Directions of Epistemology - Case Study Example

Assess in what way you think Emmanuel Kant may claim to have overcome David Hume’s skepticism Epistemology is the theory considering a question on how it is possible to receive knowledge of object and to make a true representation. In other words, epistemology is a theory which aspires to find out the questions connected with an origin, methods, development and other problems of knowledge. Epistemology is connected with fundamental problems of ontology, in particular with the conflict between idealism and materialism. Besides the circle of practical epistemological interests are closely adjoined with questions of gnosiology, or the theory of knowledge. In history of epistemology there are two main schools concerning what makes the main means of knowledge. Rationalism allocates this role to reason. The empiricism allocates this role to experience, feelings strengthened by tools. For rationalists a paradigm of knowledge is the mathematics and logic where the necessary truth is made by intuition or conclusion. For empiricists a paradigm of knowledge is natural science (Scruton, 2001, p.46) But for both directions of epistemology the central question is the question, whether we can trust that way of knowledge which they prefer. The skeptical arguments show, that we cannot accept everything simply, without checking. So, the answer to the skeptical call represents one of the ways of epistemological understanding. In the epistemological sense Hume was an empiricist for whom only two kinds of knowledge (science) existed. The first kind is based on the experience (finally on sensual perception), the second - on the rules of interrelation of concepts established on the agreement (according to empiricism interpretations, such knowledge is inherent for mathematics and logic). (Scruton, 2001, p.51) We cannot have any knowledge besides these two kinds. We not know the things which are not given to us in experience (for example, God or the objective norms). This empiricistic epistemology leads to the results, important not only for theology and ethics, but also for the understanding of experimental sciences. From this point of view, in natural sciences there is no certain undoubtful kernel (represented, for example, by the law of causality). Further we shall see that Kant paid much attention to this item and tried to deny it. Concerning a question on the origin of knowledge, Hume specifies the distinction between "the higher emotional perceptions", or "impressions", and "ideas" (Scruton, 2001, p.52). Kant’s epistemology, which united the advantages of the normative and positivistic approaches to the research of the international attitudes, appeared demanded by representatives of two most authoritative directions of the modern political theories – neoliberalism and neorealism - in their aspiration to the actualization Kant’s heritage on the ways of the interdisciplinary synthesis. The central item of Kant’s epistemology is person, and as its paradigm is the priority of the subject that acts and breaks off with the traditional empiricism and rationalism by means of transcendental philosophy, which tries to prove conditions (rules, principles), which make possible the formation of empirically true and false judgments. In other words, I. Kant creates a certain speculative design for the interpersonal scope which basis lays exclusively in it. In addition I.Kant perfectly realized the nature of human knowledge: on the one hand the person belongs to the sensually perceived (natural-phenomenal) world, from another, every person is a supernatural being (social) world (Kant, ed. 1999, pp 134 – 135). Kant synthesized empiricism and rationalism and has created the new approach. He considered empiricism as an erroneous method because it assigned the omnipotence to reason. Thus, in opinion of Kant, for the reception of true knowledge it is important to analyse, how experience can become knowledge. To reach it, person should either take on belief, or criticize the function of reason. Kant tried to unite empiricism and rationalism on the basis of that fact, that the knowledge is increased by means of experience, and that the true knowledge can have the universal importance. Needless to say, that the knowledge begins with experience, thus Kant stated that inside of the knowledge subject there are some aprioristic forms of knowledge (concepts). In other words, the object of knowledge is established, when the sensual maintenance (which also named as a material, sensation, the sum of the unorganized experience presented in feelings, or a matter of sensations), is put into the order by aprioristic forms of the subject. All the previous philosophical systems recognized that object is perceived such way what it is; Kant said that the object of knowledge is a product of the synthesis which is carried out by the subject. It was a revolutionary thought. (Kant, ed. 1999, p. 140) So, in epistemology Kant did not aspire to receive the knowledge of the object, but aspired to find out, how it is possible to receive the objective validity. It named his doctrine by the transcendental method. Kant considered the failure in finding arguments against skepticism by “scandal in philosophy”, and has offered his decision in ‘the Critic of pure reason’ (1829). His thesis states that our minds are arranged so that they impose a skeleton of interpretive concepts on our sensual inputs. The application of these concepts transforms simply passive reception of sensual data into so-called experience. Our abilities are those, that there where crude data fall under interpreting activity of our concepts, they already have the spatial and time form imposed on them by the nature of our sensual abilities (Kant, ed. 1999, p.155). All our experience considered to include everything that is outside of us, it is the experience of spatially structured world, and all our experience considered as our mind concerning perception. We impose categories on the existential data appearing at our mind, that is, concepts which do experience possible, giving to it the certain character. And here is an essence of Kant’s