Kant as a Philosopher
analytical Essay
1257 words
Kant as a Philosopher
How does one label Kant as a philosopher? Is he a rationalist or an empiricist? Kant makes a distinction between appearances and things in themselves. He also says that things in themselves exist, and that we have no knowledge of things in themselves. This could be labeled "CLOSE TO NONSENSE", but we know Kant better than that. No matter how many laps on the track of metaphysics Kant takes us through, he is still widely held as one of the greatest modern philosophers of our time. Let us explore the schools of rationalism and empiricism and compare his views with that of other rationalists and empiricists (mainly Hume), and see where he ends up on the finish line towards the nature of human knowledge.
The term rationalism is used to designate any mode of thought in which human reason holds the place of supreme truth. Knowledge in this school of thought must be founded upon necessary truths (those that must be true and cannot be false); our ideas are derived from our experience; everything we experience is finite, but we do have the idea of infinity or else we couldn’t conceive of things as finite. Descartes and Leibniz are well-known rationalists (handout on Rationalism versus Empiricism).
Empiricism, on the other hand, is the concept that knowledge is grounded in experience, not reason, and our minds begin as a tabula rasa (term used by the great empiricist, John Locke meaning blank slate). Reason, for empiricists, can only process the ideas experience gives us. Knowledge is also founded on contingent truths (those that can be false and true); necessary truths are only good for organizing our ideas, as in mathematics, but that is all. There are also no innate ideas in empiricism; all of ou...
... middle of paper ...
...ive today, maybe he wouldn’t choose either side. So, as for the race for who is more accurate at explaining the nature of human knowledge, it turns out that Kant is not a participant in the race after all. Nevertheless, he stands at the sidelines and fires the gun, and awaits the other modern philosophers to complete their race towards the finish line.
References
Ariew, R. and Watkins, E. Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources
Hackett: Indianapolis/Cambridge, 1998.
Ross, K.L. http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm, 2000.
Note: I found this website and judged its credibility to be pretty accurate. I usually don’t quote so much from websites, but he (or she) mainly quoted from the texts that I read for class anyway. Reading the text that the website provided helped me to better understand Kant. I hope that this was okay.
In this essay, the author
- Explains kant's distinction between appearances and things in themselves. he is widely held as one of the greatest modern philosophers of our time.
- Explains that rationalism is a mode of thought in which human reason holds the supreme truth.
- Explains that empiricism is the concept that knowledge is grounded in experience, not reason, and our minds begin as a blank slate.
- Explains that kant's theory of the thing in itself is the product of our mind’s commitment to thinking about phenomena as appearances.
- Explains that kant believed that there are important propositions that can be known independently of experience, contrary to the basic empiricist principle.
- Analyzes kant's critique of pure reason (transcendental deduction) and his position with rationalism.
- Argues that kant's notion that reason connects us directly to things in themselves doesn't allow for metaphysics as practiced by the rationalists because reason alone does not determine any positive content of knowledge.
- Argues that kant's theory of empirical realism is difficult to understand. since phenomena are mental contents, it is natural and easy to infer from this a cartesian transcendental
- Opines that the lack of clear settlement in this area of basic thought is one of the most difficult problems in kant's philosophy.
- Explains berkeley was an idealist and characteristic empiricist while descartes was a realist, believing reasonably that objects exist independent of us, but who also thought that we could only know their essences through "clear and distinct" innate ideas, not experience.
- Explains that locke was not aware that everything familiar from traditional philosophy (or even mathematics) wasn't going to be so traceable. kant began, like hume, asking about the legitimacy of concepts.
- Analyzes how hume's critique of the concept of cause and effect questioned the principle of causality, and how he expressed the defect of such a principle made sense to kant.
- Explains that hume denied the existence of synthetic a priori propositions, but he does not see that the relationship of cause and effect is discovered or known from anything.
- Explains that kant believes that concepts like causality are "conditions of the possibility of experience" because they are the rules by which perception and experience are united into a single consciousness called "synthesis".
