2006-07-23 13:30:31 · 4 answers · asked by David L 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The distinction between Transcendental Idealism and Empirical Realism. His proofs are onerous but the intuition is right on. The Empiricist prior to him fell into humean skepticism-- and they had to by Kant's account, because they were Transcendental realists-- their metaphysics made the Real Object outside the human cognition, and only ever a reflection and appearance on the passive mind-- in empirical ideality. Esse est percipi.
The rationalists were dogmatists. And Kant hoped to reconcile what would make the thing-in-itself beyond our understanding, an idea, but nothing real-- and the truly real would be what actually appears to our cognitive faculties.
2006-07-23 17:31:07 · answer #1 · answered by -.- 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is a good question... you know I have tried to read Kant in German for my German class and I thought what the hell am I doing? I told the teacher I don't understand it in English, what chance do I have in German?
you might try this link, I found it helpful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
2006-07-23 20:33:13 · answer #2 · answered by schenzy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kant was a bad one, responsible for much of today's problems!
He's kind of a 'because I have eyes, I'm blind' person. And he really meant it. All of the absolute s h i t that is today's humanities -- that is post-modernism crap -- is from his assaults on percepts & reason.
2006-07-23 21:43:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kant is perfect for insomniacs; I never got his point.
2006-07-23 22:36:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