Christian D Andre

Dr. Miller

Senior Seminar

December 18, 2018

Meaning and the role of subjectivity

This paper will be exploring values, and their role in more objective fields, such as sci-

ence and philosophy. I will begin by articulating the direction this paper will be taking, con-

trasting it with other potential avenues. I will then introduce various philosophers on the topic,

and critique them. I will conclude with my own stance, along with its defense.

To begin, it is important to articulate where this paper is going. This paper can be under-

stood through a metaphor. Consider it like fog on a rainy day. It is difficult to stare directly at the

fog itself, but is more easily noticed by staring at a distant object, such as a tree. In fixating on

the tree, we can understand the fog and its place in the air. The tree can be understood as objec-

tive reality. It is that which we attempt to perceive in its fullest. The fog is our own subjectivity,

and personal experience through the senses.

The dilemma is that areas that aim to study the world as it actually is involve a level of

personal bias. In science, hypotheses are evaluated on grounds that seem subjective, such as in-

ference to the best explanation. Consider the following example. A man awakes late one night to

hear a loud noise. He considers the fact that he is in an area that has a high crime rate, and as-

sumes that he is being burglarized. He considers this the most likely explanation to the loud

noise. However, even though the probability is lower, it is not out of the question that the man

left his window open, and a cat came in and knocked over his cabinet. In this way, the man made

an assumption could have been false.

 There are also seemingly subjective criteria in the sciences. Simplicity is a major factor

that is praised. If a theory can make more predictions with fewer complications, it is held in

higher regard. On what grounds should such a factor be valued over complexity? What makes it

more likely that the world is simpler, rather than more complex? In an area that aims to discover

reality as it truly is, these criteria seem uncomfortably subjective. What, if anything, should we

make of these observations?

The heart of this dilemma is a paradox concerning objectivity and subjectivity. The issue

lies within the fact that neither one can be truly separated from the other. If one attempts to be

purely objective, escaping subjectivity, one winds up in absurdity. The further one advances into

objectivity, the more absurd life appears to become. It would eventually lead to the question of

why objectivity itself is even of value. In this way, objectivity appears to be an enemy of mean-

ing. The further one goes into it, the further from meaning one becomes. As an example, con-

sider a scientist, who looks at life solely in terms of objective facts. Such a person might say that

life is a process of being born, growing up, creating other humans, and dying. He might create an

understanding of love as a chemical which encourages animals to breed, missing out on its pas-

sions. Thus, the more focused on objectivity he becomes, the further he grows from meaning.

Yet, if we, after reading the above paragraph, assume that value lies in pure subjectivity,

then chaos arises. For, if each individual’s values are the highest imperative, how can agreements

be reached? What grounds are there on which to establish a hierarchy of values? Are the criteria

for such grounds not also subjective? This creates similar absurdity, where order cannot be estab-

lished, because any hierarchy can be dismantled due to the fact that its grounds for justification

are subjective. For, the more subjective values become, the more deviation there is from person
to person. One person might make a priority where another would not. Thus, the more subjective

matters become, the more we become lost in the deviation from person to person.

Herein lies a paradox, because one cannot effectively chose subjectivity or objectivity

without coming to a point that does not work. The next section will be various philosophers, and

their responses to this issue. I will provide their account, along with its defenses, and critique.

Kierkegaard

The first person to explore is Kierkegaard. He argued for the notion of a subjectivity

higher than objectivity. Being a Christian, he described this subjectivity terms of faith in God.

His main example was that of Abraham, who had to defy his objective understanding of morality

by committing himself to killing his son, Isaac. Anyone who has is familiar with the Bible knows

that he did not end up having to kill his son, but at the time he did not know God’s plan. There-

fore, he had to fully embrace this contradiction of his understanding of life. It required a suspen-

sion of everything that seems to make sense, and choosing a faith that something higher exists in

its place.

Kierkegaard explains his view in terms of three tiers of existence. The first is the aes-

thetic. This is the tier in which humans begin life. Their concerns are of physical pleasures, such

as sugar and alcohol. This is the lowest tier, and is nothing of particular significance. It is as nec-

essary as the first step of a ladder, from which one begins one’s climb towards greater things.

