Kant, Bataille and Sacrifice
David York
Before I begin my direct discussion of
sacrifice as understood in the philosophies of Kant and Bataille, it seems
necessary to discuss the philosophical understanding which surrounded
their beliefs on the topic of sacrifice. Discussion of each philosopher’s notion of the
sacred, or in Kant’s case the noumenal, will likely
be of central importance to the discussion of the sacrifice, as even a brief
examination show that the word sacrifice itself is related in meaning to the
word sacred.
In order to develop an understanding of
Immanuel Kant’s transcendental philosophy, and subsequently, the significantly
more fluid philosophical work of George Bataille, it helps to grasp the progression
of western thought from which they proceeded. While I will not explain in this
paper the entirety of notable western philosophical thought which preceded
them, I will briefly comment on the Rationalist and Empiricist movements which
were the backdrop and groundwork for Kant’s philosophical writing.
The Rationalists, as the term suggests, were
a series of philosophers who believed that reason was the only reliable source
of philosophical disclosure, and the only way to make progress in understanding
the world. They also proposed that because senses could be fooled, experience
was not useful in generating reliable philosophical insights. A reaction to
them came in the form of the Empiricists, who suggested that only experience in
the world could teach you anything. From these two traditions of philosophy,
Kant emerges as a kind of synthesis.
In Kant’s transcendental philosophy, we see
a stark distinction between the phenomenal realm and the noumenal
realm. In the phenomenal realm is found all phenomena. That is, it holds all
that which is part of the material order of the world. The noumenal realm contains
the moral law, reason, ideas, and anything which is not a part of the material
order of the world and yet is still in some way present. This distinction afforded Kant a resolution
to the discrepancy between the rationalist and empiricist traditions, without
giving up the advantages of either tradition. For example, Kant now had the
basis for a priori and a posteriori knowledge. That is, he could
reconcile in a satisfactory manner why some things could be known independent
of experience, and why some things could be known only after an experience.
This distinction plays itself out in this discussion of the sacred and
sacrifice, as the sacred, in Kant’s work, is found entirely in the noumenal realm.
However, in order to proceed further,
I should lay forth what exactly is meant by “the sacred”. The sacred is a term
describing that which is valued independent of material systems of valuation.
Hence the significance of a wooden cross, favorite shirt, or flag in the face
of apparent material worthlessness.
While in my readings of Kant, I have not
come across a specific discussion of the sacred itself, Kant does discuss the noumenal realm and its relationship to other topics (the
church for example). I think that in these discussions of the relationship
between the noumenal and other topics we see a
description of the sacred. For my primary example I would point to his
discussion in Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone. In a section on “Philosophical Account of the
Victory of the Good over the Evil Principle in the Founding of a
Similarly Bataille holds to the idea that
the sacred is not something which is to be grasped in the way in which someone
would grasp the profane, or as Kant would describe it, the phenomenal. He
describes the sacred as containing spirits, gods, and other things which could
be understood in a mythological sense, or to put it another way, in a
supernatural-physical sense. However, I
think by these terms he does not refer to physical entities so much as
something of a more intangible nature. Intangible, felt (emotionally) rather
than sensed, is the nature of Bataille’s notion of the sacred. Even in the very
concrete thought of Heidegger, mood and feeling are a part of that which is
observed only in the introspective sense, or the sense of looking beyond the
physicality of phenomena. Another way of explaining this is to say that the
sacred is the realm of meaning. Bataille’s
statement “Animals, plants, tools, and other controllable things form a real
world with the bodies that control them, a world subject to and traversed by
divine forces, but fallen.”[1] is
an indicator of this.
What sacrifice holds in terms of common meaning,
both with Kant and Bataille and in terms of lexical definition, is that
sacrifice is the giving up for the divine. In other words, sacrifice is the
giving up of the materially valuable for that which is spiritually meaningful. In
terms of a more precise philosophical definition, sacrifice is the act of
exchanging that which is valued for meaning. This is why the objects of
sacrifice are lost or destroyed in the sacrifice and why the best sacrifices
are things of value. If nothing is given up, nothing can be exchanged. If much
is given up, much is gained. This is very likely why Jesus says “For whosoever
will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake
and the gospel's, the same shall save it.”[2] (Mark
This, put in more Kantian terms is sacrifice
as an act which takes something phenomenal and lends some sort of noumenal value. However, though this is the same idea in
Kantian terminology, it is so for purposes of comparison, not to indicate a
Kantian perspective. While again, I have not come across a direct discussion of
self sacrifice with respect to the moral law, as near as I currently understand
Kant, I find that a particular quote sheds some light on how Kant would have
addressed the issue. “When any one does, in conformity with duty, more than he
can be compelled to do by the law, it is said to be meritorious (meritum). What is done only in exact conformity with
the law, is what is due (debitum). And when
less is done than can be demanded to be done by the law, the result is moral
demerit (demeritum) or culpability.”[3] I
understand this to mean that Kant would hold that if someone exceeds their
moral responsibility they gain what might in Bataille be found as the value of
sacrifice. However, the material impact of loss incurred while carrying out the
moral law would be largely irrelevant. This seems to me to be the most
significant difference between Bataille and Kant with respect to sacrifice and
the sacred.
Also, as Kant did not directly
address the sacred as the sacred, and rather addressed the notion of the noumenal realm and its moral law, Kant was ill equipped to
address the significance of the destruction of valuable phenomenal objects for
the purpose of attaining spiritual gain. It is explained in Bataille’s work that
sacrifice is a making of meaning out of profane. He also refers to this as, making the useful
useless, and as moving the profane into the sacred.
In conclusion it seems as though sacrifice
is distinct for Kant and Bataille in that Kant’s conceptions of the noumenal realm and of the moral law leave no room for
anything except duty. For Kant, only when sacrifice is the giving up of
something for duty, will a sacrifice produce its intended result. Even then it is the consistency with duty, not
with the giving up of anything that gives meaning. This is because the
phenomenal realm is valueless and irrelevant to the moral law. Bataille, by
contrast, integrates these two realms, and in the overlap is the possibility of
sacrifice made meaningful.
Works Used
Bataille,
George. Theory of Religion.
The Holy Bible:
King James Version. Blue Letter
Bible. Apr 6,
2003.
<http://www.blueletterbible.org/>
Kant, Immanuel, The Metaphysics of Morals,
Long, Roderick,
[1] Bataille, George, Theory of Relgion,
Robert Hurley Translation., p.38.
[2] The Holy Bible: King James Version. Website: http://www.blueletterbible.org/
[3] Kant, Immanuel, The Metaphysics of Morals. Website: www.praxeology.net/kant7.htm.