If on the other hand, our intuitions match what a theory tells us about particular cases, this usually counts in favor of the theory. All procedures of this sort rest on a principle like I: I Intuitions about specific cases can be used as evidence for and against philosophical theories. This paper is about whether I can be justified. We examine two models, the Concepts Model (CM) and the Belief Model (BM). In our view, neither of them provides a solid foundation for I as it is traditionally applied in philosophy.
Plato. Protagoras. Trans. Stanley Lombardo and Karen Bell. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1992.
Immanuel Kant analyzes metaphysics and claims that the validity of it depends on the foundation of the theory. He attempts to strengthen the foundation of metaphysics to help people accept it as an explanation of the universe. Metaphysics is the sector of philosophy that deals with general concepts such as knowing, being and existence of substances, (OED, n. 1.d). Kant’s theory of knowledge is based on transcendental idealism. This form of idealism is a system of thought that claims objects of knowledge to be dependent on how we perceive them in our minds.
Throughout time we have seen western philosophy influenced by the difference between reason and experience as the foundation of principle knowledge. Two main philosophical strands that provide the back bone for this difference are rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism will show that there are synthetic a priori statements, something to be known without reference to experience, that meaningful facts about the world can be discovered by rational, non-empirical means. Empiricists aim to show that these a priori facts are analytical, where it doesn’t give any more information that is not stated in the original terms involved. After understanding the basis that forces us to look which is better for ethics, reason or experience, we have to lay out what these factors provide.
Descartes explains that our main source of knowledge comes from our sense perception. In his theory we have to doubt our perceptions and ideas. In his view nothing is certain but us, he makes it simple by saying “I think therefore I am. He uses the immaterial mind to explain the existence of things. Locke on the other hand believes that our main source of knowledge is sensory experience.
On the subject of knowledge and reality, we face many philosophers and their opinions on how one acquires knowledge. In my essay I will focus on the issue between skeptics and dogmatists. I will first explain what dogmatism about perceptual justification and knowledge is, followed by how the dogmatist responds to the problem of skepticism, and why the response to skepticism is not plausible. What is dogmatism about perceptual justification and knowledge? I will begin by breaking down this sentence and defining its core words.
Thus, for Kant, the human mind does not begin simply as a tabula rasa, as supposed by Locke, but must necessarily have an innate structure in order that we may understand the world. For Kant, this a priori structure is essential to philosophy. Kant argued that the simple empiricism of Hume and Berkeley inevitably leads to solipsistic idealism. In contrast, by uncovering the a priori structure of human understanding, as the necessary condition for conscious experience, Kant argued that he was able to avoid idealism, since the proof of the existence of an external world follows from this structure. However, some commentators have pointed out flaws in Kant's theory that demonstrate that he does not necessarily escape the charge of solipsism.