The second of these tiers is the realm of the ethical. Reason lies in this tier. It is the area

in which one attempts to follow that which makes sense to oneself and others. There is a certain

amount of assurance in this tier, as even if others disagree, others can understand one’s reason-
ing, having a deeper level of understanding for one’s actions. A perfect example for this is a po-

lice officer who is called to arrest his own son. In doing this, he is called to put away the personal

bias, found in the tier of the aesthetic, and to advocate for the law, treating the ethical as a higher

priority.

Kierkegaard depicts one who has devoted themselves to this tier. He describes a knight of

infinite resignation as one who devotes themselves entirely to reason, casting aside personal bias.

He depicts this person as one who learns to live solely in reason, which he equates with heaven,

rather than being fixated on the here and now. This could be compared to a knight who devotes

themselves to their life defending the kingdom, even at the price of marrying the princess. Alt-

hough he greatly loves the princess, he is dedicated to his duty. Once one becomes a knight of

infinite resignation, one lives in the world of reason, and is less attached to the present world.

Yet, Kierkegaard does not stop here. He depicts one more tier that is higher than the ethi-

cal. This is the tier of the religious. This is a tier in which one accepts a subjectivity that is higher

than objectivity. As previously mentioned, his primary example is Abraham, in relation to his

son Isaac. Abraham was required to leave the realm of the ethical, and follow a subjectivity that

is at a higher priority than that of the ethical.

Kierkegaard describes Abraham as a knight of faith. A knight of faith is one who is fol-

lows the higher subjectivity, living fully in both the present, and the world of reason. This comes

at a high price, according to Kierkegaard. It involves facing the ultimate test of giving up reason,

and doing things that may not make sense, trusting that it is of higher priority than merely an-

other personal value. This faith involves anxiety, because it defies a human’s understanding of

the world, much how Abraham had to commit to murdering his son, even though the same God

that promised descendants through this son is now commanding that he be killed. Abraham had
to trust God, not knowing how the story would unfold, and trusting that God would do that

which He claimed He would.

Kierkegaard’s view unfolds in a very interesting manner. He rejects reason as highest au-

thority, and states that this higher subjectivity should simply be accepted as it is by use of faith.

He admits to the fact that this is an uncomfortable view to embrace, but this is part of the point.

One major reason he holds this is the idea that meaning does not seem to lie in the objective

facts, but rather our relationship to them. As an example, one might approach Hitler and tell him

that what he did to the Jews was ultimately wrong. If there were nothing higher than the mere

objective facts, Hitler could be justified in replying by arguing that he was merely in the wrong

under the accuser’s definition, but that does not ultimately matter. Put in other terms, Satan

knows all of the facts about God, about Christianity, even knowing the fact that they all truly ex-

ist. Yet, he is still evil, rather than good, because of the way he chooses to act on those facts, and

how he treats their significance. Value is a matter of what should be, and, according to Kierke-

gaard, is not something which we can create arguments for without the higher subjectivity.

What is most interesting about this particular view is that it lessens the authority of rea-

son. Instead of rigorously pushing its boundaries, Kierkegaard simply states that reason has limi-

tations, and that we must accept this uncomfortable reality through faith in the higher subjectiv-

ity. When presented with objections to his view, he would simply respond by stating that it is

very possible that they might be right, but he prays that they are wrong.

Although this seems ludicrous to give up reason in this manner, it does start a discussion

on whether our pursuits of objectivity are truly justified, and whether or not we are all arguing

around in circles on trivial matters. It also brings about the discussion of what that should look
like, in terms of existence. Although Kierkegaard’s notion seems eccentric, it does seem to fol-

low a unique path in its relationship to reason. It begins to ask the question of what it would look

like for us to truly believe that there were something higher than objectivity. It leaves the ques-

tion of not only what the content of our discussions would look like, but what would the form of

them would look like. How would this change philosophy, and the entirety human understanding

of the world?

