21 thoughts on “Kant: Theory of knowledge”

  1. Kant merges both “a priori” & “a posteriori” knowledge what feels like the perfect combination between descartes / rationalist and humme / empiricist in accordance to theory of corresponding truth – matching between the idea and the thing that it relates to. How then can knowledge occur / happen, if there are issue in the noumenal or the phenomenal, example. If all your sense are damage and you are not able to receive that sensual information properly, a person who is paraplegic comes to mind. If the the idea generating machine is not functioning, but you are still able to receive sensual information, someone in a coma.

  2. “concepts without intuition are empty, but intuitions without concepts are blind.” Kant’s thesis establishes the reconciliation between Rationalism and Empiricism. So basically, is that saying Idealism brings together rationalism and empiricism ?

    1. You conflate the two different systematizations. Descartes and Kant are both idealists. One is a subjective idealist and the other is an objective idealist. Empiricists can be idealists. The division on materialist and idealist is different from the division on rationalist and empiricist. Kant is a transcendentalist.

  3. Hume demonstrates that we know that a certain cause produced a certain effect from experience. If there’s a way to know a certain cause produced a certain effect without experience it? Like watch a Youtube tutorials, so you can know buy touching a boiled pan can cause a blistering without having to touch it yourself?

    1. The one who posted the video on youtube learned it by experience. I do not need personally to have an experience of being burnt by fire to know that fire burns. I can learn it from others. But, at the beginning, there should be one who learned it by experience.

  4. Kant expresses knowledge as a sensation that has been already processed by the logic of my mind; by this we can conclude that knowledge according to Kant is an event in the phenomenal world that has been codified/accommodated in the noumenal world. Further, we realize, while withstanding its physical form, such object or event is perceived by each individual according to their relation to it. Does this mean that while there exists a universal and unchangeable concept of the color green (both empirically, when we say that the Christmas tree is green, and rationally as a shade, the effect of which can be measured on a fixed scale), the way I am affected, and consequently, the way I interact with and understand the color green is infinitely different from everyone else? Moreover, does this not mean that I am once again back in my solitary cell, as this rule applies to everything beyond colors of which I have an understanding?

    1. If the noumenal world does not exist and it is a figment of Kant’s imagination there is a danger of complete contingency of everything that I perceive. Then, there is a chance that I am alone. Kant demonstrates that there is the noumenal world by reflecting on Morality.

  5. Kant advocated the idea of a priori knowledge. How is this different from Descartes’s concept of the innate idea- apart from the fact that Descartes seems to rely on God for providing innate ideas?

  6. According to Kant, it is not the ideas in our mind that should correspond to the objects, but objects which are already on our mind should, as representations, correspond to our ideas and concepts. Does this mean that the truth, which depends on correspondence theory, always subjective?

  7. If Space and time are provided by the mind as a priori and knowledge is also obtained through experience as a posteriori, does this mean that Kant acknowledged that the possibility of scientific knowledge requires that our experience of the world be not only perceivable but provided by the mind as well?

  8. is correspondence theory an innate truth or one that we pick up from the knowledge that we gain from experience in an effort to understand the “subjective” truth? is correspondence theory possible without reconciling the relationship between rationalism and empiricism?

    1. It depends on a philosopher. Descartes and Kant think that the correspondence is accomplished inside my mind. Hume argues that it is accomplished by the reliance on external world.

Comments are closed.