Emmanuel Kant Analysis

Emmanuel Kant argues that the human understanding of our world is perceived by our experiences and only through them can we gain knowledge. Kant’s philosophic question is rooted in the theory of understanding; in short, what can we know and how can we know it? Most of our knowledge of the world can be derived from our observation of it. As children, we see things, touch things, smell things and so on. Gradually, we understand the world in which we live in; this is the knowledge of sense-perception. For example, wind has no physical form but we can see its effects and can classify it as being part of nature. Kant, however, perceives knowledge only through our experiences. So going back to the example of wind, Kant would say we have knowledge of wind not because we
In my opinion, this has some of his argument has sound ground to it. I know the table because I have had an interact with it. If I was an alien from a distant plant where no tables existed, I would not have knowledge a table, but that isn’t to say I would have a concept of what a table does which is hold a place for an object. To me, I believe Kant is working within a grey area of thought where it could or couldn’t be applied depending on your particular view of the world.
Contrasting Kant, Heidegger see knowledge of the world through his characteristic Dasein. Heidegger focus on Being and our capacity to make sense of things. Dasein mean “being there”, being in the world. By focusing on Dasein, humans cannot be taken into account except as a being within existence with other things. We are not separated from the world but are apart of it. We are fixed in a physical day to day world as human beings. For Heidegger, the world is here, now and everywhere; we are deeply involved with the world. In his Metaphysics, Heidegger describes human How do we as Dasein know our world? Heidegger would say that it is through moods by which we gain