morality. It grasps life's dialectical movement in the context of the radical structure between the good that encourages life's integration and the evil that induces its destruction. The possibility of metaphysics what Kant says is in such a practical model.
Reverence to Moral Law
The feeling of reverence occurs when we make ourselves humble. The reverence to the moral law is a very important characteristic in Kant's moral philosophy. This is originated through the influence of the reverence to humanity in Rousseau's confession.
In preface of "the memorandum regarding the emotion of the beauty and the sublime", Kant wrote as follows. "I am a scholar in nature. I desire to know and be obsessed by greedy anxiety of wanting to know things, or even be satisfied with every step of knowing. I once believed that only such acquisition of knowledge could form the honor of man, and contempt the ignorant people. Rousseau made me return to the right track. I learned to respect human, and at the same time my blinded arrogance vanished. If I do not believe that such a reverence can raise the human right while acknowledging the value to all other people, I will regard myself as much more useless than mere laborers." This acute self-criticism is a reflection of his inner conversion. Kant was here morally reborn. To hold reverence to ordinary people for the sake of their sincerity is virtually to keep our mind humble. Our intellectual arrogance tends to evade and neglect such a reality.
In the diagram of the Paradigm of Christ, the feeling of humbleness leads our mind to the characteristic of innocence. To pay respect or reverence to moral law is making our attitude to be humble. In other words, through the attitude conversion from arrogance to humbleness, he could awaken himself and discovered the integration of life and could see the autonomy of will. Thus he could establish the categorical imperative unconditionally while clearly distinguishing the conditional imperative as inferior.
The vertical intention from the surface to the depth consciousness that motivates at the center of Kant's moral philosophy encouraged him to elucidate the moral context of metaphysical human situation separated between the phenomenal and the noumenal, and the sensational and the intelligible.
When the life's movement becomes dominant towards the unity, life becomes cooperative to keep the moral law. It is the autonomous will that try to identify itself with the Good. It is the actualization of the universal will. On the contrary, when the self-expansive impulse is dominant, as we are more involved in the inclination, obeying the moral law becomes burden for us. It is such a moment that the categorical imperative compulsory asks us to return to the moral law as the voice of conscience.
Thing in Itself
According to Kant, we cannot have a good grasp of the world of thing in itself theoretically. However, we can still indirectly grasp the nature of thing in itself. Because the state of life's integration depicted through the structure of life's impulse is moral, as it is basically the same as the world of thing in itself, we can confirm the basic structure of it. This is actually the metaphorical system of the Gospel.
When Kant says that he cannot perceive the thing in itself, it means that he does not perceive the nature of reality directly, hence does not understand the structure of the Idea. He does, however, understand that the essential characteristic of the Idea is nothing but moral. Therefore, he tried to establish the foundation of the metaphysics based on morality and placed the finality of nature as the principle of reflective judgment.
The Finality of Nature in Reflective Judgment
It is fairly obvious that the finality of nature and the nature of light are identical. Through placing the notion of light in the context of Kantian aesthetics, we will confirm what virtually unites between phenomenal world and the noumenal world is life's integration as light.
In Kant's notion of the finality of nature, we must remark the two contexts where he uses this term. Those contexts are given respectively in aesthetic and teleological judgment. The reason why we feel pleasure in harmony between understanding and imagination when we see a beautiful object is because the object agree with the unity of life based on light that we innately have as a priori principle. When the teleological judgment observes organic body through the objective finality, it observes the finality that heads towards the unity of life as light. In these two different uses of the finality of nature as a teleological principle, the meaning of finality, after all, comes from the same source: light. It is life's integration as light that accomplishes its own purpose through the use of reflective judgment.
The finality of nature is the guiding principle that leads the aesthetic and teleological judgment. The finality of nature consists of light. The essence of the finality of nature is light. The recognition of beauty depends on our discovery of harmony towards light that is integrated being. The beauty, after all, is in accordance with light, as well as the good is in accordance with light.
The harmony between imagination and understanding in aesthetic judgment is the identity with the finality of nature, which is the a priori principle of reflective judgment. The finality of nature is, after all, another name of light, the united energy with its components. It is, therefore, the identity with our inner unity of life.
The existence of finality in organic body is formed through integrating intention of life. This is also the result of life's acceptance of light. In this way, through life's integration based on light, we can take a united view between Kant's metaphysics and Critique of Judgment. The a priori principle that unites the natural world and the intelligible world is life's integration caused by light.
The Good and Morality
It is not accidental that both Plato and Kant regarded the intelligible world as the good and the moral. They respectively depicted the same reality as life's integration in their own terms. At the limit of human thinking, both of them penetrate the central characteristic of the Ultimate Reality as moral.
However, both Plato and Kant did not elucidate the ontological structure of the Good. They did not concretely determine what the good is in terms of archetypal movement of life. Just as Plato's the Good has no concrete content, so Kant's categorical imperative is merely a formal definition of morality. They did not determine the radical structure of the good and the evil in terms of life's impulse. The foundation of the metaphysics of moral can be established only through the elucidation of the structure of life. In other words, it is the determination of archetypal movement in accordance with the teleological nature of light, also the determination of the life's integration in the context of such archetypal movement contrasting between the destruction and the integration,
Reason and the Self
Kant's Reason resembles Jung's the Self. Reason is the totality of the higher function of the mind, which holds guiding role of the mind. In Jung, the Self is the totality of the archetypes in the collective unconscious, pursuing a guiding function for the ego to choose and judge the things in the world. Aristotle's form is also immanent in the individual and guides its becoming from inside the individual.
Kant penetrates that Christ is the Idea. Kant insists that religion has to be based on the Idea. It is the Idea that human has to be at one with. Even Jesus himself cannot be equal with the Idea. Religion becomes universal only if we take the Idea as the model of the religion. In Christianity as the revelatory religion, Jesus is considered to be the incarnation of the Idea.
"From the practical point of view, this idea is completely real in its own right, for it resides in our morally-legislative reason." (p.55 Religion within the Limit of Mere Reason)
It is the ability of Reason that produces this Idea. Reason as life's integration is moral and its genuine and intense nature of Reason necessarily creates the law of encouragement of life. The externalized Idea is the archetype of the Self that revealed the structure already existed within us.
"We need, therefore, no empirical example to make the idea of a person morally well-pleasing to God our archetype; this idea as an archetype is already present in our reason." (p.56 Religion within the Limit of Mere Reason) Kant grasps the principle of morality as the diametrical discrepancy in human nature between duty and inclination, or the good will and disposition to the evil. He represents its structural aspect with the practical reason. So he grasps morality as the Idea even though still undifferentiated compared to the Paradigm of Christ. For Kant, Jesus can be seen as the incarnation of the Idea.
The Paradigm of Christ grasps the Gospel as the structure of the Idea. The idea is the transcendental structure of life. It confirms that the Idea is represented as the structure of the story.