Nietzsche

Before Nietzsche is examined, I would like to make some preliminary remarks about my

approach to Nietzsche. Nietzsche is a unique philosopher to study. Unlike most philosophers, he

does not state his own views, and defend them from the objections of others, but rather spends

most of his time critiquing the works of others, and traditional ways of thinking. I will be at-

tempting to create a coherent view from Nietzsche by drawing from his criticisms of society, and

comments about the form-content relationship of his work.

A good place to begin would be to examine section 57 of Nietzsche’s work The Gay Sci-

ence. This section is titled “To the realists,” and addresses those in the sciences. He opens this

section by mocking those who consider themselves to be successfully pursuing objective reality.

He specifically mocks their confidence in the ability to discover an objective reality. He contin-

ues by arguing that the realist has a high level of passion about their work, much like an artist has

a passion about theirs. The metaphor Nietzsche uses is of drunkenness, and argues that both the

artist and the realist are drunk, merely on different substances. This is to say that an artist and a

realist are both dedicating to works of passion, believing their work to be superior. Nietzsche fin-

ishes the passage by concluding that the artist and the realist are not so different. It is important

to note that, in this passage, Nietzsche does not conclude that the artist is superior to the realist,
but places them of equal value. Although he does so elsewhere, this is not the aim of this pas-

sage.

This can be complemented by the following section in “The Gay Science.” Section 58 be-

gins by discussing appearances. He discusses our act of giving things names. He argues that such

an act is always a falsehood, and is never an accurate depiction of the thing. To Nietzsche, the

act of naming something is to create similarity where it does not exist. Humans place things in

similar categories and remove certain amounts of difference. He then argues that these defini-

tions, and similarities, are enforced over time, and they become our understanding of the thing,

so much so that it is as though they become the thing. We become convinced of our understand-

ing of it because of the extent of enforcement of the concept. To Nietzsche, objective reality is

impossible, and all we have are the names we give to things. In his account, we have the world of

appearances, and that is what we should be fixated upon. He then argues that it would be foolish

to look at this origin as an argument to prove our categories as absurd. He concludes that the

only way to destroy pre-existing values is to create new ones.

This can be reinforced as Nietzsche’s position by his valuing of art. In Nietzsche’s ac-

count, art is the practice of making certain things beautiful. (Anderson, Lanier.) This is much like

how a city can, in itself, be seen as a dirty place, full of smoke-spewing cars, and filthy people;

or a place full of bright, colorful lights, activity, and excitement. It is the ability to create illu-

sions, and live in them. In Nietzsche’s account, the very notion of value creation comes from art

(Anderson, Lanier.) In other words, the world is not beautiful until an artist depicts it as such.

Only then do we re-organize the world in terms of the artists’ works. The raw materials for valu-

ing, such as nature, already exist. The artist, however, turns a forest into either a magical wood,

or a muddy
 In section 346 of “The Gay Science,” Nietzsche criticizes society for its inability to live

in this world. He attacks religion for pursuing a world other than ours in which they must live.

He particularly emphasizes the Christian notion of heaven, and argues that it is bad that they live

for heaven, rather than for this earth. He argues that what they are doing is putting this world on

a scale, and finding it lacking in value. He says that it is bad to look to another world, and to

compare it to our current one. He says that we should not judge the world, but accept that this is

what we have. Yet, he continues to note that in critiquing the religious, he is equally guilty of

dissatisfaction of this world. He notes that his previous disgust is committing the same act, as it

is comparing the world as it is to an alternate world in which the religious focus more on this

world. This could be compared to two siblings.

The older sibling notices the younger sitting on the floor, discontent with his toy car,

wishing it were a truck. The older sibling angrily yells at the younger to be happy. Yet, in doing

this, he is equally guilty of being unhappy, as he is now upset over the younger sibling’s discon-

tentment. Likewise, Nietzsche is like the older sibling that is angrily yelling at the younger one

for losing his sense of contentment, being equally guilty of losing his.

