Kants Argument about the Origin of Human Knowledge - Essay Example

?KNOWLEDGE Kant sought to determine the scope and limit of pure reason in that he figured out to establish what reason could accomplish without assistance from the senses. Metaphysics asserts that it is possible to have knowledge of something based on pure reason. Kant objected these claims and doubted pure reason. He used two methods; priori and posteriori knowledge to doubt about metaphysics. According to Kant, it is significant to differentiate between analytic and synthetic judgments since it is possible that some judgments will turn out to be synthetic and priori at the same time. Therefore, Immanuel Kant implied that all posteriori judgments are because experience alone cannot be used to comprehend the meaning of something. It only means some judgments but not all synthetic judgments can be said to be posteriori since geometrical and mathematical judgments cannot be based on experience. This is because, they could not have been known from senses or experience (Allison, 2004). Kant consents that it is right for rationalists to argue that we know what we know or about things in this world with reason or certainty while empiricists are also correct by stating that such knowledge attained by certainty cannot be limited to truths by definitions nor cannot it be offered by experience. Instead, Kant argues that we know and understand about the world as we experience it in accordance with the unchanging and universally shared frame of mind. We reason or think about the world in terms of space, categories (like cause and effect), time, possibility, reality, and substance. That is to say that whatever people think or reason, they ought to think about it in certain manner (For instance, as having existing or not existing), not because that is the manner in which the world is, but instead that is the way that our brain or mind command experience (Dicker, 2004). In sum, Kant argued that we cannot claim to have knowledge without sensation but sense alone cannot offer knowledge either. People cannot clam to know things about the world not because we go outside our mind to compare and contrast what we experience with reality outside it but instead, the world we know is already structured and organized according to certain innate pattern that is the human brain or mind. Knowledge is possible due to the fact that it is about how things appear to us in this world and not about how things are made. Therefore, reason offers us the form or structure of what we know while the senses on the other hand, offer the content or information. Kant arguments were that we can claim to know about things we experience and structure in terms of mind’s form. For instance, soul or God and metaphysics cannot be claimed to known because we have not experienced them. In addition, Kant’s philosophies on theory of knowledge were that we would not be in a position to know if our concepts about the world are real or true. Further, it implies that we have to redefine what is true as that which we experience instead of that which senses or experience presents (Ameriks, 2003). In simple terms, Kant meant that human beings are limited to things as they appear thus either we will never at one particular point know if our concepts are real or true or if we ought to redefine what truth means. Kant argued that space and time are pure intuitions of human senses while ideas of physics such as inertia and causations are pure intuitions of human understanding. According to Kant, sensory experience is meaningful because the faculty of human sensibility evaluates and analyzes it thus organizing it in a coherent manner of space and time. These intuitions are the where human beings obtain mathematical knowledge (Gardner, 1999). Events that occur in time and space would have no meaning if it were not for human comprehension that asses and organizes perceptions and experiences according to notions such as causation which make the tenets of natural science. If space and time are the activities of the mind, then people might wonder what is out there autonomous of our mind (Gardner & Smith, 2003). Kant reacts to assertion by stating that human beings cannot be aware of their certain because human sense respond to stimuli that emanate from outside the human mind but we only possess knowledge of how they look once they have been analyzed by faculty of understanding and sensibility. Due to this, Kant argues that human beings cannot have certain knowledge about who they are. In his critique of pure knowledge, Kant attains a synthesis between empiricism and rationalism. Using rationalism, he argues that pure reason is able of attaining important knowledge but objects the assertion that pure reason can inform us about things-in-themselves. Using empiricism, Kant argues that human knowledge can be obtained from experience but objects the idea human beings can infer universal realities from experience. Kant managed to avoid metaphysical theory of the rationalists for which failed to justify how human beings acquire knowledge (Kant, 2010). Kant attained what he referred to as Copernican revolution in the discipline of philosophy whereby he was in a position to turn the attention of philosophy from metaphysical theory about the nature of knowledge and truth to an in-depth analysis of the nature of reasoning and perceiving human mind. In sum, Kant enlightens us that truth or reality is a dual establishment of outside reality and the human mind, and that is in accordance with the human mind that people can attain certain knowledge. Further, Kant believes that the mind does not only get information but rather it provides that information with modification or shape to make sense. Therefore, knowledge does not exist in outside world but it lives and exists in human mind. I agree with Kant’s argument about the origin of human knowledge because it gives a clear explanation of the relationship between priori and posteriori knowledge. I was satisfied with the way in which Kant described how priori knowledge is offered by pure reason. In addition, this illustrates how knowledge is offered by transcendental union of experience and reason. He is correct in asserting that not all knowledge can be produced by pure reason thus he rejected the rationalist position. He also does not fully agree with empiricist position that human knowledge is provided by experience. I concur with Kant’s assertions that human knowledge starts with experience and there cannot exist innate concepts in human mind prior to experience but this does not imply that experience is the only source of all human knowledge. The most significant argument is that he illustrates why experience and reason may be connected or combined to generate knowledge. References Allison, H 2004, Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense, Yale: Yale University Press. Ameriks, K 2003, Interpreting Kant’s Critiques, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dicker, G 2004, Kant's Theory of Knowledge: An Analytical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gardner, S, 1999, Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason, New York: Routledge. Gardner, S & Smith, N, 2003, A Commentary to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kant, I. 2010, Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason, 2nd Edition, New York: Kindle Books. Read More