Does Kant Adequately Address the Problems Evident in the Controversy between Empiricism and Rationalism - Essay Example

In the study of philosophical Epistemology, we normally ask ourselves what we know, what we are sure of and how we can go beyond our mere opinions on real knowledge. According to Ann (1970), conventionally there are two types of Epistemology: rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism on one hand explains that we gain knowledge through reasoning, while on the other hand, empiricism explains that we gain knowledge through sensory experience. According to Kant, the difference (dispute) that emerges between rationalism and empiricism is the level in which we are dependent on sense experience in order for us to gain and acquire knowledge. Rationalists claim that, very independent we gain knowledge and ideas (Kenny 45-46). This independent way of gaining concepts as it is own sense experience. Empiricists claim on the other side that sense experience is the final source of all our knowledge and ideals. When empiricists say that we are only able to access appearances, they are not saying that we only have access to illusory representations. To some level denying some confidence in their explanations, in this case, they ought to have been clear on this matter. Nonetheless, for Kant, appearances can, and in fact do, provide us with the ground for knowledge on facts and ideas (Kenny 48). To him the mind is the source of experience and knowledge, Descartes (1988). This is the concept, according to Kant, the concept of pure of categories. This is particularly clear in the sense that the mind makes contributions to experiences (Descartes 123). The mind plays a significant role and imposes on experience certain categories that make knowledge possible. In this case when Kant says that we cannot know the thing in itself he does not only mean that reality is inaccessible but also that we cannot experience anything outside in the way human mind operates Ann (1970). And from this explanation it is not a wrong concept, “but it justifies how human beings acquire knowledge” (Anne 90). Now, we have a look science and advancements in knowledge, it is evident that we have knowledge; Kant would never have denied it. Rationalist, in real sense have developed the argument in two ways. They say that there are circumstances when the content embodied in knowledge outstrips the information that can be provided in the real life experience. Also, they have build in some way, that reason in some form provides information and knowledge to the world. Empiricists, in this case provide some additional information of knowledge thought about the world (Kenny 50). Empiricists provide a sum up of lines and levels of thought. In that case they establish on accounts of how learning and experience provides on the information that rationalist provide, which according to Kant we have so far. According to Kant Empiricists will in most cases opt for skepticism as a lope to rationalism, Ann (1970). The say that if then experience cannot provide concepts or knowledge the rationalist cite, they then in that case do not have. In that case according to Kant, “empiricists attack the rationalists on accounts of how reason is a source of concepts and knowledge”. According to Kant, rationalist focus on what they call necessary truth. By this they articulate that some things are necessary true. Kant points that the simplest form of truth is the self-evident truth. In that regard, Kant says, that you even do not have to think. He illustrates that for instance as a simple calculation; one plus one, the answer is two Descartes (1988). This to him you do not have through the world to necessarily count this in order to prove it. Kant says that this is something you ought to believe that one plus one, the answer is two (Descartes 124). One of the criticisms that empiricists would set-forward is that, one plus one is two, is a mere trivial. It is tautological, suggesting it is true, certain, but not because it is not self evident. Self evident in this case, you actually have no reason as to why you should think about it. Therefore, one plus two is the definition of two and so with the rest of mathematics. They say that we created mathematics in such a way it works consistently with us, Ann (1970). According to Kant, many individuals think that empiricism is one and the same as science. This is an unfortunate mistake. “The reason that empiricism is that close to science only exists in the state of mind and this more of historical than philosophical”. The simplest form of empirical truth is only based on direct observation-taking a strict look (Anne 92). On the other hand, the basic form of realism is the direct realism, commonly known as naïve realism. It says that what you are able to see is you get. According to Kant, the senses portray the world in the most accurate way. Also, is the critical realism, points that, we are able to see sensations which are the representative of the real images of the world and not he direct things we see. Kant suggests that this is an eye deception. The conflict in philosophy as pertains to realism and imperialism dates back to the inception of philosophy as a discipline (Descartes 124). At a glance, the struggle has the nature of the chicken or egg discussion, which says that taking a close look shows it is importance and dismantles any belief that is binary. Kant tries to harmonize this by saying that, imperialism is a common philosophical sense that is in the art of describing sense and though as something that is of great importance that transcends the material. Anything that is capable of reduction to material of thought or being. The matter that is cognized is a product of human consciousness. Thus according to Kant, reality is dependent of our cognition. He continues to say that, realism posits that the consciousness acknowledges reality and not the thought between them (Descartes 123). Kant, illustrates this by a show of the two ‘–isms’ of possible graphical equations. Realism: Reality which is conscious/acknowledge and on the other hand imperialism: Reality which is thoughts of conscious/acknowledge. This is one and the same, since one build on another, Descartes (1988). That is to say, imperialism builds on realism. This statement is well presented by Kant as subject based. This is a concept between subject and reality, which in our interaction is a mere mode of apprehension (Descartes 126). Kant bridges the gap that exists between mind and extension. This is because the mind is seen as immaterial, which means that unlike anything else in reality, there arises the problem of how to fill the gap that exists between the inside of the mind and the outside of the world. For Descartes, the mind contributes acts of intellection while Hume the mind is only passive. Kant interacts in between them, rationalism and empiricism, Descartes (1988). He agrees with Hume that without experience knowledge would be impossible. On the losing end, “Kant puts on the spot the illegitimacy the use of certain metaphysics notions by certain rationalist but questions the skepticism we find in Hume empiricism”. In any case, the problem of whether we know things in themselves is not specific to Kant's philosophy, but in fact haunts all of modern philosophy---at least the philosophies that maintain a strict mind-body dualism (Descartes 126). Work cited Anne, B. Rationalism, Empiricism and Pragmatism: An Introduction, New York: Random House.1970. Descartes, R. Principles of Philosophy, in Descartes: Selected Philosophical Writings, transl. John Nottingham and Donald Murdoch, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Kenny, A. Rationalism, Empiricism and Idealism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1986. Read More