Kant Rationalism
For this lesson, for chapter 6, I will describe philosopher Immanuel Kant’s integration of both philosophical beliefs of rationalism and empiricism, and why both “experience and reason” are important for “…constructing our knowledge of the world” (Chaffee, 6.5, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)). Kant wanted to bring together both the different thought schools of rationalism and empiricism because he believed people could not have one without the other; we can’t have reason without experience and vice versa. Kant wanted to accomplish this because he was “…concerned with constructing a metaphysical framework for the ‘self’ that [would] account for the phenomena of experience, in particular what he describes as ‘the unity of consciousness’” (Chaffee,
…show more content…
6.5). By Kant wanting to “construct” this “metaphysical framework” in order to explain experience, he was doing this through explaining how our mind “…actively [selects], [organizes]… and [interprets]… sensations, shaping them into an intelligible world about which we can develop insight and knowledge” (Chaffee, 6.5, Kant’s Solution: Transcendental Idealism)--this being Kant’s explanation for our “unity of consciousness.” Basically, the mind “selects, organizes, and interprets” information in order for the individual to more easily make sense of his or her surroundings; the individual then can develop reason through this experience, or past experiences can help one to make a reasoned choice.
By Kant integrating both empiricism and rationalism through his explanation of our senses, he was going about his epistemological theory in a different direction than what was normally done.
This was called his “Copernican revolution” (qtd. in Chaffee, 6.5, Kant’s Solution: Transcendental Idealism). The reason this name was used is because Kant’s “reversal” of epistemology is just like how the Polish astronomer named Copernicus had reversed the idea of the sun revolving around the Earth. Basically, at the time that Copernicus had “…[declared] that the sun was the center of our solar system…” this was the opposite of the wide belief that everything revolved around the Earth, or “…that the Earth was the center of [the] solar system…” (Chaffee, 6.5, Kant’s Solution: Transcendental Idealism). This is why it was a reversal of the more widely accepted belief of the Earth being “the center of the solar system” rather than the now known truth of the sun being the center. So in essence, just like Copernicus declaring the sun being the center of the solar system rather than the earth being the center, Kant declared that the mind makes sense of the world rather than links with it. The impact of this declaration is, “…the mind [is] an active agent in constructing the world and our knowledge about it,” instead of being a “…passive agent, a ‘blank slate’ on which is recorded the sounds, images, and other sensations of experience” (Chaffee, 6.5, Kant’s Solution: transcendental Idealism). This is why Kant’s theory is called the “Copernican revolution,” because the mind doesn’t just “record the sounds, images and other sensations of experience,” the mind takes all that information and translates it into a world for us to
understand.
Something in this section that I would be interested in learning more about is Kant’s two different realities: Phenomenal and Noumenal. For the phenomenal reality, it is “…the world as we experience it,” and for the noumenal reality, it is “…the world that exists beyond our perceptions” (Chaffee, 6.5, Two Realities: Phenomenal and Noumenal). I understand that the phenomenal reality is our physical reality, because we “experience it,” and I think I mostly understand the noumenal reality as being the explanation for things we can’t really experience in the sense of the physical world. Also, there are three “super transcendental ideas” that help “bridge the gap” between the two realities, these ideas being: “’self,’ ‘cosmos,’ and ‘god.’” These ideas also cannot be “established by pure reason” but they are “…universal a priori ideas that regulate and make possible the phenomenal world…” (Chaffee, 6.5, Two Realities: Phenomenal and Noumenal). These ideas, “self, cosmos, and god,” cannot be proven or disproven and they can’t be physically experienced, but in order to be able to understand things and the universe to our fullest capabilities we must include these ideas, because they are a priori ideas—possibilities. Or at least this is the conclusion I have been able to come to after wracking my brain around the idea of two realities and the ideas that “bridge the gap” between them.
2. Puzzle: 6.3 “Reality Depends on Perception: Berkeley”
The information in this chapter that I find most confusing is the epistemological conclusion, that there is no physical realm, made by philosopher George Berkeley—this being his belief called “subjective idealism.” This information is found in section 6.3 “Reality Depends on Perception: Berkeley,” and in pages 289 to 294.
