Critical Analysis Of Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason

2433 Words5 Pages

Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) Critique of Pure Reason is held universally as a watershed regarding epistemology and metaphysics. There have been anticipations regarding the notion of the analytic especially in Hume. The specific terms analytic and synthetic were first introduced by Kant at the beginning of his Critique of Pure Reason book. The mistake that metaphysicians made was viewing mathematical judgments as being “analytic”. Kant came up with a description for analytic judgments as one that is merely elucidatory, that is, what is implicit is transformed into explicit. Kant’s examples utilize the judgments of subjects or rather predicates, for instance the square has four sides. The predicates content is always already accounted for in …show more content…

The consciousness is an integrated group of experiences that require unity of two kinds, the experiences must have the characteristic of a singular subject and the consciousness that the said subject possesses regarding represented objects must be unified. The first requirement regarding experiences and consciousness seems trivial but according to Hume, for instance, what singles out a group’s experiences into an individual’s is the association with one another in a rather appropriate way, what he referred to as the bundle theory, not the presence of a common subject. The need for a subject however is derived from straight forward considerations like: representations not only mean something but they mean it to someone, and representations are nit handed down to people but to be considered so, sensory inputs have to be processed by a rather integrated cognitive system. Kant was exceedingly conscious of both points. He however called unity of consciousness both the consciousness and apperception unity. Regarding the unity of consciousness, Kant asserts that people are no conscious of single but of a great many experiences at a particular …show more content…

Husserl dubbed his famous transcendental phenomenology as the “new, twentieth century Cartesianism” and quoted Descartes on the insistence that the only fruitful renaissance is considered as one that reawakens. Husserl discussed Descartes in almost all his published works during his mature period. How can people characterize the Cartesianism that is found on Husserl’s Cartesian meditations? One recent scholar made the argument that Husserl derived one idea from Descartes that can he altered profoundly. The deepest affinity that exists between Husserl and Descartes is their common diagnosis regarding the state of affairs regarding the contemporary sciences that were found in their respective times. Husserl found a rather deep affinity with the optimism and pessimism that were associated with Descartes. He shared the pessimism regarding the then state of science and the optimism of the unlimited prospects of a reformed science and the role philosophy would play in such reforms. In recent philosophy of mind, phenomenology is prized as the basic foundation that philosophy is founded on, as opposed to disciplines such as metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. The methods used in the characterization of this disciplines were debated widely by Husserl as well as his successors, debates that continue to

Open Document