- Opines that kant's argument is of great value, especially when we untangle it from the earlier views of perception in the critique, but it suffers from a couple of drawbacks.
- Opines that kant's critique of pure reason (transcendental aesthetic and analytic) was difficult to interpret. philosophers and essayists around the world have made numerous attempts at cracking the code to his cryptic hypotheses.
- Explains that they found this website and judged its credibility to be pretty accurate.
Related
- analytical
- explanatory
- comparative
- Philosophy of Immanuel Kantanalytical essayThere are different views about how we gain knowledge of the world, through our senses or through our minds, and although many say that it is one or the other I believe that although we gain some knowledge through sense data not all of our ideas come from these impressions. There are those who stand on the side of empiricism, like David Hume, and those who stand on the side of rationalism, like René Descartes; then there are also those who believe that one can have a foot on both sides, like Immanuel Kant. To be on one side or the other never gives you full knowledge you must be willing to use your senses and your reason to form ideas.
In this essay, the author
- Argues that empiricists believe that all knowledge and ideas come from the senses and that people learn from their mistakes.
- Explains that descartes says that ideas are whatever is perceived by the mind both acts and objects. hume is wrong about the idea of god because humans cannot create something better and more perfect than us.
- Explains that rationalists believe that knowledge and ideas should be based on reason and not our senses. descartes' example of the wax illustrates kant's view that objects conform to our minds.
- Explains kant's belief combines rationalism and empiricism, stating that people must distinguish between the phenomenal world and the noumenal world.
- Explains kant's four types of judgments: analytic and synthetic, based on the principle of contradiction and general laws of science.
- Analyzes how kant introduces the idea of perception. time and space are necessary to perception, even though they cannot be perceived apart from the events. hume's theory of impressions falls apart.
- Opines that although we gain knowledge through sense data, not all of our ideas come from these impressions. kant changed philosophy by showing that certain aspects of rationalism and empiricism were wrong.
- Describes hume, david, descartes, rené, and cress' meditations on first philosophy, in which the existence of god and the distinction of the soul from the body are demonstrated.
1411 wordsRead More - Kantian Philosophy: Immanuel Kantanalytical essayImmanuel Kant was German philosopher who was an influential figure in modern philosophy since he was one of the first to analyze the process of thinking. Kant was not only just a prominent figure in philosophy, but contributed greatly in metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics. Some of his major works were the Critique of Pure Reason, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Critique of Practical Reason, and Critique of Judgement. His form of ethics or philosophy is known as Kantian Ethics which are mostly based off of deontology, which is the ethical position that judges an action based on its morality and not the consequence. Like any philosophy on ethics, there are pros and cons to it and we will analyze them. I personally believe that
In this essay, the author
- Explains that immanuel kant was an influential figure in modern philosophy. he contributed greatly in metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics.
- Explains that immanuel kant lived a strict, disciplined life in konigsberg, prussia, and was never married. his social life, however, was good.
- Explains that kant's greatest work, critique of pure reason, was considered one of the most influential works in the history of philosophy.
- Analyzes immanuel kant's theory of duty ethics or rule non-consequentialist theory, where intentions or motives of a consequence are more important and focused than the actual consequence.
- Explains that kant proposed a moral law called the categorical imperative, which states that an act is immoral if the rule cannot be universalized.
- Explains that there are conflicting duties when making universal rules, which means there will be exceptions.
- Argues that people would be acting out of moral duty instead of inclination, which is bad. if we followed kant's ethics of duty, we would seem inhuman.
- Analyzes the pros and cons of kant's ethic, stating that universal maxims, or ground rules, are conflicted when it comes to moral issues.
990 wordsRead More - Immanuel Kantexplanatory essayImmanuel Kant Immanuel Kant was born, lived and passed away in his home town of Konigsberg. He lived from 1724 to 1804. He studied at the local university and later returned to tutor and lecture students. It wasn’t until he met an English merchant by the name of Joseph Green that Kant learned of David Hume and began to develop his ideas of morals and values. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (1781) is believed by many to be his greatest work.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that immanuel kant was born, lived and passed away in his home town of konigsberg. he studied at the local university and later returned to tutor and lecture students.
