Lenin's Critique of Kant's "Things-in-Themselves"

Examining the philosophical conflict between Marxism and Kantianism

Kant's Position: A Quick Recap

For Immanuel Kant, human knowledge is limited to the world of phenomena (appearances). We experience things not as they are in themselves, but only as they appear to us, filtered through our innate a priori categories of understanding (like space, time, and causality).

The "thing-in-itself" (Ding an sich) is the reality that exists independently of our perception, but it is fundamentally unknowable. It is a necessary postulate to explain the source of our sensations, but we can never have any knowledge of its true nature.

Lenin's Core Argument

In his work Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1908), Lenin attacks Kant's concept from a materialist perspective:

• It creates an unbridgeable gulf between consciousness and the external world
• It represents a concession to idealism and agnosticism
• It contradicts the materialist view of knowledge as reflection of reality

"The most decisive refutation of this as of all other philosophical crotchets is practice, namely, experiment and industry."
- Friedrich Engels, quoted by Lenin

Lenin's Solution: Dialectical Materialism

Lenin doesn't discard the concept of objective reality, but rather Kant's unknowable version of it. His solution is based on:

• The Copy Theory of Perception: Sensations and ideas are reflections or copies of the material world
• Practice as the Criterion of Truth: We prove existence and knowability through practical human activity

Through practical engagement with the world (science, industry, revolution), the "thing-in-itself" becomes a "thing-for-us" - the unknown becomes known.

Relation to A Priori Thinking

Contrary to possible misunderstanding, Lenin rejects Kant's a priori categories as idealist constructs. Instead, he argues that:

• Categories like causality are reflections of the objective world ingrained through evolutionary and social practice
• The dialectical method is a tool derived from engagement with the material world, not an innate category
• What appears as a priori knowledge is actually historically sedimented experience

Comparison: Kant vs. Lenin

Concept	Kant's Transcendental Idealism	Lenin's Dialectical Materialism
Thing-in-Itself	Exists but is unknowable	The objective material world, which is knowable
Phenomena	Only world we can know, constructed by the mind	Reflections/copies of the objective world
Source of Knowledge	Synthesis of sensory data with innate a priori categories	Sensations reflecting external matter, refined through practice
Role of A Priori	Central - innate categories structure all experience	Rejected - "categories" are learned reflections
Test of Truth	Coherence within understanding framework	Practice (experiment, industry, revolution)

Key Conclusion

Lenin does not argue for Kant's "things-in-themselves" by supporting a priori thinking. Instead, he:

1. Attacks the concept for being agnostic and idealist
2. Redefines the objective world as fully knowable through practice
3. Rejects Kant's a priori categories as idealist constructs

He supports a materialist theory of knowledge where practice, not innate reason, is the bridge between consciousness and the objective world.

Thing-in-itself (Ding an sich) A priori knowledge Dialectical materialism Transcendental idealism Practice (Praxis) Phenomena vs. Noumena Materialist epistemology

Created for educational purposes to illustrate Lenin's philosophical critique of Kantian epistemology

Based on Lenin's work "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" (1908)