In "The?Elementary?Forms of?the?Religious Life", Durkheim, in addition to the investigation of Australian and Indian aborigines, came to the conclusion that the most primitive religion is "totem".?In his thesis "The Duality of Humanity", he demonstrated his ambition to reflect on metaphysics from a sociological standpoint.

In the introduction "Sociology of Religion and Theory of Knowledge", Durkheim pointed out without hesitation that categories "both originate from and belong to religion", and religion, as the embodiment and incarnation of a society, can naturally derive "category is the product of sociality”—and this is very different from Aristotle and Kant.?Aristotle advocated the category theory in "Apparatus".?According to Aristotle, since we cannot get the definition of being by the method of "genus plus species difference", then the only possible "being" is Research can only be carried out through "categories"-for Aristotle, categories are the inherent structure of the world, because it is the inevitable meaning of existence.?In Critique of Pure Reason, Kant tried to reverse the dual relationship between subject and object with a Copernican revolution.?Therefore, for Kant, categories no longer belonged to the world itself, but instead belonged to the subject's " "Intellect", that is, the pure intellectual concept.?But neither Aristotle nor Kant ever tried to attribute "categories" to society.?Rather, in the view of traditional philosophers, there should be no shadow of "society" in the scope of their research.

In addition, Durkheim also denied Kant's theory of time and space.?In Kant's view, time and space are only the intuitive forms of the subject.?Durkheim questioned this: If everyone has their own time and space, how can time and space be unified within society??Durkheim believed that Kant's theory could not explain the cause of the social nature of space-time, so he directly attributed space-time to the product of society.

In subsequent essays, Durkheim appears to offer his own answer to a problem inherent in German rationalist philosophy.?Rationalism asks God for the explanation of "why can human reason be united": human reason can only be a share of God's reason, so everyone's reason is essentially the same.?It is precisely because of this that rationalist philosophers can completely abstract the "subject" and not talk about specific individuals.?This explanation is unsatisfactory - at least in Durkheim's view.?Therefore, Durkheim still tried to start from the standpoint of society: if rationality is the product of society, if rationality is the embodiment of human sociality, then it is very easy to understand that the rationality of everyone in a?society can be unified, because society itself is "one".

Durkheim's metaphysical reflection from the perspective of sociology has its success: Compared with the explanation that appeals to "God", Durkheim's explanation is more "positive".?However, in the process of logical argumentation, the "origin of society" cannot be avoided.?Why was society born??Durkheim did not seem to give an answer, perhaps in his view, society exists a priori - but this is nothing more than replacing the position of "God" with "society", and there is no essential difference from rationalism.?If society does not exist a priori, then the birth of society is the product of chance.?If our categories, time and space, and even the law of causality belong to society and are therefore based on chance, how can we guarantee the reliability of knowledge?

In addition, Durkheim also tried to put forward his own moral theory from a social perspective.?In the two main founding works of Durkheim's "rational secular moral theory" by scholars, "On the Division of Labor in Society" and "On Suicide", it can be seen that Durkheim always bases himself on the social perspective to investigate moral phenomena.?Attempts to formulate a socially deterministic theory of morality as distinct from the metaphysical morality developed since Kant.?In "On the Division of Labor in Society", Durkheim pointed out: "With the division of labor, individuals will get rid of isolation and form mutual connections; with the division of labor, people will help each other instead of going their own way.?In short, only the division of labor Only in this way can people be firmly combined to form a connection, and this function does not only play a role in temporary mutual concessions and mutual assistance, but its scope of influence is very wide.” On this basis, Durkheim gave a summary Thesis: the "real function" of the division of labor is not to optimize the economy, but to achieve social integration, so the division of labor is not only the source of social solidarity, but also the basis of moral order.?Therefore, in Durkheim's view, morality as morality lies in "social integration" itself: what can promote social integration is moral, and vice versa is immoral.?It is precisely because the organic solidarity produced by the division of labor promotes social integration more than the mechanical solidarity produced by mere unity that Durkheim was able to link the division of labor to morality.?In "On Suicide", Durkheim characterizes suicide as an immoral phenomenon.?The reason is that, with the development of social division of labor, the only similarity between members of society is the aspect of?"nobility of personality", so behaviors that cause damage to personality will be condemned by the weakened collective consciousness—— Suicide, as such an act, is naturally condemned by the collective consciousness as immoral.?Although the mechanical solidarity brought about by collective consciousness is not as good at promoting social integration as the organic solidarity brought about by the division of labor, mechanical solidarity can still promote social integration to a certain extent; Durkheim also pointed out that in higher societies, mechanical Unity does not take any advantage, but it still exists.?Mechanical solidarity, which still exists but does not occupy any predominance, is promoting social integration along with growing organic solidarity.?Thus, when mechanical solidarity is impaired without any enhancement of organic solidarity, the degree of social integration is unquestionably weakened.?It goes without saying that suicide does not bring about any form of organic solidarity, and that its only effect on society is to weaken mechanical solidarity by provoking the collective consciousness.?It can be seen that Durkheim still characterizes suicide as an immoral phenomenon from the social point of view: because suicide damages the personality, which is the only similarity between individuals in a higher society, and thus damages mechanical solidarity, while at the same time Suicide does not have any reinforcing effect on organic solidarity, so suicide weakens social integration as a whole and is therefore immoral.