- Explains that immanuel kant was a follower of deontology, or duty ethics, which means that an act to be moral must be performed out of duty.
- Explains that kant states that your duty to act comes from your good will, which is the process by which we make our decisions.
- Explains immanuel kant's categorical imperative and how it means to act in accordance with universal law through good will, reason, and duty.
430 wordsRead More - Immanuel Kant was a philosopher who was born on April 22nd, 1724, and lived his life in Konigsberg, Prussia. He received his doctorate in philosophy in 1755, and soon after began writing works on philosophical ideas. Kant was a theist, and tried to acquire an understanding of human actions and goodwill. In his novel, “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals”, Kant primarily discusses his opinions of goodwill, morals, and the ability to cause events through free will. Kant has expressed a plethora of great ideas within his work, and I wholeheartedly agree with Kant’s views on the way of life and morality.
In this essay, the author
- Describes immanuel kant as a philosopher born on april 22nd, 1724, and lived his life in konigsberg, prussia. he received his doctorate in philosophy in 1755.
- Explains kant's belief that there are hypothetical and categorical imperatives, which are framed in the sense of cause and effect relationships.
- Explains kant's three propositions on obligations — duty, volition, and the necessity of action from respect for law.
- Explains that kant believes that the world needs more genuine universal laws that are developed by reason.
- Analyzes how kant believes that we have an imperfect duty to benevelence, but how far that duty extends is unknown.
- Opines that they agree with kant on all of his positions, including his propositions, ideas on genuine laws, hypothetical and categorical imperative, and holding imperfect duty.
1058 wordsRead More - Kant And Mill Moral Analysisanalytical essayKant is a man of reason, which means that he values reason over anything when faced with a moral question. Killing,
In this essay, the author
- Argues that kant and mill have different views on the connection between feelings and moral actions, and whether the two are competing or cooperative values.
- Explains that kant values reason over anything when faced with a moral question. killing, stealing, and lying are examples of what he wants self-determining humans to use reason alone when thinking to commit them.
- Argues that kant's consistency argument is not enough to discredit the utilitarian believe of feelings.
- Opines that humans are a mixture of feelings and emotions that cannot be separated from their rational reasoning, even in tough circumstances.
- Explains that a self-determining individual's lack of sympathy for others led to disastrous outcomes, such as the 2008 financial crisis.
- Analyzes how mill's argument about feelings is appealing because he addresses our weakness, which is the lack of separating feelings from rational reasoning.
- Opines that mill's utilitarianism is achievable because it does not require us to ignore our feelings but to guide them in the right direction.
1123 wordsRead More - DavidHume's Theory of Causation and Scepticismanalytical essay3. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason:A Commentary for Students, T.E. Wilkerson, Bristol, England; Thoemmes Press, 1998
In this essay, the author
- Explains hume's reasoning behind his theory of causation and scepticism, and kant’s thought on the topic.
- Concludes that we have no idea of connection or force at all, when employed in philosophical reasoning or common life.
- Explains that he asserts that we never see causal necessity, and therefore that the idea of a necessary causal connection is meaningless.
- Analyzes hume's claim that we can never see causal necessity, as we never have perceptions that tell us that a given cause must be followed by its usual effect.
- Analyzes hume's claim that because causal necessity cannot be perceived by us, we have no reason to believe that such a thing exists.
- Explains that all arguments concerning existence are founded on the relation of cause and effect, that our knowledge of that relation is derived entirely from experience, and all our experimental conclusions proceed upon the supposition that the future will be conform to the past.
- Explains that hume's realization that the whole notion of causal necessity is flawed leads to much broader consequences than us merely being unable to prove the connection between something as presumably trivial as golf club and its impact on a ball.
- Argues that it is impossible for any arguments from experience to prove this resemblance of the past to the future.
- Analyzes how hume's logic of induction depends upon repeated observation and the assumption that the future is like the past.
- Explains that scepticism has plagued the world of philosophy and science with a shroud of doubt.