From this, I create the following understanding of Nietzsche. To Nietzsche, values are not

in a permanent hierarchy, but are rather in fluctuation, based on what values currently hold more

influence. The defense of this begins with the fact that he argues that the realists and artists are

not so different. According to Nietzsche, values are not a matter of objective reality, as objective

reality is unreachable. Rather, humans create values, and reinforce them over time, creating val-

ues where they otherwise did not exist. Over time, certain values take priority over other values,

and are reinforced as such by society. Yet, because there is nothing objectively more significant

about certain values over others, eventually society realizes that the pre-established priority is
causing a neglect of other values. This causes a shift of power from one value to another, and this

cycle is the state humans are constantly caught up in.

In terms of Kierkegaard, this means that he would reject the notion of a higher subjectiv-

ity, claiming that it is outrageous to believe in something that does not fully make sense, and that

cannot be argued for. However, he might be able to then note an internal conflict, given the fact

Nietzsche, himself, does not always make perfect sense. He would, however, delight in the fact

that Kierkegaard’s highest form of existence involves living fully in this world. However, he

would also reject the notion of a world other than the one at present. He would claim that even

though Kierkegaard’s account involves living fully in the here and now, it is less favorable that

another world should even exist at all. He would argue that he should simplify his view by

simply making this world the highest priority, and reject all his talk of heaven.

I will further articulate my own critique in later sections, so for now I will offer one main

critique of this account. This lies in the notion that the artist is the creator of values. There is a

sense in which this argument works, but it seems as though our current era values the sciences

over the arts. Given the fact that art and science have an inherent tension, it is hard to see how art

could be used to create science as a higher priority. To Nietzsche, the artist is the creator of val-

ues, and should be praised for their ability to do so. Yet, this leaves the question of how art could

create itself as a lower value than science. This seems to be something science would have to

take from art. Thus, it seems as though science created a value, and art did not.

Immanuel Kant
 Kant proves to be much easier to follow, as he is more rigorous in creating a singular, co-

herent system of views. Much of what pertains to this topic comes from his work titled “The Cri-

tique of Judgement.”

Kant begins in the sciences, and makes a particularly interesting observation. He notes

that, in the sciences, there is a feeling for the moment when a discovery is made. It is a feeling of

peculiar excitement, which he calls “purposiveness.” Take, for example, Einstein’s equation for

special relativity. This is easily falsifiable, and simple. These are criteria that are seemingly sub-

jective, allow science to function perfectly. This is a strange thing for Kant, as there seems to be

no apparent reason that these criteria should lead to a functioning field of study, yet they do. For

this reason, he begins to argue that there is something more to our subjective experience than is

given credit for. To Kant, there is a strangeness to the fact that a simple, elegant theory is seen as

something that describes the world. A truly objective account would be a list of facts of specific

occurrences under specific conditions. Yet, science simplifies a wide variety of occurences into a

smaller description. For example, it would be truly objective to make observations of various ob-

jects being lifted up, and falling downward. Yet, science takes this further, and creates descrip-

tions, including equations and predictions, about the laws of gravity. This, to Kant, is what is

very peculiar about science.

There are various disagreements as to how Kant’s views unfold. I will highlight them as I

encounter them, but will be attempting to work primarily from areas which are more agreed

upon, straying away from stronger disagreements. The main claim that I will be emphasizing is

that Kant used the idea of purposiveness to argue that there is a world beyond experiences, and

purposive experiences bridge the gap between the world of appearances and the actual world.
 After discussing purposiveness, Kant moves on to judgements of aesthetic beauty. First,

he notes that judgements of beauty utilize purposiveness in reflecting upon more than mere pref-

erence. He proposes that judgements of beauty create a harmony between our understanding and

imagination. In other words, there exist within humans criteria, such as order, structure, and uni-

formity. We then discover these criteria in the forms of objects in nature, and this creates a har-

mony within us. An example of this is a sunset.An example of this is music. We discover the cri-

teria for order within us, and witness them fulfilled in music, which creates a harmony between

our understanding and imagination, which pleases us. As previously mentioned, purposiveness is

key to science being able to function, therefore we are justified in arguing that judgements of

beauty point to something other than mere preference. This notion of beauty serves as a justifica-

tion of science, claiming that its endeavors have more than mere preference. It also serves as an

account of what is occurring within the subjectivity of science.