It is not difficult to see that in the socially deterministic moral theory that Durkheim tried to develop, we can only talk about morality when it is related to society.?This is similar to Rousseau.?In "On the Origin and Foundation of Human Inequality", Rousseau believed that non-social natural persons are perfect, and evil will only appear after natural persons are combined into society through contracts.?In Western traditional thought, "evil" is not a substantive concept, but the lack of "goodness".?Therefore, it can be said that "if there is no goodness, how can evil be attached??" Therefore, in Rousseau's view, society is also moral.?Base.?At the same time, as one of the guides of Kant's thoughts, Rousseau had a profound influence on Kant; and in "On the Division of Labor in Society", "On Suicide" and Durkheim's follow-up works, it can be clearly seen that Durkheim The refutation of ideas in Kant's "Three Critiques" and the tendency to use Kant as interlocutor—this forms the basis for the comparison between Durkheim and Kant.

In "Moral Education", Durkheim believes: "Morality is the totality of various clear norms.?Morality is like many molds with limited boundaries.?We must use these molds to frame our behavior.?We cannot pass from a certain These norms are deduced from these universal laws, constructed at the moment of action; they already exist, they have been formulated, they live around us, and they work around us." Personal norms, morality is a kind of command to the individual - this is undoubtedly the rare place in Durkheim's thought that agrees with Kant.?In "Critique of Practical Reason", Kant uses "categorical command" to describe the essence of morality: it only requires people to obey, but does not give corresponding rewards, so it is "moral law".?However, Durkheim believed that morality as a norm cannot be derived from universal laws, which is in conflict with Kant's moral view.?In Kant's view, morality is the pure formal regulation of the will by practical reason, so there is a universal law above morality, that is, practical reason.

At the same time, Durkheim also wrote in "Moral Education": "If a person is unable to limit himself within definite limits, then this is a symptom of a disease." What hinders human development is "encouragement endless,?unfettered desire to crave", and thus cannot set an "unattainable goal".?However, such an "unattainable goal" is one of the possible elements of the ultimate goal of morality in Kant's "metaphysical morality".?In Kant's view, human reason has a natural tendency to grasp the unconditional (idea) from the whole, and practical reason is no exception.?Therefore, the morality prescribed by practical reason has an overall object——the?supremegood.?The supreme good is the object that practical reason must pursue, but as an idea, the supreme good can never be achieved in experience, that is, "an unattainable goal".?Therefore, practical reason requires three presuppositions of "freedom of will", "immortality of soul" and "existence of God", and Kant thus realized the transformation from moral metaphysics to moral theology.?The supreme good as "an unattainable goal" is consistent with the inner nature of morality, and is a necessary requirement of morality.?But for Durkheim, such a goal that is impossible to achieve in this life is not only not required by morality, it is even harmful to morality.?In "On Suicide", Durkheim, discussing "anomie suicide", said: "Our feeling is a bottomless pit that nothing can fill.?.?.?.?If there is no external force to limit this feeling, then This feeling itself can only be a source of distress.?.?.?.?Pursuing a goal that is assumed to be unattainable is to keep oneself in a state of perpetual dissatisfaction.”?Such a state of dissatisfaction is the root of anomiae?suicide.?If an "unattainable goal" eventually leads to an immoral outcome such as suicide, it is difficult to discuss whether such a goal itself is moral, and the "supreme good" becomes empty talk.

In fact, the biggest difference between Durkheim's "socially deterministic morality" and Kant's "metaphysical morality" lies in the difference in their theoretical horizons.?This can be seen in the differences between the two on the source of morality.?In Kant's view, morality is closely related to human reason, but each individual is very different, so morality cannot come from everyone's reason, but can only come from universal reason, which is why everyone can be guaranteed All moral concepts are unified; Durkheim, from the standpoint of a sociologist, denies the existence of such a universal rationality, but gives another source of moral “possibility”—society.?Society, like universal reason, is above the individual and thus ensures moral unity.?In the construction of Durkheim's moral theory, society is like a substitute for universal rationality in the field of sociology.?It must be admitted that Durkheim's theory is complementary to the theoretical dilemma faced by traditional rationalist philosophy, and can even become another way of solving it.

To sum up, both Durkheim and Kant believe that morality is an "order" above the individual, or at least a relationship similar to an order; but the differences between the two are also significant.?On the one hand, Durkheim refused to admit that morality can be derived from a universal law of "practical reason"-a view that reflected his social determinism; ’ Such an idea becomes the object of morality, thereby rejecting the three presuppositions of moral theology.?From a more profound perspective, the differences between Durkheim and Kant are nothing more than the epitome of the rebellion against rationalism in the western intellectual circles, and Durkheim's thoughts are also in line with the development of irrationalism at a deep?level.