Distinction Between Pure and Empirical Knowledge?
•What, according to Kant, is the distinction between pure and empirical knowledge? Can you give an example of each type of knowledge?
“knowledge a priori,” therefore, we shall in the sequel understand, not such as is independent of this or that kind of experience, but such as is absolutely so of all experience.
“Empirical knowledge”, or that which is possible only a posteriori, that is, through experience. Knowledge a priori is either pure or impure. Pure knowledge a priori is that with which no empirical element is mixed up.
I think that knowledge is what we use to make sense of things. As stated by Kant “If a man undermined his house, we say, “he might know a priori that it would have fallen;” that is, he needed not to have waited for the experience that it did actually fall. But still, a priori, he could not know even this much. For, those bodies are heavy, and, consequently, that they fall when their supports are taken away, must have been known to him previously, by means of experience. I am still torn between the lines of experience, and knowledge. Did we learn something at school or these just preconceived notions?
I believe empirical knowledge is science; Things that can be proven by the laws as we understand them. Again using one of Kant’s’ quotes “therefore, the most we can say is - so far as we have hitherto observed, there is no exception to this or that rule. If, on the other hand, a judgment carries with it strict and absolute universality, that is, admits of no possible exception” it is not derived from experience, but is valid absolutely a priori”.
David Hume’s Skeptical Doubts:
Humes’ philosophy was quite interesting he doubts all that we have been taught his states “The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible, because it can never imply a contradiction and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness as if ever so conformable to reality.”
To me this means if our brains
“knowledge a priori,” therefore, we shall in the sequel understand, not such as is independent of this or that kind of experience, but such as is absolutely so of all experience.
“Empirical knowledge”, or that which is possible only a posteriori, that is, through experience. Knowledge a priori is either pure or impure. Pure knowledge a priori is that with which no empirical element is mixed up.
I think that knowledge is what we use to make sense of things. As stated by Kant “If a man undermined his house, we say, “he might know a priori that it would have fallen;” that is, he needed not to have waited for the experience that it did actually fall. But still, a priori, he could not know even this much. For, those bodies are heavy, and, consequently, that they fall when their supports are taken away, must have been known to him previously, by means of experience. I am still torn between the lines of experience, and knowledge. Did we learn something at school or these just preconceived notions?
I believe empirical knowledge is science; Things that can be proven by the laws as we understand them. Again using one of Kant’s’ quotes “therefore, the most we can say is - so far as we have hitherto observed, there is no exception to this or that rule. If, on the other hand, a judgment carries with it strict and absolute universality, that is, admits of no possible exception” it is not derived from experience, but is valid absolutely a priori”.
David Hume’s Skeptical Doubts:
Humes’ philosophy was quite interesting he doubts all that we have been taught his states “The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible, because it can never imply a contradiction and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness as if ever so conformable to reality.”
To me this means if our brains