The other main concept introduced is the sublime. This is a form of counter-proposive-

ness that is similar to that of beauty, but offers a tension, rather than a harmony. It offers us a

sensation that points to our superiority as creatures of ultimate reality, and of reason, but inferior-

ity as creatures of the world of experiences (Ginsborg.) The first of these is the mathematically

sublime. As the name suggests, it involves our ability to reason far beyond that which we can im-

agine. An example of this is gazing at the stars on a clear night. The night sky presents itself as

transcending our ability to imagine it. In a similar way, we can mathematically understand what

a lightyear is, but we can not so easily fathom walking one. Kant argues that this creates a dishar-

mony in us because it makes us feel small in ourselves in the world of experience, yet empow-

ered because there is more to us than our place in the world of appearances. To Kant, this proves
that we can experience a higher reality, seeing glimpses into something more real, like glimmers

of light through a cracked vase.

The other form of sublime is the dynamically sublime. This creates a similar disharmony

within us, but is stronger. It involves when we, as subjects, are threatened by nature; while simul-

taneously feeling superior to it. An example of this is a cause which we might consider ourselves

willing to die for. If we belonged merely to this world, there would be no case in which we

would be willing to give up our lives. Yet, there are a great variety of cases in which people will-

ingly give up their lives. This also occurs in nature, when we witness something that is threaten-

ing, such as a great storm. It terrifies us as subjects, yet simultaneously feel empowered by it, be-

cause we know we have greater power over it, mainly through reason.

In a way, Kant’s account appears to be similar to that of Kierkegaard. They both attempt

to create more out of subjectivity. For Kierkegaard, it is a simple higher subjectivity, which is

paradoxical and strange, and needs to be accepted blindly. Although this provides an attempt at

practical application, it does not make a detailed enough attempt to be one that could be fol-

lowed. Kant, creates a more rigorous account, and does so with less inconsistency. Kierkegaard

simply states that his view is a paradox and needs to be blindly accepted, but Kant goes into fur-

ther detail to defend his notion, citing specific examples which defend his account. Ultimately,

Kant creates an account that argues for the notion that there is more to judgement than mere pref-

erence. In doing so, Kant does not lower the value of reason, defending his claims far more rigor-

ously than Kierkegaard.

This creates the beginnings of a defense of value judgement. It is important to note that

Kant begins in science. Science is an area in which objectivity is sought, and therefore subjectiv-

ity is less welcomed, therefore making it a proper field to examine subjectivity. The observation
that subjectivity is not only present, but accepted, creates a stronger argument over a defense of

similar judgement starting anywhere else. I believe this to be the most convincing method to cre-

ating a convincing argument for establishing credibility of universal subjectivity.

The notion of the sublime complements this account beautifully in a way that is difficult

to counter. It offers an explanation as to why humans do things that might involve the death of

our bodies. If this world were all that existed, what else would cause humans to have such a fas-

cination? This account also relieves some of the tension between objectivity and subjectivity,

creating an account in which we can trust the subjectivity present in objective fields, such as sci-

ence, while creating an account in which not all subjectivity is equally valid. This succeeds in

creating an account for the tension between objectivity and subjectivity. Although it admits that

there is contradiction, it provides reason for this tension to exist, and an explanation as to why it

exists.

Although this presents a good initation to the categorizing of value judgement, it is

merely the beginning, and more work needs to be done in this area. One major concern is in the

fact that disagreements occur on the topic of values. On what grounds should we say that we

should value one thing over another? Value appears to be something that begins to depart from

reason, and therefore is an issue that is difficult to even discuss. How can dialogue about values

occur? Returning to the example with Satan makes this clear. Satan knows full well that the God

of the Bible exists, but does not worship Him. The questions of valuing, such as why one should

worship God, are not yet answered on this account, and present a strong dilemma.

