Second, when Kant’s theory is interpreted as two object interpretation it seemed that the theory implies a radical form of skepticism that traps each of us within the contents of our own mind and cuts us off from reality. According to Kant’s, things in themselves are real while appearances are not, and hence we cannot have experience or knowledge of reality. But Kant denies that appearances are unreal: they are just as real as things in themselves but are in a different metaphysical
The idealism theory was developed by Plato. This theory consists of the belief that reality is made up of non-physical ideas. The implication is that there is something more important to reality than what humans can sense. Justice, reason, spirit, appetite, and the form of something are examples of some of these abstract ideas. Plato expresses some
However, in Aristotle’s philosophy, he proposed that there is no perfect form in the world. All matters are corporeal objects which can be changed (Lindberg 19, 21). To him, material world is primary reality that what people can sense by sight or touch form the real world (Lindberg 19). To conclude, there is a huge difference on their views about what is real. While Plato assumed that true reality should be imperceptible and absolutely
This skepticism gives no foundation on knowledge, as not only knowledge cannot be derived by reason, but also senses experiences are not reliable – it often deceives us. Kant’s Transcendental Philosophy The mention of Kant’s epistemology is necessary as his idea is revolutionary. Since Descartes’ “Cogito, Ergo Sum”, modern philosophy has shifted its approach to subjectivity, and the trend reaches its peak in Kant’s philosophy. To what he called “Copernican Revolution” – from concerning the objectivity of knowledge to subject’s cognitive ability. In Kant’s view, human are not born as blank sheet, but was given the concept of time, space, causality, etc.
Even though there is no satisfactory answer at this point in time, it is important to note that it is possible that the non-physical properties of physical processes may arise from a distribution of the objective material’s energy. Due to the subjectivity of properties such as qualia, it is plausible that these non-physical events transpire from the energy used to create interactions of the physical events themselves. If this is true, it would not be valid to say subjective experience has an effect on physical processes, because non-physical properties do not necessarily interact with each other, creating any energy. This too would go against the law of conservation of
Plato’s Theory of Forms explores the ultimate structure of reality, and questions what reality actually is, as opposed to what it appears to be. The Theory of Forms is an epistemological response to the nature of reality. Plato came to conclude that everything in our world is only a copy of a perfect form existing in an eternal, unchanging realm attainable to us only through contemplation. At the centre of the Republic, Plato displays the features of his theory through three analogies; The Cave, The Divided Line and The Sun. Through these analogies, in addition to the Theory of Recollection and the Two Worlds Theory, we can piece together a resemblance of understanding and consider a critical interpretation of the Theory of Forms.
The nature of reality is a primary concern for Parmenides, Heraclitus, and Plato. Parmenides believes that the substance of the universe is one and unchanging. Heraclitus argues counter to this view, that substance is constantly in flux. Plato agrees with some aspects of Parmenides’s and Heraclitus’s ideas but comes to a fundamentally different conclusion, that the universe is divided by what can be observed by the senses and what can only be understood through reason. Plato’s view allows for the ability of humans to know the universe, whereas the Pre-Socratic views would strip mankind of either their free-will or ability to find objective truths.
He explained that the forms are very different to their appearances and "The World of Forms" can only be understood by those who seek knowledge, not by the ignorant. Plato ideas present the belief that there are other realities of which we have some knowledge about, and that
For example, John Locke is a main antagonist to innatism. According to Yacouba (2016), Locke criticized that Plato’s view of innate knowledge is more religious than rational because Plato asserted that knowledge is a process of remembrance which is already engraved in one’s soul; therefore, Plato’s doctrine of innatism can only be true to those who believe in reincarnation (Yacouba, 2016). This polemic does not seem convincing due to the lack of scientific evidence. On the other hand, the research of neuron system described earlier in the paper support Plato’s view of innatism with scientific evidence. Consequently, Plato’s doctrine that certain knowledge pre-exists in one’s mind at birth seems more reliable.
Michel Foucault fails to give anything like a moral record of power when all is said in done. Foucault 's components are lacking in their empiric verifiable viewpoints. His postulation depends on an uneven decision of source, detainment facilities and mental organizations. In view of the interminable arrangement of defects in his alleged exact investigations, it is observationally completely problematic. Foucault 's "archaeology of knowledge" is on a very basic level negative, and along these lines neglects to sufficiently build up any new theory of knowledge.