Before I get into Berkeley’s subjective idealism, I would first like to try and explain what I have been able to gather as the meaning of being an empiricist means, since this is what subjective idealism was created from. The empiricist’s belief is that all knowledge comes from experience, but specifically, this experience is “…represented to us as ‘ideas’” (Chaffee, 6.2; 6.3).What “ideas” mean for the empiricist are actually the knowledge we gain through our “…sense experience or by observing our own psychological states and operations (willing, doubting, loving, for example)…” (Chaffee, 6.3). Also, a possibly even more clear explanation for the empiricist definition of ideas is, they are the “…images, feelings, or sense data that are directly present to our conscious minds, displayed as either vivid sensory or psychological experiences, or the less vivid form of memory and imagination” (Chaffee, 6.3). What I am able to gather from what it is that empiricists believe to be real is, our “ideas,” or our knowledge from these ideas, physical and mental, is what’s real—they are from our lively and vivid experiences.
The philosopher George Berkeley is an empiricist, but he came to a conclusion and view, based on the empiricism definition of ideas and knowledge, called subjective idealism. The definition of subjective idealism is stated as being, “[t]he belief that only ideas and conscious minds have actual existence” (Chaffee, 6.3). So, because “only ideas and conscious minds have actual existence” this belief says that there are no physical objects that can be proven as real. The explanation for Berkeley and his subjective idealism completely “…[denying]…the existence of any independently existing external world,” is because, since “…all we know are the ideas we find presented to our conscious minds, then it follows that we can never know a material world that supposedly lies outside of our own personal experiences” (Chaffee, 6.3). I think Berkeley is saying that we can only know that our “ideas” are what is truly real, and we can’t actually know the reality of the physical realm, or what is really real in said realm. Also, some of the writings by Berkeley, from A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, help me to possibly understand his subjective idealism a bit better; for instance, in the third “outline” of his views he says:
“…the various sensations or ideas imprinted on the sense…cannot exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving them.—I think an intuitive knowledge may be obtained of this by any one that shall attend to what is meant by the term exists, when applied to sensible things. The table I write on I say exists, that is, I see and feel it; and if I were out of my study I should say it existed—meaning thereby that if I was in my study I might perceive it, or that some other spirit actually does perceive it. There was an odour, that is, it was smelt; there was a sound, that is, it was heard; a colour or figure, and it was perceived by sight or touch. This is all that I can understand by these and the like expressions. For as to what is said of the absolute existence of unthinking things without any relation to their being perceived, that seems perfectly unintelligible. Their esse is percepi [(“to be is to be perceived”)], nor is it possible they should have any existence out of the minds or thinking things which perceive them.” (qtd. in Chaffee, 6.3)
Basically, and what I think is being explained, objects cannot exist outside of the mind. Or a much further explanation of my thoughts on this being, as long as we “perceive” an object through our senses, it will exist, but once the object is no longer being perceived by us, it no longer exists. This is the idea I have been able to come up with as to the meaning of “subjective idealism.”
6.5). By Kant wanting to “construct” this “metaphysical framework” in order to explain experience, he was doing this through explaining how our mind “…actively [selects], [organizes]… and [interprets]… sensations, shaping them into an intelligible world about which we can develop insight and knowledge” (Chaffee, 6.5, Kant’s Solution: Transcendental Idealism)--this being Kant’s explanation for our “unity of consciousness.” Basically, the mind “selects, organizes, and interprets” information in order for the individual to more easily make sense of his or her surroundings; the individual then can develop reason through this experience, or past experiences can help one to make a reasoned choice.
By Kant integrating both empiricism and rationalism through his explanation of our senses, he was going about his epistemological theory in a different direction than what was normally done.
This was called his “Copernican revolution” (qtd. in Chaffee, 6.5, Kant’s Solution: Transcendental Idealism). The reason this name was used is because Kant’s “reversal” of epistemology is just like how the Polish astronomer named Copernicus had reversed the idea of the sun revolving around the Earth. Basically, at the time that Copernicus had “…[declared] that the sun was the center of our solar system…” this was the opposite of the wide belief that everything revolved around the Earth, or “…that the Earth was the center of [the] solar system…” (Chaffee, 6.5, Kant’s Solution: Transcendental Idealism). This is why it was a reversal of the more widely accepted belief of the Earth being “the center of the solar system” rather than the now known truth of the sun being the center. So in essence, just like Copernicus declaring the sun being the center of the solar system rather than the earth being the center, Kant declared that the mind makes sense of the world rather than links with it. The impact of this declaration is, “…the mind [is] an active agent in constructing the world and our knowledge about it,” instead of being a “…passive agent, a ‘blank slate’ on which is recorded the sounds, images, and other sensations of experience” (Chaffee, 6.5, Kant’s Solution: transcendental Idealism). This is why Kant’s theory is called the “Copernican revolution,” because the mind doesn’t just “record the sounds, images and other sensations of experience,” the mind takes all that information and translates it into a world for us to
understand.