Comparing and Contrasting views

 I would now like to compare and contrast the views of Nietzsche and Kant by bringing

them into dialogue with one another. I will begin with what Nietzsche might say to Kant. Nie-

tzsche would begin by being displeased by Kant’s notion of another world. To Nietzsche, the

only person who would want another world is one who is dissatisfied with this one. One of Nie-

tzsche’s values is the present, and the world of illusion. This is because this is all we have.

Therefore, any notion of a reality outside of the present is not desirable to him. Given the previ-

ously mentioned nature of Nietzsche, this will not be a formal debate, but closer to a comparison.

More fundamentally, however, is the relationship of values to anything outside of the

self. Nietzsche challenges the notion that values are tied to anything of external reality, but rather

argues that the creation of values is an act of human beings rearranging the world, imbuing value

into certain notions. To Kant, value judgements are a reflection of understanding of conditions

that are universal, and necessary for us to cognize at all. Value is a matter that is subjective, yet

universally recognizable. Therefore, Kant would disagree with Nietzsche’s rejection of another

world, and argue that there are certain subjective values that can be universally recognized. He

would distinguish between values based upon this world, and the higher reality. These criteria,

when satisfied, create the harmony that is the experience of beauty.

Nietzsche would, however, Nietzsche would have a particular fondness for Kant’s de-

fense of judgement using science. Considering the fact that Nietzsche valued the arts, he would

enjoy the fact that Kant justifies aesthetic judgement. This defense would go well with Nie-

tzsche’s section addressing the realist. They would agree upon the fact that art has a high prior-

ity. To Kant, science requires careful calculation, yet art requires much more. As stated, art in-

volves appealing to the forms present in a higher reality. It involves engagement with a higher
reality, whereas science is a study of this world. To Nietzsche, on the other hand, uses the pres-

ence of a subjectivity to lower the value of science, claiming that both science and art are a mat-

ter of preference. The metaphor he uses is that both are substances on which one becomes drunk.

The scientist becomes drunk on his perceived objectivity, and an artist becomes drunk on their

perceived reality. Both involve a level of passion, which is why Nietzsche concludes that science

is of less value than is though.

There is one area in which Nietzsche has answers, and Kant does not. Kant’s account

does not sufficiently account for the problem of persuasion. However, Nietzsche’s account does.

Nietzsche’s emphasis on influence could be used to explain the phenomenon of convincing, re-

solving the problem of disagreement. Nietzsche could argue that convincing is an act of influ-

ence. He could argue that convincing is not an act of one party proving their point of view as

right, but rather a matter of influence by a variety of means. This could incorporate anything

from charisma to the influencer’s superior ability to argue. Because of the fact that Kant defends

our ability to cognize, it seems as though he would have to create an account for persuading oth-

ers through rationality alone. I do not believe that Kant gives an account of this that suffices.

Both Kant and Nietzsche offer a form of resolution to the tension between subjectivity

and objectivity. Nietzsche resolves it by saying that value judgements lack external hierarchy,

and are held in place by the power of influence. Kant resolves it by creating an internal hierarchy

in which certain values concern humans as those in this world, and judgements of us in another

world, the other world taking higher priority. Both make attempts to resolve this tension, yet the

question is whether or not they have succeeded.

Personal Stance
 As for the question of what position I take in the matter, I lean towards siding with Kant.

What is most convincing is his account of the sublime. What is most striking is the fact that there

are instances in which something appears to take a higher priority than personal survival. Not

only do instances of self-sacrifice exist, but they are often held in high regard by others. I see no

explanation for this phenomenon but to argue that there is a higher reality to which we are ori-

ented. It is important to note that not only is there a world beyond our own, but this world is of a

higher priority than our own.

I disagree with Nietzsche on his valuing of this world, and the rejection of another. To

Nietzsche, the only reason we dream of another world is that we are dissatisfied with this one. I

believe this to be false, due to counterexamples in which people express a great passion for this

world, and sacrifice themselves for the love of it. Self-sacrifice involves a belief that something

other than self-preservation is of highest priority. A specific example of this is going off to war.