- Analyzes how kant's fundamental interest was concerned with how we can know that two events are causally connected, rather than finding out what is the nature of that causation. hume criticized the human notion of cause and effect as being conventional.
- Analyzes how traditional interpretations of kant's argument place him very distant from hume on the subject of causality.
- Analyzes how kant responds to hume's scepticism with the claim that, in order to have coherent experience, the mind must have imposed certain rules, or categories, on its own perceptions and experience.
- Explains that they must be able to identify objects, and identify objectively successive events. the ground for such identification is in their experience.
- Explains that successive perceptions of objective sequences are connected according to a rule, the rule of cause and effect. this is kant's take on the subject of causality.
- Analyzes hume's reasoning behind the theory that humans inability to understand cause and effect must lead to scepticism. kant, among other philosophers have tried to solve this question but it remains a puzzle.
- Explains that frederick copelston's a history of philosophy, volume vi, burns and oates, 1960; immanuel kant’s critique of pure reason: a commentary for students, t.e. wilkerson, bristol, england.
1675 wordsRead More - Empiricism And Epistemologyanalytical essayTo the empiricists, our mind is a blank slate when entering the world and only through experience are marks left on it. Empiricists are content with believing in conclusions that are probable rather than absolutely certain (Lawhead). Our sense experiences may not provide complete certainty as rationalists would like, but it is all we have to go on. Empiricists are against the speculation that rationalists tend to make. Empiricists believe every idea, concept, or term must be tested by tracing it back to an original experience from which it was derived (Lawhead). Empiricists also differ from rationalists by claiming that we have no innate ideas. While some ideas may seem universal, the empiricists would say these are expressions of the relations of our ideas or the generalizations from experience (Lawhead). For example,
In this essay, the author
- Explains that epistemology is an area of philosophy that deals with the questions and theories concerning knowledge. the main theories are rationalism, empiricism, and constructivism.
- Explains empiricism as the second-best argument and is a big influence on constructivism. empiricists believe that sense experience is the single source of our knowledge about the world.
- Explains the concept of constructivism, which was introduced by immanuel kant as a theory that took insights from rationalism and empiricism.
- Analyzes how kant's theory of constructivism solves the rationalist problem of supposing reason can operate without materials of experience in.
- Explains kantian constructivism produces the strongest theory of knowledge compared to rationalism and empiricism. kant's theory recognizes that both reason and sensation play a role in developing our knowledge.
998 wordsRead More - Immanuel, Kant (1724-1804)analytical essayImmanuel Kant was born in 1724 in the East Prussian town of Königsberg and lived there practically all his life. He came from a deeply pious Lutheran family, and his own religious convictions formed a significant background to his philosophy. Like Berkeley, he felt it was essential to preserve the foundations of Christian belief.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that immanuel kant was born in 1724 in the east prussian town of königsberg and lived there practically all his life. his religious convictions formed a significant background to his philosophy.
- Explains that kant became professor of logic and metaphysics at the university of königsberg in 1770. he was also interested in science and published works on astronomy and geophysics.
- Explains that kant's three most significant works were published later in life: the critique of pure reason, practical reason and judgment.
- Analyzes how kant's mental faculties and his sight deteriorated and he died a shadow of his former self, aged 80.
- Explains that kant believed that there are clear limits to what we can know. he thought that reason operates beyond the limits of what humans can comprehend.
- Explains that sensory perception and reason contribute to our knowledge of the world. the material of knowledge comes to us through the senses, but must conform to the attributes of reason.
- Opines that reason is on hold when we wonder where the world came from, and discuss possible answers. it has no sensory material to process, no experience to make use of, because we have never experienced the whole of the great reality of which we are a tiny part.
- Explains kant's view that there will always be two contrasting viewpoints that are equally likely or unlikely, depending on what our reason tells us.
- Analyzes how hume's scepticism with regard to reason and the senses forced kant to think through many important questions again. he agreed with rationalists who said the ability to distinguish between right and wrong is inherent in human reason.
- Explains that the ability to tell right from wrong is as innate as all the other attributes of reason. we all have access to the same universal moral law.