Something in this section that I would be interested in learning more about is Kant’s two different realities: Phenomenal and Noumenal. For the phenomenal reality, it is “…the world as we experience it,” and for the noumenal reality, it is “…the world that exists beyond our perceptions” (Chaffee, 6.5, Two Realities: Phenomenal and Noumenal). I understand that the phenomenal reality is our physical reality, because we “experience it,” and I think I mostly understand the noumenal reality as being the explanation for things we can’t really experience in the sense of the physical world. Also, there are three “super transcendental ideas” that help “bridge the gap” between the two realities, these ideas being: “’self,’ ‘cosmos,’ and ‘god.’” These ideas also cannot be “established by pure reason” but they are “…universal a priori ideas that regulate and make possible the phenomenal world…” (Chaffee, 6.5, Two Realities: Phenomenal and Noumenal). These ideas, “self, cosmos, and god,” cannot be proven or disproven and they can’t be physically experienced, but in order to be able to understand things and the universe to our fullest capabilities we must include these ideas, because they are a priori ideas—possibilities. Or at least this is the conclusion I have been able to come to after wracking my brain around the idea of two realities and the ideas that “bridge the gap” between them.
2. Puzzle: 6.3 “Reality Depends on Perception: Berkeley”
The information in this chapter that I find most confusing is the epistemological conclusion, that there is no physical realm, made by philosopher George Berkeley—this being his belief called “subjective idealism.” This information is found in section 6.3 “Reality Depends on Perception: Berkeley,” and in pages 289 to 294.
Before I get into Berkeley’s subjective idealism, I would first like to try and explain what I have been able to gather as the meaning of being an empiricist means, since this is what subjective idealism was created from. The empiricist’s belief is that all knowledge comes from experience, but specifically, this experience is “…represented to us as ‘ideas’” (Chaffee, 6.2; 6.3).What “ideas” mean for the empiricist are actually the knowledge we gain through our “…sense experience or by observing our own psychological states and operations (willing, doubting, loving, for example)…” (Chaffee, 6.3). Also, a possibly even more clear explanation for the empiricist definition of ideas is, they are the “…images, feelings, or sense data that are directly present to our conscious minds, displayed as either vivid sensory or psychological experiences, or the less vivid form of memory and imagination” (Chaffee, 6.3). What I am able to gather from what it is that empiricists believe to be real is, our “ideas,” or our knowledge from these ideas, physical and mental, is what’s real—they are from our lively and vivid experiences.
The philosopher George Berkeley is an empiricist, but he came to a conclusion and view, based on the empiricism definition of ideas and knowledge, called subjective idealism. The definition of subjective idealism is stated as being, “[t]he belief that only ideas and conscious minds have actual existence” (Chaffee, 6.3). So, because “only ideas and conscious minds have actual existence” this belief says that there are no physical objects that can be proven as real. The explanation for Berkeley and his subjective idealism completely “…[denying]…the existence of any independently existing external world,” is because, since “…all we know are the ideas we find presented to our conscious minds, then it follows that we can never know a material world that supposedly lies outside of our own personal experiences” (Chaffee, 6.3). I think Berkeley is saying that we can only know that our “ideas” are what is truly real, and we can’t actually know the reality of the physical realm, or what is really real in said realm. Also, some of the writings by Berkeley, from A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, help me to possibly understand his subjective idealism a bit better; for instance, in the third “outline” of his views he says:
“…the various sensations or ideas imprinted on the sense…cannot exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving them.—I think an intuitive knowledge may be obtained of this by any one that shall attend to what is meant by the term exists, when applied to sensible things. The table I write on I say exists, that is, I see and feel it; and if I were out of my study I should say it existed—meaning thereby that if I was in my study I might perceive it, or that some other spirit actually does perceive it. There was an odour, that is, it was smelt; there was a sound, that is, it was heard; a colour or figure, and it was perceived by sight or touch. This is all that I can understand by these and the like expressions. For as to what is said of the absolute existence of unthinking things without any relation to their being perceived, that seems perfectly unintelligible. Their esse is percepi [(“to be is to be perceived”)], nor is it possible they should have any existence out of the minds or thinking things which perceive them.” (qtd. in Chaffee, 6.3)
Basically, and what I think is being explained, objects cannot exist outside of the mind. Or a much further explanation of my thoughts on this being, as long as we “perceive” an object through our senses, it will exist, but once the object is no longer being perceived by us, it no longer exists. This is the idea I have been able to come up with as to the meaning of “subjective idealism.”