Crossing Borders

In 1745 the life of the distinguished Swedish engineer Emanuel Swedenborg took a radical turn, after he allegedly received direct revelations from Christ himself. This made him not only write an elaborate new interpretation of some of the books of the Bible, but it also made him change psychically. From that moment on he claimed to stand in continuous direct contact with the spirit world. Many contemporaries were possibly most interested in the visions which he had, which made him access information which he normally could not have had (the most famous case being his vision of a large fire in a town a long way from where he was). His followers paid more attention however to the moral consequences of his experiences. Swedenborg was convinced that only someone who had discovered his inner self (which is the part of a person which is already in the spirit world, while he or she is alive) could find the source of truly moral behaviour. He was also convinced that this was the core message of Christ.

Those philosophers who know something about Swedenborg mostly do so because his famous contemporary Immanuel Kant wrote a small satirical book about his ideas: Dreams of a Spirit-Seer, Elucidated through Dreams of Metaphysics. This work of the Enlightenment philosopher is seen to be the turning point in his career – it marks the transition of his so-called pre-critical to his critical period. His critical works, e.g. the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Practical (is: moral) Reason, created a landslide in modern Western philosophy, and consequently in our understanding of science. These works claim to deduce from reason alone the borders of what we can sensibly call knowledge, and of what should sensibly direct our moral actions. In ethics this led to the famous adage to only choose such a principle to guide one’s actions that one would want everyone to choose. Thus Kant removed any arguments from Nature, or from Revelation from reasonable ethics. For theoretical knowledge his critical work had the effect to only acknowledge what we can derive from empirical research, i.e. from controlled sensual experience, which can be described within the limits or borders of sound reasoning.

In Dreams Kant tries his critical arguments out on Swedenborg, whose voluminous works he seems to have studied faithfully. As a philosopher who was interested in metaphysics, he wanted to read these testimonies of contact with the ‘invisible world’. They disappointed him, of course, because even more than those metaphysical works of his fellow-philosophers, they consisted of unfounded theories about realities which one could not check out for oneself. Thus he comes to the conclusion that the sole task of metaphysics should be to know and guard ‘the limits of human reason’. After a very satirical and critical treatment of Swedenborg, Kant concludes: ‘Thus, I have wasted my time in order to save it […] we see ourselves back on the low ground of experience and common sense, happy if we regard it as our assigned place from which we may never depart with impunity and which contains everything that can satisfy us, so long as we stay with what is useful.’

Historically Kant has been the real prophet, and not the spiritually enlightened Swedenborg, since Kant’s wish that serious researchers should ‘leave all noisy doctrines about such remote objects to the speculation of idle heads’ has become reality. Research into spiritual experiences is still mostly derided by those academic researchers who want to take themselves seriously. Testimonies of spirit appearances are treated with a sarcasm similar to that of Kant. But… there is more to the story. Recently the worlds of Kant researchers and of Swedenborg specialists are moving closer, and it seems that Kant took his contemporary much more seriously than his Dreams would show at first sight. Next to his proclaiming the necessity of ‘knowing and guarding’ the borders of the world of reason with an eye to sensible knowledge and action, he seems to have been sympathetical toward the belief in the spirit world as a source for spiritual consolation. And perhaps even to accept implicitly a connection between this belief and the personal sources of morality. For finding the right principle for action does not yet provide us with a motivation for following it.

The lesson of this story? That it is a shame when serious researchers dogmatically keep within the borders that Kant drew for theoretical and practical knowledge. It is like trying to imitate the Zen-master. Philosophy should make us think critically – and thus anyone studying philosophy should cross borders him or herself, like Kant did when he bought and read the work of the famous visionary. Philosophers should cross disciplinary borders, and not only read works that  belong to the canon of philosophy. And they should cross the borders of what is produced in academia – and read works that are not even considered to be based on logical reasoning or on empirical research, but which may be inspirational, revolutionary, religious, literary, or just entertaining. Only then can one make use of one’s potential for critical thought to the full.

Immanuel Kant lived from 1724-1804, Emanuel Swedenborg lived from 1688-1772.