- Analyzes how kant formulates the moral law as a categorical imperative, or that it applies to all situations.
- Analyzes how he formulates this 'categorical imperative' in several ways.
- Analyzes how kant formulated the 'quot;categorical imperative': treat humanity, whether in one's own person or another, never as a means, but as an end.
- Explains that kant's law of morals is absolute and universal, as is causality. it cannot be proved by reason, but it is unalterable.
- Opines that if one acts out of respect for moral law, they must have conquered themselves. kant's ethics is called duty ethics.
- Explains that kant advocated the establishment of a 'league of nations' in his treatise perpetual peace.
1191 wordsRead More - Empiricism Vs Descartes Essayanalytical essayHume is an empiricist; he believes humans acquire their knowledge through sense perception and experience. He believes that there are two types of perceptions in this world that contributes to how we obtain our knowledge: impressions and ideas. Impressions involve taking in objects through the senses, whereas ideas involve remembering said objects. Hume has the belief that we as people combine ideas together to create something; you can’t come up with an object unless you’ve had the experience of it. In contrast Descartes is a rationalist, someone who believes in indubitable truths. In his eyes, knowledge is innate, and acquired to a person before birth. He also thinks there is only one divine being that is innate, and that is God. Hume’s idea of empiricism is better than Descartes’ idea of rationalism.
In this essay, the author
- Compares hume's idea of empiricism with that of descartes'.
- Explains that advocates of empiricism believe that we can only be sure of something once it has been tested, proven and experience.
- Explains that empiricists argue that the epistemology of rationalism is wrong because their ideas of priori reasoning fail to apply to a number of cases.
- Opines that empiricism is more of an effective epistemology than rationalism. if children had innate knowledge, wouldn't they know how to walk and talk?
- Analyzes hume's argument that the relationship between cause and effect is done through experience, which contradicts descartes' rationalist epistemology.
- Analyzes how descartes' take on rationalism is that we know our knowledge through intuition and deductive reasoning. he expands on this by explaining the notion that there is a divine, infinite being, such as god.
- Analyzes how descartes believes he exists because according to his logic, you must have thoughts in order to exist.
- Analyzes how descartes believes that god would not try to deceive him because god is a supreme and perfect being that isn't deceptive.
- Argues that hume's empiricist argument is a better epistemology than descartes' rationalist arguments. they argue that experience is the primary building block of acquiring knowledge.
1118 wordsRead More - Comparing Knowledge in Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy and Hume’s An Enquiry Concerningcomparative essayDescartes is a prime example of a rationalist. Descartes begins his Meditations on First Philosophy by doubting his senses in the first meditation. “From time to time I [Descartes] have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once”(Descartes: 12). In the second meditation, Descartes begins to rebuild the world he broke down in the first meditation by establishing cogito ergo sum with the aid of natural light. It is with this intuition that the cogito is established, from the cogito, intellect, from the intellect, knowledge; thus knowledge has been defined in this world that Descartes is constructing from scratch. Descartes uses the fact that he is a thinking thing to establish the existence of other things in the world with the cosmological and ontological arguments, as well as a meditation on truth and falsity. “So now I seem to be able to lay it down as a general rule that whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true” (Descartes: 24). Descartes only utilizes his perceptions to establish ideas of the things t...
In this essay, the author
- Compares descartes' meditations on first philosophy and hume's an enquiry concerning human understanding. rationalists claim that knowledge comes from reason or ideas, while empirists answer that it is derived from the senses.
- Explains that descartes is a rationalist and begins his meditations on first philosophy by doubting his senses. he establishes cogito ergo sum with the aid of natural light.
- Explains that empiricists don't believe in natural light and therefore do not hold knowledge to be derived from these innate ideas. hume was a scientist and an atheist.
- Explains that from impressions and ideas stem two kinds of knowledge: relations of ideas and matters of fact.
- Explains that the source of knowledge is not universally agreed upon. to rationalists, innate ideas give them cause to base knowledge in reason, being derived from ideas.
860 wordsRead More