Time, like space, is not a discursive concept but a pure form of sensible intuition. Time is the form of inner sense. Kant refers to the ability of subjects are themselves sensed in the "apperceiving. The space gives objective validity to the phenomena as they exist in sensitivity (external sense) that relates to the subject to the object that is perceived as outside. Kant follows that it is impossible that the phenomena exist by themselves, since the empirical reality is validated as real as it is intuited by the subject.
Hume aims to challenge the structure of the cosmological argument and questions the validity of the assumption that things that exist need causes or reasons for their existence. Hume says that just because each of the elements of the ‘chain’ has a cause, it doesn’t follow that the chain itself needs an initial cause. Furthermore, Hume suggested that we have no experience of universes being made and it is simply not possible to argue from causes within the universe to causes of the universe as a whole. There is a logical jump which the argument fails to recognise. It is one thing to talk about causes that operate within the system of the universe, but it is an entirely different matter to theorise about whether the universe as a whole is caused.
The next step is to separate sensibility from any sensations. By separating these two components the end product will be nothing more than our “pure intuition and the mere form of appearances, which is all that sensibility can supply a priori.” After this procedure the two forms that arrive are space and time which are principles for a priori cognition. The two forms of a priori cognition- space and time- are also two forms of the transcendental aesthetic. Kant recognizes the transcendental aesthetic to be the main basis of knowledge, because both time and space are needed for human beings to have sensibility. “All actuality of appearances is possible only in time” If time did not exist, neither would our appearances, for in order for a human to experience an object they must exist and, to exist one must be in time.
“Non-being” is the other philosophic notion that denotes either absence of something, or all things non-existent in reality, or non-existent reality. For Hegel the notion of non-being exists only on the surface of being (-in-itself). One reason Heidegger feels obliged to confront the problem of being and non-being is that Dasein. Nonbeing, in Heidegger, is the gateway to being. Stephney (1977) quotes Heidegger that “anxiety renders manifest Non-being.”
They recognize Kant’s emphasis on the gap between our conception of the world (epistemology) and the real world that exists outside of our mind and independent of our conception of it (ontology). And like Kant, they agree that our conception of the empirical world though affected by the empirical world is more largely creatively shaped by our conceptual schemes or background knowledge, pre-formed regulative postulates or assumptions. For the pragmatist, therefore, our cognition is theory-laden (See CP 5.526). We do not have immediate intuitive knowledge of the world that is certain since our knowledge is always mediated (by concepts and descriptions ) or inferential, always involving interpretations and colligations of interpretation (See CP. 2.442). The mind is not a «spectator» or a passive agent in the cognition process .
I am suggesting that his claim is a circular claim in as asking for verification for causality and instead that cause and effect is what the evidence are made up of. Causes are not literal but merely an explanation of the world, not to be confused with our
It concerns the support or validation of basic ways and means , ways that are expected or infer , in Hume 's words he wrote something like this “ examples of which we have had none experiences which are similar to those of which we have had experiences with ” The problem of induction is the philosophical examination of whether inductive analysis leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense . Popper wanted to solve the problem of induction . He argued that science does not use induction, and induction is in other words a myth. Instead, knowledge is created by opinions . The main concept of observations and experiments in science, Popper argued, is trying to criticize and to prove existing theories are wrong and so .
Causal relationships are discovered only when the categories apply to the experience. We have no way of causal relationships behind and draw conclusions out of the experience. Therefore, we cannot from the causal order of nature validly conclude about God, freedom, immortality of the soul, etc. Nature is quite impersonal and amoral, and I can be seen as the product of a creator (God), but we cannot confirm that so is (no experience of it). Therefore we are forced to look for moral area outside the areas of nature.
"In the enfolded or implicate order, space and time aren 't the key factors that decide whether something acts dependently or independently--like your time machine going backward or forward in time. Which means that a very different kind of connection is possible between time and space, and stuff made out of particles--like us. "Bohm, the guy who developed this theory, thinks that the main thing about understanding order--especially the space/time/particle order--is that the undivided whole, and the implicate order contained within that whole carries way more deterministic weight than the parts of the whole, such as particles, quantum states, and stuff like that. " In fact, in Bohm 's mind, the whole encompasses everything, including form, abstract ideas, and processes.
Anti-Transcendentalism vs Transcendentalism The writings of anti-transcendentalist authors, like Poe or Hawthorne, have a few obvious differences from the writings by transcendentalist authors, like Emerson and Thoreau, including differences in the mood and the way nature is depicted. All the stories by the anti-transcendentalists are characterized by their dark, cynical mood. For example, Poe’s short story “The Cask of Amontillado” is about a man who traps his friend inside a tomb and leaves him to die. Not only does this story have a disturbing plot, it is also full of dark, creepy imagery, like the description of the setting inside the crypt.