approach: if the skeptic asks us to prove our statements of knowledge, we do it, exposing the facts as experience is founded. Kant has declared Hume as a person who inspired these ideas as Hume gave the reason. Though we cannot reject skepticism, - the reason is not adapted for this problem - we do not need to worry, because human nature is founded so, that we simply can not live without beliefs which skepticism calls to prove. These beliefs include, for example, the belief that there is an external world, that there are causal attitudes between the events in the world, that the inductive reflection is reliable, and so on. Proceeding from these hints, Kant has developed his theory. (Kant, ed. 1999, p. 168). Strategy and attacks of Kant towards skepticism have wakened the interest of the recent philosophy to them. The argument used by him named transcendental, is such an argument which speaks, that as ‘A’ is a necessary condition for ‘B’ and as ‘B’ exists really, ‘A’ also should exist actually. An example of such argument against skepticism is the following: A typical skeptical call concerning beliefs is indiscernible proceeding existence of the objects. What does prove our belief, and a lot of beliefs which are deduced from it? The transcendental answer to this is that we borrow the uniform world of existential objects and from this point of view the existential objects should exist indiscernible to find the uniform world of things, the belief in their indiscernible proceeding existence is a condition of our thinking both about the world, and about our experience. As we actually think so, the belief which the skeptic asks to prove, is proved by that. It should be mentioned that the modern philosopher who uses this style of the argument, is P.Stroson (1911 - ). Hume’s skepticism has both destructive and constructive features. As a matter of fact, it has a creative character. Hume’s courageous new world is closer to the nature, than to a supernatural empire, it is the world empiricist, instead of the rationalist. The existence of the Deity, as well as all other actual states of affairs, is indemonstrably. Supernaturalism ("a religious hypothesis") should be investigated empirically, from the point of view of the device of the Universe or the device of the person. A miracle or "infringement of laws of the nature" though it is possible theoretically, in history it has been never testified so convincingly that it was possible to put it in a basis of religious system. The wonderful phenomena are always connected with human certificates, and people, as it is known, are more inclined to trustfulness and prejudices, than to skepticism and impartiality (Hume, ed.1998, p. 88). In many things Kant represented the issues, which were opposite to Hume. "Criticism of pure reason" is the basic, program work of Kant. In it the problematics is stated, methods stipulate and the system of philosophy of the critical period is represented. In an ideal it should be strictly metaphysical composition where other, so authentic statements are logically consistently deduced from carefully selected initial truth. And really, its beginning is: transcendental aesthetics and analytics form at the reader representation about pure reason - the opportunity of knowledge based only on aprioristic knowledge. The mind is functionally separated from reason and receives in the order pure rational concepts - categories. Then the pure reason should move to the further knowledge of mind, but collides with dialectics: “The celebrated David Hume was one of those geographers of human reason who imagine that they have given a sufficient answer to all such questions by declaring them to lie beyond the horizon of human reason - a horizon which, however, Hume was unable to determine. His attention especially was directed to the principle of causality; and he remarked with perfect justice that the truth of this principle, and even the objective validity of the conception of a cause, was based upon no clear insight, that is, upon any priori knowledge. Hence he concluded that this law does not derive its authority from its universality and necessity, but merely from its general applicability in the course of experience, and a kind of subjective necessity thence arising, which he termed habit. From the inability of reason to establish this principle as a necessary law for the acquisition of all experience, he inferred the nullity of all the attempts of reason to pass the region of the empirical” (Critique of Pure Reason (1787)). In 1783 I. Kant wrote that “David Humes instruction was that prompting which for the first time - is a lot of years back - has interrupted my dogmatic frankness and has given my researches in the field of speculative philosophy absolutely other direction, but I am far not behind it in his conclusions.” (Campbell, 2001, p. 69). References An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1772). Hackett Publ. Co. 1993; Chapter on Cause and Effect http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/h/u.htm#hume-david Bird Graham, ‘The Revolutionary Kant: A Commentary on the Critique of Pure Reason, Open Court (2006) Campbell Mossner Ernest , ‘The Life of David Hume’, Oxford University Press, USA; 2 edition (2001) Critique of Pure Reason (1787). Norman Kemp Smith version from http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr. Hume David, ‘An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (The Clarendon Edition of the Works of David Hume), Oxford University Press, USA (2006) Hume David, ‘Dialogues and Natural History of Religion (Oxford Worlds Classics)’, J. C. A. Gaskin (Editor) Oxford University Press, USA; New Ed edition (1998) Kant Immanuel, ‘Critique of Pure Reason, Abridged (Hackett Publishing Co.)’,Hackett Publishing Company; Abridged Ed edition (1999) Kant Immanuel,’ Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy)’, Cambridge University Press (1998) Scruton Roger, ‘ Kant: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)’ , Oxford University Press, USA; Revised edition (2001) Stroud Barry, ‘Hume (The Arguments of the Philosophers)’, Routledge; 1 edition (1981) Read More