Particularly in America, a valuing of this country, and its freedoms, inspires people to defend it.

They go as far as risking their lives, and dying, in order to preserve the condition of this country.

In sacrificing themselves, they put aside their own need for survival. I believe this concept pro-

vides tension for Nietzsche’s view.

From this, I would like to move into Kant’s account of the beautiful. Initially, it seems

bizarre that the world is orderly, and that our subjective criteria are discovered in the world. This

fact can come to the point of being startling, making an account like Nietzsche’s entirely plausi-

ble. Yet, the fact still remains that science is providing results, including the ability to predict fu-

ture events. If value judgements were nothing more than mere preference, results could not be

expected to be attained.
 I would now like to create my own account of what is going on within subjectivity in the

realm of science. I believe a Biblical account of the world is coherent with Kant’s arguments. I

believe that God created mankind to go out, and explore the universe. The account of beauty de-

fends the notion that we have been imbued with criteria that are, in fact, satisfiable. From this I

argue that God has planted within us the capacity to be rewarded by our discovery of the uni-

verse. On top of this, I believe that He has given us the means to be successful in this endeavor.

I believe that the fine-tuning argument defends this account well. In short, the fine-tuning

argument is a scientific inquiry done in various fields in which variables are examined, seeing

what would happen if they were altered (Friedrich, Simon.) What the research shows throughout

various areas is that if variables were altered, even in the utmost smallest of amounts, the uni-

verse would not be able to exist, and could collapse into absolute destruction. One example of

this is gravity. If the strength of gravity, compared to the strength of electromagnetism, were al-

tered by even the slightest of degrees, planets, even galaxies, would not be able to exist (Frie-

drich, Simon.) This defends the notion that the universe was not created on accident, but rather

was created.

This leads us to a point where the universe has a creator, and sustainer. All experiences in

which the two worlds collide appear to place the other world as a higher priority over this one.

There could be a sense of fear for discovering the universe, reinforcing our place on the earth,

discouraging humans from discovering the world. Yet, there is not. It is a priority, an experience

that is rewarding. There is also the notion that such a world is, in fact discoverable. It also ap-

pears to directly follow that a creator and sustainer uphold His created universe for a purpose

other than to flounder about like beached fish. When one creates, one creates with an intended

purpose.
 The main issue is that this still does not address the question of valuing. In other words,

what is the fundamental difference between us and Satan, given the fact that both we both know

the fundamental facts about the Bible, and about God’s existence. How can we even begin to dis-

cuss why we should value God, and how that should be done. There is a fundamental distinction

there that is not addressed, and seems as though it can not be addressed in a manner that can be

plainly understood. This is an issue that is yet to be resolved, and even the matter of how it could

be resolved remains a mystery.

Conclusion

I concretely conclude that Kant’s account supports the existence of God. What it con-

cretely shows that there is most certainly more to human beings than mere animals fixated on

personal survival, and that there are things that we appeal to that we deem worth our lives in this

world. Ultimately, this proves in a world outside of ours, which creates a hierarchy of our values.

The hierarchy consists of judgements of this world, and higher reality. This creates a defense of

the existence of a personal God that wants humans to go find Him, which can be defended by the

fine-tuning argument. Ultimately, I side with Kant, believing Nietzsche to have raised interesting

claims, yet failed to defend them well enough to convince me.

 SOURCES

Anderson, R. Lanier. “Friedrich Nietzsche.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford Uni-

versity, 17 Mar. 2017, plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/#NietMetaEthiStanNatuValuCrea.

Friederich, Simon. “Fine-Tuning.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 22

Aug. 2017, plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/#ExamPhys.

Ginsborg, Hannah. “Kant's Aesthetics and Teleology.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Stanford University, 2 July 2005, plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthetics/#2.7.

Guignon, Charles B., and Derk Pereboom. Existentialism: Basic Writings. Hackett, 2001.

Rohlf, Michael. “Immanuel Kant.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University,

25 Jan. 2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#TraIde.