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. Consequently, space and time, being pure forms of sensible intuition, are also conditions attached to the subject who intuits and without these the subject would make it impossible to receive representations. This is how Transcendental Aesthetic is the first stage of knowledge of the subject, and that is directly related to sensory perception of objects of experience. The origin of all our knowledge is in the senses. Space is the way we provide for external representations.
This view explores the relation and existence of the phenomenal world and the world of things-in-themselves. For the purpose of this paper I will explain this conceptual scheme in order to understand how it is that Kant reaches the conclusion that things-in-themselves are unknowable. From this I will offer a critique of Kant’s account of things-in-themselves and suggest that they are unknowable because the idea of such things is unintelligible. In order to understand Kant’s claiming of things-in-themselves being unknowable can
Because we can only experience one instant at a time, we may only make claims about the present moment, and in an infinitesimally small moment there cannot be any movement or change. Accordingly so, the arrow is at rest at a given instant. This seems to align Russell with Idealism, along with Zeno. As an Idealist, Russell would probably assert that our perception of the world as dynamic is simply an illusion. Change, motion, and even time are all just constructs of the human mind, with the purpose of aiding us in interpreting and navigating our world.
We see many philosophers base their beliefs on something specific however Descartes philosophy comes from extreme scepticism also known as nihilism. He begins his philosophy by having disbelief in the true existence of anything at all. Descartes main aim was to attain certainty. He had a desire to be certain about the things that truly exist and those that do not. He believed that once he could be truly certain of one thing that he could re-build the world from there for the better.
My perception of my body and matter in general is that it is in its essence divisible (Descartes,1641) This essay here will insert a reference to ‘Leibnitz’s Law’ or otherwise the relatively intuitive principle that for two things to be the same thing, they must share all the qualities of each other. Descartes does not specifically do so, but it is heavily inferred from his argument. Descartes now concludes that since minds are indivisible and bodies are, that according to the Leibnitz’s law they cannot be the same thing and hence: Conclusion: The mind is substantively different from the body and indeed matter in general. Because in this conception the mind is substantively distinct from the body it becomes plausible for us to doubt the intuitive connection between mind and body. Indeed there are many aspects of the external world that do not appear to have minds and yet appear none the less real in spite of this for example mountains, sticks or lamps, given this we can begin to rationalize that perhaps minds can exist without bodies, and we only lack the capacity to perceive them.
But this immaterial and non-extended substance interfere in different activities such as feeling, willing, thought, etc (Britannica, 2014). In one way Descartes had started to understand the connections of the system, and moreover he eventually could prove that knowledge is not based on sensation, but the opposite. Sensations are governed by mind which he will try to prove as the center of all
Plato’s Parmenides includes within it a series of seemingly contradicting proofs about the nature and consequences of “the one”. In Deduction 1 of Part II of the Parmenides, Parmenides states that the one cannot have parts nor can it be a whole; however, Parmenides later seems to contradict himself when, in Deduction 2, he argues that the one must both have parts and be whole. In this paper, I will demonstrate that Parmenides comes to such contradictory conclusions about having parts and being whole in these differing deductions because he starts from a unique hypothesis in each deduction (from “if it is one” in Deduction 1 and from “if the one is” in Deduction 2). From this, however, I will argue that Parmenides’ definition of wholeness (i.e. that it is only that which has all of its parts) is too narrow, and that oneness, thus, can
Perception is the organisation, identification and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment. Like perception, logic plays a role in critical thinking. Critical thinking is the process in which one mentally explores deeper than the superficial matters at hand into the deeper layers in order to find out what the real issues are. However, when it comes to weighing their beneficial impact on the critical thinking process, logic and perception are by no means equal. While logic is firmly rooted in reason, perceptions are just as firmly rooted in one’s senses and can easily be corrupted.
I will also raise an objection for one of these arguments, as presented in lecture. First, it is important to distinguish between the quality and the idea of the quality. Locke defines a quality to mean an attribute of an object, while the idea of a quality refers to our mental representation of this attribute. Thus, we only directly perceive our ideas of qualities rather than the qualities themselves and only indirectly perceive the actual qualities through our ideas (page 17). Locke goes as far as to differentiate between types of qualities with what he calls primary qualities and secondary qualities.
In Christopher Hitchens’ saying “What which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” Hitchens’ is claiming that if you do not have evidence to support your claim it should be disproved automatically. In other words, evidence to Hitchens is the necessary condition to substantiate the knowledge. To try to understand Hitchens’ intention, I make an assumption that this statement may have derived from his disbelief mostly in the area of knowledge of faith. However, at a closer inspection, one can interpret the word “what” in a saying in a much larger context than in the area of faith, and thus proving that his saying may need more thorough investigation especially in other areas of knowledge. Another key in his saying