I cited from Kant’s Dreams of a Spirit-Seer and Other Writings, Swedenborg Foundation Publishers, 2002

Swedenborgs Works can easily be accessed online through: http://www.swedenborg.com/

A good introduction to Swedenborg gives Ernst Benz’ Emanuel Swedenborg. Visionary Savant in the Age of Reason, Swedenborg Foundation 2002

Some of the most up to date critical research on the relationship between the two is in German: Kant und Swedenborg. Zugänge zu einem umstrittenen Verhältnis (Friedemann Stengel hrsg), Max Niemeyer Verlag, 2008

Advertisements
5 comments
  1. Lee said:

    Nice piece. Makes me want to go back and do a more thorough job of looking into Kant’s relationship with Swedenborg than I did when I wrote a high school final paper for my philosophy class on Kant’s Dreams of a Spirit Seer. (Yes, this was in American public high school. And I got an A on the paper!)

    I grew up in a Swedenborgian family, so I had a different view of Kant’s little satirical piece than your average philosopher or historian might. And though it’s been a few decades since I wrote that paper, as I recall, my conclusion was that Kant drew more from Swedenborg than he was willing to admit, but that he needed to distance himself from Swedenborg in order to be taken seriously by his contemporaries. As the Enlightenment proceeded, it became increasingly untenable to admit to any inspiration or influence from supernatural sources. So Kant distanced himself from that association publicly even while it continued to have an underlying influence on his philosophy. There is a key line in Dreams itself in which Kant says almost this very thing himself.

    I believe this is a general pattern in secular and materialistic philosophy and science. Connections to spiritual and supernatural sources are studiously swept under the rug, but those influences are pervasive–especially when it comes to issues of human behavior, morality, and ethics.

    What I see happening today is that as secular and materialistic philosophy and science push the borders of what can be studied from a purely physical and scientific point of view, more and more scientists and philosophers are beginning to re-admit the possibility that there may be a spiritual level of existence in addition to the physical level of existence that is the primary subject of science.

    Thanks again for a thoughtful piece!

  2. Thanks, Lee, for your reply and kind words. I am getting curious about that high-school paper. Since I enter the matter of the Kant-Swedenborg-relationship as a philosopher, it would be very interesting for me to read what someone raised in a Swedenborgian worldview could attribute to our understanding of Kant. I understand the main tendency of what you are saying, but it would be nice to see your argumentation on the basis of Kant’s text.

    • Lee said:

      I came across that high school paper in one of my boxes several years ago while sorting through some stuff in the attic. Apparently it still exists. However, it has been re-buried for future archaeological expeditions. When I wrote the paper, I knew a lot about Swedenborg but very little about Kant. Come to think of it, that’s still true today. Also, the paper was written in 1978 when I was 17 years old. It’s probably not the finest piece of scholarship ever not published.

      For something a little more substantial on Swedenborg and Kant, you might be interested in this university dissertation published as a monograph by the Swedenborg Foundation in 1993:

      Swedenborg and Kant: Emanuel Swedenborg’s Mystical View of Humankind and the Dual Nature of Humankind in Immanuel Kant, by Gottlieb Florschutz, Translated by George F. Dole

      However, as far as I know, Florschutz is not a Swedenborgian, so this might not help in elucidating the Kant-Swedenborg relationship from the perspective of a Swedenborgian worldview. For that, there are various pieces by Swedenborgians and Swedenborg scholars in the scholarly journal Studia Swedenborgiana, whose back issues are online at:

      http://www.baysidechurch.org/studia/

      A few simple keyword searches should yield the articles it has to offer on Swedenborg and Kant.

      Incidentally, William Ross Woofenden, who was the journal’s founder and for many years its editor, was my father, and George F. Dole, whose name also shows up frequently in Studia Swedenborgiana, is my uncle. Both of them were/are fine Swedenborgian scholars. Their names will likely show up if you do any searches on philosophical subjects in the back issues of Studia.

  3. Thanks so much, Lee, for all your reading suggestions! I will follow them up in due time, and will let you know if they leave me with further questions, if that’s okay?

    • Lee said:

      You’re welcome. And I’m happy to respond to questions as long as I actually know something about the subject. If it relates to Swedenborg, I probably do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: