Milena Velba Foxy Diciembre 2010

The possibility of metaphysics as a science


BUENOS AIRES PROVINCE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CULTURE AND HIGHER EDUCATION ADDRESS


TOP TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE No. 129
Career: Lecturer, Curriculum Area
PHILOSOPHY: HISTORY OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY
Course: 3rd Year
school year: 2009

TEACHER: Mr. Ponce, Liliana.
STUDENT: Dalto, Marina.

Job Title: "The possibility of metaphysics as science"

Summary of work:
The following work will address to clarify the problem of metaphysics as a science in Kant, to be the one who raised the possibility with an analysis depth of reason, authority which according to this philosopher becomes, by nature, prone to man to try to find objects that transcend the field of experience. So which also displays the position of Spinoza, as one of the modern representatives bringing this discipline to the top of the ontology itself, putting on the same level the question of being and knowing, for their identity, the author Critics called it a dogmatic reason, just to trust the power of this previously unquestioned in its scope.
also provide a brief comparison of the new meanings of the terms: Idea, reason and understanding, to understand the place that gives them Kant in his philosophy to reallocate its object metaphysics.
anticipation of the end of the matter, Kant manages to knock qualification to the discipline of science but placing it anyway, as the main engine of knowledge itself, as a natural disposition that urges us to turn to the unconditioned.

Introduction:
In modern philosophers as Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Spinoza ... we have seen raised the aspirations of an era: achieving true knowledge of things, the correspondence between representation, characteristic of a knower and that which is external, which is presented to the perception or intellectual intuition, in a clear and distinct, which varies, of course, as the current (nativism, empiricism, transcendental philosophy, idealism, etc..) adopted by each thinker. But the problem at all, it is theoretically possible through the building, but the basis on which this theory was based, a shifting base to the collapse ... always threatened many times by relying on the power of the power of man, they considered source of knowledge: some on the right to reject the contribution of the senses, and others, relying on the senses, discounted the power of speculative reason. Thus, metaphysics was rather the stage where the disputed their scholastic philosophers, rather than a sincere attempt to dispel the delusion that the misunderstanding occurred. What
that we can excel in the modern philosophers, is the methodological rigor to that submitted their thoughts, seeking the path that led him to the truth without error, they found only when representations of the subject, were adequate to the object that was available to know , the certainty in the pose was what guided the search criteria and knowledge processing.
But, as stated above, the multiple "access to reality" found, were most resonant question of truth as well, the farther the answer, given the plurality of philosophical systems known. Thus Kant
seek, first, show of what metaphysics has dealt so far and if possible knowledge of the object, calling into question the means of access, is critical of the powers of knowledge and thus eliminates all metaphysical debate before or after him not necessarily part of this clarification. Development

problem:
Man by nature has always tended and always will, to look, thinking, responding to questions that exceed their cognitive abilities. Not made aware of his mistake, but given the very process of knowledge is confident of being right, going back tirelessly for the darker paths, to find a touchstone, an obstacle that while it does not stop, lets not say that I got for himself, his reason, can be known.
And here is where lies the main criticism of Kantian metaphysics, the science that has developed because of our natural attitude has not been systematized, to find principles that are entrenched in their origin and that build a body unsure of itself and therefore what might be called science?, philosopher in the prologue of the first edition, known as "the arena of endless discussions," referring to precisely this lack of firmness in the ground in the arguments hold everything else, and therefore, without foundation, there will never be anything done, what is built will fall again and again.
In the Foreword to the second edition, after comparing it with other disciplines that may have over time become a science, such as logic, mathematics and physics, using pure reason speculative capacity, but without taking the object to its empirical content, that is only to determine the object and its concept (which comes synthesized understanding), argues for it, again, that's Metaphysics, "is an isolated speculative knowledge of reason that nothing takes the lessons experience and uses only simple concepts (without intuitions), where reason must be his own disciple, which was fortunate not to get insurance even in the way of science "1. Finally, we will characterize this second prologue, as a battlefield, where all claims are made, rather, to exercise in assaults forces opponents, but where none has been able to gain solid ground to build anything. Closes with the last sentence that "the march of Metaphysics has hitherto been uncertain, a score, and made, what is worse, by means of simple concepts" 2.


To understand this pose, we need to understand what are the powers involved in the process of knowledge for the philosopher, and how each one does. Briefly expose, to guide the reader.
Kant is to analyze the power of knowledge of the subject to avoid wasting efforts on catching objects apparent. Thus, a distinction between them to intuition, understanding and reason.
The latter would be responsible for pushing the boundaries of possible knowledge, it being understood that the only object of knowledge is that as a phenomenon, and we understand here as what appears to me to intuition, and how empirically things affect us (Kant's first definition that appears in Part of the Transcendental Aesthetic), it is clear that after may be established a body of knowledge that comes directly from the experience but that indirectly referred to it in the series of deductions, that is what the author expresses when he says "that all our knowledge begins with experience but not all come from her "3. What
given in intuition, the phenomenon, there is always multiple and diverse way, to a first synthesizer that are pure intuitions * space and time. Formed the raw material, understanding turns to its task, which is to give an intelligible form to what has been presented significantly. Operates well with * pure concepts, categories, giving unity to experience, because it synthesizes the manifold of intuition on the concept, giving consistency to our knowledge to objects. But it should be abundantly clear that the understanding deals exclusively with the empirical use of its a priori principles (trials) and concepts, ie applicable only to phenomena.

Thus, the philosopher will tell you that Pure Reason, which has two functions, one speculative and practice must be limited to speculative activity, the objects of experience, our knowledge otherwise would have no significance since not refer to any empirical no intuition of forms, but are the result of mere analysis of the concept (while back on itself, not to get any knowledge.)
understood this, we could say that the attitude of man's metaphysical and science so that it has sought to establish, is the product of reason, but misuse or diversion of it. "What drives us to go beyond the limits of experience and phenomena is the unconditioned, which reason necessarily requires the thing itself" 4 ... the problem here is that for Kant, the thing itself has no ontological reality, or at least epistemological, because if something is, is the phenomenon. Dual Nothing really exists, there is nothing that is hidden, nothing is achieved, what I know, is all I can know, because my powers permit. The reverse path made by the author, allows the cancellation of the possibility of knowing the thing itself, because knowledge is not the thing as being such, it is a subject to something that appears to him, has a cognitive structure that allows access to it one way, who is the subject structure of reality, whether or not it is that way, it is impossible to define, is only the way the subject is known.
But well, it's not as sharp with respect to the thing itself, only the exiles from the scope of knowledge, can not access it, because I have no intuition of it, but I can think it, so that you reserve a place in morality, and treat it in his Critique of Practical Reason, but that subject and exceeds us.

back to metaphysics and its problems, to understand what we mean when we say that your soil is sandy and initiated a trial is necessary to clarify that we address the subject so far has lost, confused and even blinded. The inevitable issues of pure reason are God, freedom and immortality, but the only way to treat them, as we stated above, is by reason itself, and here is where dogmatically confident in it. Without the solvency of experience, these approaches will not find any contradiction, but converted only fictions of reason, in wishful thinking, because the illusion is not in the object but at the trial that is launched as planned. Kant therefore, tells us that knowledge entirely match with the laws of understanding can not contain error as it respects the transcendental logic, ie the synthesis of intuitions and pure concepts can not transcend the limits of experience and therefore it can not have that illusion. These ideas of reason are a source of hope, provided that exceeds the empirical use categories and we deceive ourselves with the illusion of an extension of the pure understanding. The illusion logic is solved by the simple application of general logic, but in the presence of the transcendental illusion is not so simple solution, since reason is governed by its own rules that serve as early targets and therefore the need to perform subjective links certain concepts that determine the "things themselves" (of which we spoke paragraphs before) is something that can not be avoided since it is a natural illusion, which is based on subjective principles that are surreptitiously as targets, and have here the danger of being drawn into the reason without any criticism, because from the outset seems to be guided correctly, as well understand now that it is not happening.

Finally, it is necessary that redefinition of concepts that Kant used for transcendental philosophy. First, the modern understanding and identifying the reason as a curriculum, and therefore with the same subject, in Kant, the understanding has the power of the unity of phenomena by means of the rules, and the reason the power unit of the rules of understanding under principles. This means that the mind is responsible for putting the understanding in accordance with itself, Kant characterizes it as a subjective law administration of the provisions of our understanding to reduce the possible number of concepts used by comparison. But if pure reason it relates to items not directly related to them, only with the understanding and judgments. Whatever the reason unifies the whole experience, is conditioned to the unconditioned knowledge of the understanding that the unit is completed. But the propositions that results in this supreme principle of pure reason, will be critical because it can never be an empirical use which is appropriate. Therefore, these concepts Kant called transcendental ideas. This is how ideas become to regain a sense Platonic being as models or prototypes for the experience, as regulators and managers to dress according to experience them. While the concepts will be for him the same realities of experience, but the ideas express something that goes beyond all experience, but it serves the north for our understanding of reality.

Then we can say as the object of metaphysics as a discipline has always been to embrace the totality of knowledge, determining the ultimate causes and first principles of all things that exist beyond all time and space, beyond all physical phenomena. Been searching for the ground of being and knowing, never achieved.
will see, for example in the work of Spinoza, the "Treaty of Understanding Reform", it crosses the limit of Pure Reason, Kant raised to the point of complete identification between being and thinking, those ideas that forge understanding, are the product of the completeness of the real object.
The philosopher seems to have settled onto-epistemological dualism that had dragged on since Plato, and which established the difference between the "actual" and "become apparent" "intelligible world" and "sensible world", the first and true Actually, the other as appearance, a copy of the real, and what changes and therefore can not be grasped by thought.
already imbued with the spirit of mathematical rationality of modernity, can not help but apply his method, that due to the subordination of knowledge as to the ability of understanding, everything will happen, will be achieved in. Because the nature of understanding and the nature of things are identical in Spinoza, is to detect the first real idea of \u200b\u200bthe object or objective essence of nature we know, and therefore "the method is nothing other than knowledge reflective or the idea of \u200b\u200bthe idea "5.
Thus, the second step of the method, once distinguished the true ideas of other ways of knowing, and "as the relationship between two ideas is the same as that between formal essences of these ideas, it follows that the reflective knowledge of the idea of \u200b\u200ban absolutely perfect knowledge is more than reflective of all other ideas, "therefore," the perfect method will indicate how to contact the spirit according to the standard idea given the most perfect "6, here is the supreme cause of all things that exist and therefore all the ideas we have and is the guarantee its truth. "Indeed we must exist as a tool innate, a true idea that once understood, makes us understand, at the same time, the difference between way of knowing this and all other "7.
The order of speaking Spinoza, who have the ideas in the understanding and therefore things that exist in nature, responding to a necessary connection, which arises from pure procedure of the mind, according to its own laws. Here we find the "more geometric" in the knowledge of things from within the same understanding of the Procedure deductive and a priori, regardless of the empirical and the temporality and the author will tell us "the soul acts according to certain laws and how a spiritual automaton "8, based on the premise that" order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things, "understanding why the governing causal order of events is the same as is the understanding when operating with ideas, because the understanding is in order because of truth itself.
But we resumed, "that our spirit expresses exactly all of nature, must derive all their ideas expressed by the origin and source of all nature, so that it is also the source of other ideas" 9 and this is just the most perfect idea that Spinoza holder dare God, more than any suggestion that the term mystic, will be considered as the only efficient cause of all, a single substance you just called God or Nature. Rightly therefore, will be characterized his theory as a theologizing of nature or a natural part of God, pantheism is also another of their designations, as "Everything is God and God." Since the substance has to be an innate idea clear and distinct, and that its essence necessarily involves existence and as there can be caused by another but must be the cause of itself (causa sui), and also causes all things that exist, there is no room as possible, everything is absolutely knowable once in possession of the true idea and method that addresses the concatenation of the understanding that reproduces, in turn, la concatenación de la Naturaleza. Porque tanto el pensamiento como la extensión son los dos atributos de esta sustancia, con lo cual, los hombres por poseer pensamiento y extensión y las demás cosas de la naturaleza, extensión; son los modos en que éstos atributos se manifiestan (modos en tanto que son “en otra cosa”, y que sólo pueden concebirse en y por otro). Por ello, “el pensamiento verdadero consiste en conocer “las cosas” conforme a su propio modo de ser: por sí mismas o por sus causas próximas”10.

Visto desde este punto, la metafísica de Spinoza, resuelve todo el problema de la ciencia, puesto que “el conocimiento del efecto depende del knowledge of the cause, "11 it is limited only to investigate the necessary order of all things and the causal chain will eventually lead us to the idea of \u200b\u200ba Being who is the" cause "of the need, in this way is evident not only absolute knowledge, but also the Being in its fullness. Nothing is reserved for man's knowledge, nothing is inaccessible once again discovered the standard of truth.

After this brief exposition of Spinoza's theory, we can see it first explained how the metaphysical goal is achieved, the search and the scope of the unifying principle of reality, by the way of reason alone, through deduction of the ideas presented as clear and distinct to the understanding, and by its logic and coherence development in the philosophical system, are difficult to question. Because such exposure can not be substantiated by any experience, and we should be content to believe, if we have failed in this case, to recognize in understanding the true idea of \u200b\u200bourselves, that everything raised is true, or, for the same reason, one would think that it is not.

If we stop in the village of Kant, we find many elements for land taken for the explanation of Spinoza, for example, especially in this case we can say that these are only conclusions reason, which Kant called antinomies, and lack of support point to explain the whole experience, because all knowledge for him necessarily require the synthesis of concepts, the result of a previous synthesis of intuitions, which makes it impossible to try to explain the entire universe, the Being, Nature or God, these are only ideas of reason.

Conclusion:
Thus we can observe how the modern concern has focused primarily on identifying the source that guarantees the truth of the ideas or knowledge of the subject, without making a prior critique of this source, which has been to skip the step important method to verify whether the source is genuine, that the process of knowledge is, too.
Kant's conclusion, as anticipated in the summary of work, is that metaphysics is the negative character, while the ratio is deluding itself by believing some knowledge to achieve true even crossed the field of experience, and positive character that allows one hand, warn of the inability to avoid wasted effort, and secondly because it means using speculative reason framed by the empirical intuitions, the increase of scientific knowledge, because it invites, to anticipate, predict how nature works if apply certain synthetic a priori principles about it.
is necessary to recognize the boundary conditions and not humanly we become skeptical, but critics in both able to analyze carefully the resources we turn, as Kant rightly says in his Preface to the first edition of the CRP, "duty is of philosophy to dissipate the delusions caused by poor intelligence, although this is necessary to destroy the most beloved and enchanting illusions. "
Thus metaphysics can not be science, but it is a natural disposition of the spirit that never ceases to guide us in the search for the unconditioned, only conscious de lo anterior podemos evitar el desvió permanente, sólo la inexistencia del hombre evitaría el desvío momentáneo.

Notas:
1. Kant, Inmanuel., Crítica de la Razón Pura (CRP), Prefacio de la segunda edición, Losada, 2006.
2. Ídem anterior.
3. Kant, I. CRP, Introducción, Losada, 2006).
*Puros se entenderá aquí por lo a priori, lo absolutamente independientes de la experiencia, como la condición de posibilidad de todo objeto de experiencia.
4. Kant, I., Crítica de la Razón Pura (CRP), Prefacio de la segunda edición, Losada, 2006.
5. Spinoza, Baruch. Tratado de la Reforma del Entendimiento (Parágr. 38), Edit. Ship, Buenos Aires, 1944.
6. Ditto above.
7. Spinoza, Baruch. TRE (Parágr. 39), Edit. Ship, Buenos Aires, 1944.
8. Spinoza, Baruch. TRE (Parágr. 85), Edit. Ship, Buenos Aires, 1944.
9. Spinoza, Baruch. TRE (Parágr. 42), Edit. Ship, Buenos Aires, 1944.
10. Ponce, Liliana, Notes on Spinoza and the need for reform of the understanding, Gnoseology Chair, UNR: http://conversacionesphilosophicas.blogspot.com.
11. Spinoza, B. Ethics in the order shown geometrically, Book II, Axiom IV.

Bibliography:
- Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason, Editorial Losada, 2006.
- Preface the first edition.
- Preface to the second edition.
- Introduction.
-Second Division of Transcendental Logic, Transcendental Dialectic, Introduction.
- García Morente, Manuel, The Philosophy of Kant, Edit. Espasa Calpe, Madrid, 1975.
- Spinoza, Baruch, the Treaty on Understanding Reform, Edit. Ship, Buenos Aires, 1944.
- Ponce, Liliana, Notes on Spinoza and the need for reform of the understanding, Gnoseology Chair, UNR: http://conversacionesphilosophicas.blogspot.com

Ankle Hurts In New Boots

Fuel of knowledge: "The feeling"

Ecole normale supérieure, ISFD No. 129 Faculty of Philosophy

Area Curriculum: History
Modern Philosophy Professor: Liliana Ponce
Student: Victoria Kazansky
Working Methods: Monograph.


Title: "The fuel of Knowledge: The feeling

Abstrac: The following essay attempts to account for the first instance of knowledge in philosophy of Hume and Kant. Both authors build on the sense perceptions as the first moment of the creation of the object of experience but are differences in their systems. They are then developed.


By way of introduction

First, we need to frame the problem, the horizon of the discussion better understand the aim of both authors.
The problem of knowledge, and philosophical issues, means the issue of key concern in modern times, ie one round or rollovers involving modern thought is to the "epistemology" as a problematic field.
"The Age of the Image of the world," Martin Heidegger is an essay which characterizes the modern age in the scientific-philosophical text which describes the proper operation of the modern return to nature "image." Words that the "entity" in modernity is understood as an object and the objectification of the body is made in the represent, ie the object is the image portrayed. The more accurate is this depiction of the body, now object, the closer we get certainty in the pose, but this entity is a construct of the subject and not something external to it. The object is a representation that we make of reality and representation refers primarily to the subject rather than reality. The first is internal not external.

Therefore, "Think", in the modern sense is to re-submit, resubmit to the spirit, bring the presence of something given. And herein lies the problem, how to make my representations of representations "real" things?, How to reach the truth? ... What I can I as a subject of representation known with certainty ..
So what it is to find the ultimate foundation of knowledge, this is one from which I can give guarantee of truth, therefore can not be sustained, sustained in the line of mere belief but must be founded. Therefore, all modern thinkers are going to take it, that is, to seek the foundation, the bedrock that contains the universality and necessity which requires knowledge itself.
then raise issues such as the method, ie the path, the path ordered, guided, prosecuted, which will allow access to true knowledge, as well as the question will be directed to the genesis and shaping of it.
is in this last point to focus attention and for this I will take David Hume as a leading exponent of empiricism and Immanuel Kant somehow solves the problem of knowledge that Hume could not elucidate.
The idea is to analyze both Hume and Kant in the first instance epistemological, ie the first element, primitive, originating in all knowledge. While Hume will be in print as pure sensation, Kant will call empirical intuition. It is interesting to note is that both are based on certain sensitive, given the sensitivity, experience, but with some care in Kant and the latter concept is not identified with the merely given the sensitivity, since it has a dual meaning, this doubly determined. The discrepancy lies in Kant provided the sensitivity is structured a priori, proceeding from the knower, and that comes from outside the experience, while Hume makes what happened without more, that is, make an impression at the level of experience, so in a particular plane and contingent. The novelty in Kant is that the determining factor in knowing the act is the subject.


Development

I. Notion of experience, knowledge source

Philosophy empiricist, where we place Hume, stand the idea that understanding depended on the experience to attain knowledge, ie that the data provided by the senses guaranteed the truth of our representations. Therefore the mind is a tabula rasa (innate ideas are not supported), which somehow gets filled with content expertise, materials, prints.
But the philosophical question might be ... What does experience to Hume? ... experience will not only be the "be affected by sensory impressions, passively receiving them through the senses, is given no more sensitivity, where from there understanding is put into activity to build ideas (whether simple are those which are referred immediately to your printing and complex is a collection of simple ideas), as the next instance of knowledge. Therefore, the experience gives a pure accumulation of impressions, then the understanding would be responsible for partnerships, relationships to build the object or idea.
Then, the power will enable me to have direct contact with nature, to "experience" will be the sensitivity, and ability to provide insights. What gives us the sensation are sensations, emotions, passions.
Hume uses a deconstructive or genetic access to the truth that is to analyze and dissect the ideas found in the consciousness in order to establish its legitimacy and it will be guaranteed by the impression based on sensory experience. Section II
Research on Human Understanding, Hume asked about the origin of our ideas, concluding that all that he has our consciousness are impressions and ideas. The difference is that the former have a greater degree of force and vivacity. Stated in Section II of "Research on Human Understanding:" The most vivid thought is less than the most opaque of sensations. " Quote
that clearly shows the preponderance of feeling to the thoughts or ideas as weaker reproductions of prints. Then the prints are the perceptions more immediate, more direct, more honest, while ideas are copies of these, so images are weaker than in spirit. Hume says about it:

... "seems to not support a proposition that further discussion is the assertion that all our ideas are just copies of our impressions or, in other words, it is impossible to think of something we have not previously received, either through internal or external sense. I have endeavored to explain and demonstrate such a proposition and I expressed the hope that, through proper application, the men reach a higher precision and clarity in philosophical reasoning that has been so far "... (D. Hume, Human Understanding Research, VII, I).

connection established between impressions and ideas is founded on the similarity or correspondence between them. This means that the criterion which legitimizes the ideas as true Printing will be responsible for you. In so far as the sense impression is the "content" of the idea, it will be guaranteed. If an idea that has no corresponding print will be considered dark, false, metaphysics.
Therefore, the first thing I get to the perception, the most immediate knowledge are sense impressions. Therefore, given the way it is all beginning and basis of knowledge for Hume, the validity of our representations will be guaranteed by the pure sense, ie by experience.

But Kant, the concept of experience is more complex, takes a different hue. In the introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason, begins by saying:

... "No one can doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience, because, in effect, how would exercise the power of knowing, were it not for objects, exciting our senses on the one hand, they produce on their own performances, and otherwise, drive our intelligence to compare them, bind them or separated, and in this way compose the subject report of sensory impressions to form the knowledge of things is called experience? At the time, because none of our knowledge precedes experience, and everybody starts with it "...

Therefore, our ability to know can not be operated without things or events that stimulate our senses and provide views. But the phenomenon in Kant has a double meaning, is defined in Part I of the Transcendental Aesthetic "the undetermined object of an empirical intuition "but simultaneously as the object of experience. In our work we will take the first meaning.
I said so far seems to identify with the empiricism of Hume, but Kant goes back even further sensationalism, saying:

... "But if it is true that all our knowledge begins with experience, all, however, not from it, for it could be that our empirical knowledge was a composite of what we get for impressions and how we apply our own faculty of knowledge (simply excited by the sense impression), and we can not distinguish this fact until long practice enables us to separate these two elements "...

prints, like Hume, is the stimulus for faculty to know is in motion, but is not limited to merely receive impressions, but it provides "a priori forms" with the subject molding the object. So knowledge is not absolutely necessary experience, but it provides only the "material" forms instead from the subject. The radical concept here is "source", ie the origin, there is the new element, a priori.
The concept of experience in Kant is not his "position as in Hume, is not merely receive as Hume, is not purely because of the sensitivity. Kant questions the conditions of possibility of experience itself. Therefore, the experience is doubly determined. On one side is to be "affected" by the object as an empiricist, that is, there is an element that comes from outside, and the other has a structure that comes from the subject, what Kant calls "conditions of possibility."
need to know the order given, from experience, ie depend on one aspect of it. Kant, however, not all knowledge comes from her, because there is an element that is "a priori".

Transcendental Aesthetic, the first division of the Critique is the theory of sensibility as a faculty of knowledge, which Kant develops the conditions of possibility of the object to be intuition. That power, sensitivity is defined as "the capacity (receptivity) for receiving representations by the way objects affect us. Objects are given to us by the sensibility, and it is only that offered insights, but just understanding the way the designs and concepts. "
sensitivity, then provides "empirical intuition", and defined as the most immediate relationship we have with the object. Hume called these sensory impressions.
But unlike Hume, this intuition is not no more, but given that this pre-determined by certain forms a priori, ie independent of experience, that will shape, mold. This priori character is what you will need to give some impression, but not enough because it takes the categories or pure concepts of understanding to talk of knowledge itself, and that knowledge will Kant from short, the link between intuitions and concepts, ie from the meeting under a multiple unit. Remember that we are breaking down and analyzing only the cognitive impression as a priority, as the first moment of the creation of the object. Then these forms
priori sensitivity or pure forms as well as Kant calls them, will be the Space and Time.
pure forms of sensibility, pure space and time are the conditions of possibility of our perception, are the independent element of experience that Kant introduces unlike Hume.


II. The sensitivity given: Thing in itself or merely to me?


"... Hume recognized as" objects "for our consciousness to the ideas and impressions, objects whose difference is the degree of" force and liveliness "that are presented to the spirit. The presence of an impression or idea in the mind itself is misma la medida de su realidad. Cuando nos representamos “las cosas” en la conciencia, las representamos como existentes: Hume rechaza la idea metafísica de una doble realidad de las cosas; como si ellas tuvieran un ser ante la conciencia y un ser al margen de nuestras representaciones. En esto, sigue a la concepción Berkeleyana de que “ser” es “ser percibido”: la manifestación empírica del ser ante la conciencia es la marca de su existencia” (Mis Notas sobre Hume, Liliana Ponce, http//conversacionesphilosophicas.blogspot.com).

Entonces, para Hume detrás de lo que se aparece no hay nada, ser es pura sensación, pura vivencia, es re-presentación, no admite the thing itself, to be hidden behind a sense, this would be to metaphysics. Kant Hume would say the same thing in the sense that the objects of experience are phenomena, appearances and not things in themselves. But what does it.
The phenomenon comes from the Greek word meaning appear, therefore phenomenon is what appears to me, the appearance, the objects of experience are apparitions.
But this appearance should not be understood in negative terms, as has been sustained for the entire philosophical tradition, as it does not look real, what it conceals or covers up the essence that is the true self.

are objects of knowledge only those likely to arise as phenomena, which belong to the order of "appear", those that can be sensed. The phenomenon is not an illusion or a delusion, or something that hides the true self or essence it is a condition of possibility. Phenomenon is the object indefinitely, because we are in the first instance it is the empirical intuition (to form the object needs the concept), meaning perceptible object, which is given me, I am presented.

So when Kant says that knowledge is only of phenomena, does not refer to objects which can not achieve its reality, however means that only visible objects can be known, and those without ( beings of reason, metaphysical ideas) can never be known "scientifically."

.. "The Kantian phenomenon is by no appearance. Often it is interpreted as a commitment appearance / self. That's not to understand anything, as Kant wants to go beyond the appearance / self. The phenomenon is not an appearance but hide when being insofar as it appears. The "noumenon" is pure thought and not be distinguished from appearance and reality phenomenon but as a being that appears to be purely intended. The fundamental basis becoming possible. Becomes possible to subject the self to knowledge and this is manifested in the opposition "(Deleuze, "Kant and Time")

knowledge is knowledge of the phenomena, there is only phenomenal knowledge. The noumenon (thing in itself), is pure thought is not the object of knowledge.

Then the phenomenon in both appearance and not appearance, are all sensitive material is presented to the sensitivity, I come to meet him, given the sensitivity. And this is important to emphasize since Kant shifts the discussion in terms of appearance / condition of appearance and not trapped in the former characterization essence / appearance, or truth / appearance. Deleuze says in "Kant and Time" •:

... "When I say that any occurrence refers to the conditions of appearance of the apparition, that is why I say that these conditions belong to the being to which the apparition appears, in other words, the subject is not the onset constituent, it is not constitutive of what appears, but is a part of the conditions under which what appears, he appears. "

Now, what are the conditions of possibility of any appearance? .. Kant on Space and Time will tell, as pure forms of sensibility
He asks, What is it space and time? Is it a sense perception that in turn enables sense perceptions? no, because it could be any perception, it would be arbitrary or subjective, then the solution is that Kant is a pure perception, that is a priori, and therefore universal and necessary, bleached of all empirical research, are the foundation that enables any empirical perception, the receptacle where falls all materiality, are forms imposed by the subject, they are technically put, they work as a condition of possibility, because without them we would not be possible experience. In Kant's experience is not alleged as Hume, Kant dares to go further and ask for the experience itself, because the philosophy is just that, not taking anything for granted or assumed. Kant asks: What does that have the experience to be? Does this mean that there is another experience impossible? ... Then set the "conditions of possibility", that is, intuitions and categories, it would not be possible without any experience, what would be an impossible experience? ... Noumenal say Kant, " thing in itself "and say it is impossible because the object falls from the beginning in the forms of space and time. This pre-determined, needs be given and that subjectivity already has time and space. In Kant, as I warned above, what is the dualism it appear / conditions appear to be is to appear. We will arrive

then, to define what are space and time and why they are a priori. Kant will say first that are not concepts but intuitions, given immediately. The concept brings together a multiplicity in a unit but is that space and time even if they are fragmented are one and the same thing, not many spaces and many times more of the same. And how do we know that intuition is a priori, ie independent of experience, not empirical? How is independent of the experience is worth for it, or is the possibility of the experience? .. Kant says best to remove all objects and see that the universal, common to all of them are space and time, and although suprimiésemos all things, the more these intuitions Pure could not be deleted. Let's see. I observe an object and realize that it's there beside me, in space and time, but outside my means that I'm in a place other than him, I put your "space, I can not get out of it and see the object from scratch, because space is the way in which I represent things outside, is the form of outer sense says Kant., and I can not think without the time, no succession because it is another necessary condition . The time is the form of inner sense of how I perceive myself and things, because when I see something, I only perceive myself perceiving. Weather is the condition of phenomena, because it is a condition of self. (But let that pass.) Therefore, the time is a priority, there is a superiority over space, because all phenomena are part of space and time and all phenomena is as far as it is for a subject and it appears that perceive themselves in time. Time is the condition of self or self is the condition of time, so there is a supremacy over the space, because it is the condition of all external and internal perception (my mental state, my autoapercibiemiento), however the space is only external perception condition ..

Therefore, things in themselves are organized in the forms space-time I have things in space and time, therefore any attempt to access the thing itself is lost, because the only condition of intuition are the phenomena, which are structured in space and time. But the thing is purely as a phenomenon to me, is pure feeling or being perceived?, No, as in Kant the phenomenon falls under the structure or forms (subjective) of pure intuition, a priori, are subjective but not as a mere subjectivism, but subjective in that they are forms of the subject, and therefore take on a universal and objective status. In Kant, which is, not what we say or of being in itself, as thing in itself behind the experience or the experience or pure as it would in the case of Hume, namely, being, is conceived as "being perceived" as pure experience and in this sense, the experience becomes a thing in itself take this experience as a thing in itself, as given without further ado, as if the experience is to sustain itself. In any case, be in Kant's going to be a construction, and actively involving the subject, of course not a building from scratch, and we said we needed the phenomenon, the emergence of the given order, in all If the subject that determines the conditions of possibility of the appearance but not the show itself. Conclusion




After making a short tour by both authors, I would like to close with a reflection or draw a conclusion about what was discussed.
saw both Hume and Kant, the epistemological and
first instance we can say that about both agree but differ as well.
Kant says ... "I woke up Hume dogmatic, that dream is rationalism, ie rely on the power of reason, take it as their" place without subjecting it to criticism. In this sense Kant would agree with Hume to be explained the origin of ideas or concepts, and that experience, which comes from the order is a fundamental phenomenon for the construction of scientific knowledge. The difference is that Hume takes the impression, given the experience like no other, the realistic and therefore takes the laws of thought at the same level of experience. Consequently, the solution is not to develop a knowledge that is universal and necessary, which are the conditions or characteristics of scientific knowledge. Do not forget that they are looking for a firm foundation to create scientific knowledge, is not merely a belief, but a knowledge based.

Kant, respect, experience tells us that is not confined to the mere impression, but these are the basis for knowledge. Sensible intuitions as Kant calls them, are organized by the pure forms of sensibility, in this sense intuition somehow this pre-determined and set by space and time, are ordered by them, not just a chaos of impressions to way they smoke. Hume These prints are arranged in a second time by the understanding that the association under certain constant relations, but not organized in any form a priori, does not appear in Hume's thesis developed neither the space nor the time, all case assumes that the prints belong to them, but the sensitivity Kant takes a more active role, as time and space are ordered, gives a way, the molding. Then in understanding the meet in one unit, ie, under a concept, bringing together the wealth of insights in a category of understanding. Bibliography



used:



- Kant, Immanuel2003, "Critique of Pure Reason", Bs As, Losada

-Hume, David, "Research on Human Understanding, Section II and VI, Collection Grupo Editorial Norma

- Liliana Ponce, 2009, "My notes on Hume", available in digital format: http://conversacionesphilosophicas.blogspot.com

-Deleuze, Gilles, "Kant and Time, electronic publishing
Gnoseology
-classes by Professor Gustavo Trifilar

Schwarzkopf Products Buy

Monograph: Intuition as a starting point of Hanna Arendt

BUENOS AIRES PROVINCE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CULTURE AND HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT

academic unit of the Ecole Normale Superieure
TOP TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE No. 129



Faculty Chair in Philosophy: Modern Philosophy
Professor: Liliana Ponce
Student: Vivier, Andrea
Nature of work: Monograph

intuition as a starting point

The modern period begins with the birth of a new rationality , science seeks to present their findings in the language of mathematics. There are two features that characterize modernity, one is the absolute confidence in reason and there is the new modern science, the reason is the supreme tribunal to judge between true and false. Another feature is the acceptance of mathematics as a model of knowledge. Modern philosophy, in relation to the context in which it arises, will centrally address the problem of knowledge, the scope of human knowledge. In this paper we address the question of the origin of knowledge, ie what is the starting point that allows the man to know.
The subject begins to take a leading role for their active participation in building knowledge. The question we ask is, where do we start our knowledge? But the answer will not be unique but will be balanced against the philosophers and other cases related to conceptualize two schools of thought. The rationalism that will tell us that true knowledge comes from reason, innate principles that do not need empirical testing. Empiricism that will tell us that true knowledge comes from and is limited by the experience and should be tested empirically.
In this paper we will not emphasize this thematic division but what matters is how we build the edifice of knowledge in modernity as the two philosophers who will find and open the subjectivity of different ways. In relation to this, these thinkers are Descartes and Kant, who will explore the limits of human knowledge and conditions agreeing that the starting point of knowledge is intuition, though, the first tells of an intellectual intuition and an "I think analytical" in which intuition is a simple act that evidence emerging from this very reason, the content of our thought as Descartes are innate ideas that God has placed within us, which is why the idea of \u200b\u200bGod ends ensuring the equation between the thinking subject and object thought. Instead we will talk Kant of a sensible intuition and a "I think synthetic", criticizes the supreme power of reason as the only condition of possibility of knowledge and states that the sensitivity is the ability to provide data responsive to which the empirical intuition calls will be ordered by the pure forms of sensibility, pure intuition (space and time), they are a priori, ie independent of experience. The pure forms of sensible option then sorted by the understanding, through the categories and the pure principles.
René Descartes (1595-1650), is considered the founder of analytical philosophy. In the book Rules for the Direction the spirit (1701) explains the importance of a method as a set of rules to guide intelligence towards true knowledge, to which only accessible through intuition. This method is to doubt everything to get to a truth which can not be doubted: "The aim must be to direct studies to enable the spirit strong and true to form judgments about all things you have" 1. For Descartes, the self doubt, therefore, is the only thing you can be sure there is. Doubt leads to evidence of the thinking self and from there to its existence, or whether the ego is transcended to reality and even the existence of God is the ultimate reason: "Everything that has been revealed by God, more so than any other knowledge" 2
Descartes makes a distinction between thought and matter and this metaphysical Cartesian dualism establishes a radical distinction between mind, whose essence is thought, and matter, whose essence is the three-dimensional extension. For Descartes identity between self and thought, the self is a thinking substance exists, and there is also God's idea, because a man so superior idea must necessarily respond to a reality outside thought, and God is the only guarantee thought that the clear and distinct objects are real.
Cartesian physics considers the extent and single attribute of matter, which is geometric, eliminating all other qualities. The nature for it's mechanical and mathematical order and the amount of movement is constant. Descartes opt for a different interpretation, which came from the tradition of the method. Shares the idea that nature is a dynamic reality with mathematical structure. Also shares the need for the existence of the new method given the failure of previous methods in the knowledge of the truth. But it has a different interpretation of the meaning of mathematics. For Descartes the success of mathematics lies not in its structure today would be called axiomatic but in the method it uses. And this method is a deductive method. If knowledge of nature is possible thanks to mathematics is conceivable that using the method of mathematics to reach the truth and the accurate knowledge of the other aspects of reality.

Descartes, therefore, shares with Bacon and Galileo's method need to know the reality. The criticism that Bacon and Galileo made the Scholastic are similar to those provided by Descartes. The syllogistic method failure, the failure of Aristotelian physics, necessitate a new method for interpreting reality. This confidence is the reason that has been gaining autonomy in the turn of the century XVI and XVII. Descartes proposes a method that has to be a mathematician and universal, whatever your application or field of knowledge to which it relates, "So, I understand certain rules and easy method by which the exact look that will not ever anything false and true, and not using any unnecessary exertion of mind, but always gradually increasing their knowledge, come to true knowledge of everything that is capable of. "3
Compared to other solutions to the problem of knowledge and the constitution "science" that will arise at the time, such as empiricism, Descartes will choose the rational solution. Rationalism is characterized by the claim that the certainty of knowledge comes from reason, which is associated with the affirmation of the existence of innate ideas. This will involve the impairment of sensory knowledge, which can not be the knowledge base, being reason as the only source of knowledge. In parallel, mathematical models of knowledge (to the extent that mathematics does not depend on experience) are revalued. Rationalism affirm the intellectual intuition of ideas and clear principles, from which the deduction begins to know, just as the whole body of mathematics follows from a first obvious and unprovable principles. In this way, we can bring to the Discourse on Method (1637), the four rules or precepts of the same: the rule of evidence, the analysis, synthesis, and count:
"... instead the large number of precepts that make up the logic, I thought I would have enough with the four following, provided they take a firm and constant resolution not stop watching them even once.
- The first was not ever receiving anything as true that do not clearly recognize as such, ie carefully avoid precipitation and prevention and not cover in my judgments nothing more than what is presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I had no occasion to doubt it.
- Second, divide each of the difficulties to consider, in as many places as possible and was required to solve them better.
- The third, driving in my thoughts, starting with the simplest objects and easier to learn to climb slightly, and by degrees, to the knowledge of the most complex, even if an order among those who do not naturally precede each other.
- And finally, do all enumerations so complete and reviews so general that they stay safe are not missing anything. "4

The first two make up what has been called the analytical method; and the other two the plastic part. The method would comprise, for two basic operations: analysis and synthesis. With respect to analysis, represent what might be called a form of knowledge itself to the discovery and research allow us to separate the accidental, and establish order correction in the analytical sequence, asserting the primacy of simplicity. The synthesis would be a form of knowledge useful to expose, explain, or teach what we know through research or discovery, as well as the creation of knowledge as a system. Descartes offers us here
intuition and deduction as the only two ways of knowing and, therefore, as those elements on which method should be built. In Rule III, we define intuition as the starting point: "I understand by intuition, not the variable belief in the testimony of the senses or the deceptive judgments of the imagination, bad regulator, but the conception of a healthy spirit attentive, so different and so easy that no doubt is about the known, or what is the same, the design firm that is born in a healthy and friendly spirit, by the natural light of reason. "5

The intuition is as the basic element of knowledge. Actually claimed as a feature simplicity of intuition, which is associated in Descartes clearly and distinctly from the known. Intuition necessarily establishes a direct relationship with the object, so that should be noted character of immediacy. The object known, as we know, is a mental content and not an element of experience. Referred to intuition as a natural light, a kind of intellectual vision, an act of the intellect.
Indeed, intuition refers to a simple content, but not without relationships. When I grasp the idea of \u200b\u200ba triangle, I understand that is a figure of three sides, which is composed of three lines that intersect in the same plane, forming angles etc., and all these elements found in the intuition captured as elements necessarily correlated, ie not at the same instant, but the passing of temporality. Hence, intuition leads us inevitably to a deduction, which consist of a succession of intuitions, supported memory. The deduction "is a transaction by which we understand all the things that are a necessary consequence of other known to us with certainty" 6. Distinguish the intuition of the deduction that this is seen a movement or a certain sequence and it does not, because the deduction and intuition need not present evidence, but in somewhat borrows from memory. In short, intuition gives us knowledge of the principles and the deduction of the far-reaching consequences, which can not be reached otherwise.

Intuitive knowledge is what constitutes the beginning, the standard term and the whole process because the analytical and synthetic deduction is only articulated intuitions to which I give him a place in memory. This intuition which reduces all true knowledge is purely intellectual and refers to God in two ways, by its origin and nature, so that we can come to the conclusion that nothing can be known beyond these simple natures (intuitions) that turn are present in the prefect and infinite idea of \u200b\u200bGod. Intuitive knowledge only allows us in some way to the absolute.
The content of our thoughts are ideas and Descartes speaks of innate ideas are those that do not originate or external to experience mental or imaginative construction but the understanding is by nature itself. Are true and immutable essences, clear and distinct, ie they are intuitions: the idea of \u200b\u200bthought, of the existence of God and the principle of contradiction.
regard to the cause of occurrence of the idea of \u200b\u200bGod, there are three Cartesian arguments. The first says that the cause of an infinite idea can not be more than an infinite substance to which we arrive through intuition. The second states that God is conceived by me as infinite and perfect idea, if it had been the cause of myself, I would have given the perfections which I conceive the idea of \u200b\u200bGod as not, I have not created me myself and I had to be created by a being whose idea porto in my mind. The third argument says that it is not possible to conceive of God as non-existent, since, if supremely perfect being is clearly and distinctly that existence must be one of his perfections. Of these three trials concluded or inferred the existence of God and with him the evidence standard is the ultimate guarantee "That idea is as well as clear and distinct, well because contains within itself all that my mind clearly and distinctly conceives as real and true, and everything that involves some perfection. And that remains true, although I do not understand the infinite, or even a god has many things that I can not understand, or even meet with my thought: it is characteristic of the nature of infinity that I, being finite , can not understand it. "7
reason for Descartes represents the things we do know that external reality is also governed by rational laws, we have an intuition for everything we saw of it and is presented in a clear and distinct. So looking for the truth and the universal rational order to establish a science with a single method appears universal mathematics "only, it matters little whether seeking such as numbers, shapes, stars, sounds or any other object, and therefore, there must be a general science that explains everything that can be investigated about the order and measurement. "8
In connection with this, says Descartes, that having certainty that we know the external world of matter and intuition we capture two types of qualities from the world. Improper qualities are due to our spirit and the qualities are attributed to the material itself, the corporeal substance has only one natural, the extension, by virtue of being "extended body" have the same certainty that "I think therefore I am" and this is the intuitive certainty that all knowledge must begin the world, the qualities of the res extensa will be derived from its extension.

substance
The world is vast and knowable by an intellectual intuition. Descartes is the substance that might not need another to survive, in conclusion, there are three substances in line with the three ideas that have been working: res extensa (matter, the world), res cogitans (thought), respectively infinite (God). With regard to knowledge of things in the world, tells us that can take account of other powers to access the truth of knowledge the two essential mechanism for achieving true knowledge are intuition and deduction: "Finally, it must employ all means of understanding, of the imagination, the senses and the memory, just to have an intuition different propositions conveniently simple to compare what you are looking to what is known. "9
corollary to the implementation of the doubt as a research method emphasizes Descartes search for certainty as their goal. Believes that knowledge, to be taken as true, must possess the characteristic of certainty, which would mean a sort of security in the truth of knowledge. In his book Meditations metaphysical (1641), speaks of the knowledge of God and the things he says that man is the union of cogitans res and res extensa, first conceived the primary properties of objects through reason and the second , handles sensory and emotional properties for transmission to the "I thought, but also appears infinite res is the bridge between ideas with things. God has planted in us the ideas that help us understand the world: "And no wonder that God, in creating me have placed in me this idea as the seal of the artist, printed in his work, nor is it necessary that this stamp is something other than the work itself. But on only having created me, is to believe that God has me in a way, his image and likeness, and I conceive this similarity by the same faculty that I perceive myself: "10

In the first meditation are treated certainly the main reasons that can affect all their knowledge. The senses are the main source of our knowledge, however, many times I have found that the senses deceive me, as when as when I see the sun as a circle is really small, giant, and similar situations. It is unwise to rely on who has deceived us on occasion, so it will be necessary to place doubt and, therefore, put on hold all knowledge derived from the senses. I can consider, then, that there is no certainty in knowledge, and to consider false all derived from the senses.
However, it might seem exaggerated to doubt everything that I perceive through the senses, as seems obvious to me that I'm here and things like that, but, says Descartes, that security in the immediate sensitive data can also be questioned, given that we can not clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep, (what happens to us when we are awake or when we are asleep). This inability to distinguish sleep from waking, to me seem exaggerated, it must lead not only to spread doubt all sensible, but also within the scope of my thoughts, understanding more intellectual operations, which all seem to derive from the senses. The lack of distinction between sleep and wakefulness leads me to extend the question of the sensible to the intelligible, so that all my skills now seem highly uncertain.

Still, seems to have some knowledge of which I can not reasonably doubt, as the mathematical knowledge. But Descartes raises the possibility that the same God who created me I could have created so that when I judge that 2 +2 = 4 I'm wrong, in fact sometimes allows me wrong, so that could allow I always mistaken, even when I judge truths as "obvious" as mathematical truths. In that case all my skills would be questionable and therefore, according to established criteria, should be considered all false.
For all these reasons, Descartes presents another option: that there is an evil genius who is always interfering in my mental operations so as to make it constantly take the false for true, so I always cheat. In this case, since I am unable to eliminate this possibility, because sometimes I really cheating, I consider all my skills are questionable. Thus, the question has to be extended to all the knowledge that seem to derive from the experience. Doubt progresses therefore, sensible to the intelligible, covering the whole of my knowledge, through the four stages outlined above. Not only do I doubt all the knowledge that comes from the senses, but also those that appear to come from the senses, as I am unable to remove the uncertainty that surrounds them.
In the second meditation, going over the uncertain situation where at the end of the first, was forced to doubt everything, Descartes realizes, however, that there must be deceived by what it perceives the following proposition: "I think, I exist" must be true, at least while you're thinking: "So after having thought and careful consideration of all things, we must conclude, and rest assured that this proposition, I think, I exist, is necessarily true, every time you utter or conceive it in my spirit. "11 This proposition beyond all reason of doubt, even assuming the existence of an evil genius that makes me always wrong, when I think that 2 and 2 make four, for example, is necessary so that I'm wrong, there. This proposition, "I think, I am "is presented with absolute clarity and distinction, so it resists all grounds for doubt and enjoys absolute certainty:" This is the first truth that I can be sure than I can say is obvious, but warned Of course, when I would think that luck, that everything is false, it was necessary for me, that I thought, was something, and noting that this truth "I think, therefore I am 'was so firm and sure that the most extravagant suppositions of the skeptics are unable to move her, I thought I could receive it without scruple as the beginning of philosophy I was looking for. "13

As the characteristics with which I am presented with such evidence are clearly and distinctly, these two properties will consider Descartes as the characteristics required of all proposals to be considered true. Having discovered that first truth, "There is, therefore, doubt some of which I am, as I deceived and misled as much as me, will never make me be nothing, while I'm thinking I'm something. So that, having thought about it and having carefully considered everything, it follows finally have the constant and the following proposition: "I am, therefore I exist" is necessarily true while I'm speaking or conceiving in my mind. " 14 The cogito is an intuitive knowledge, which means that it is known immediately, and not as direct deduction of a major premise.
show respect to the content of thought, Descartes tells us that there are three types of ideas: some that appear to come from outside me, which he calls "adventitious ideas", while others appear to have been produced by me, which called "fictitious ideas" and others, finally, that seem to come from abroad or have been produced by me, which call "innate ideas." Adventitious ideas, as they seem to come from external objects to me, are subject to the same doubt that the existence of external objects, so that can not be used in advancing the process of deduction, and so does factitious ideas, in so far appears to be produced by me, using adventitious ideas and should therefore also be subject to doubt. We have only innate ideas.
is to eliminate possibility that these ideas may have been caused by me. Once assured that Descartes considers two of these ideas, the infinity and perfection, and arguing that there may have been caused by me, since I am finite and imperfect, could only have been caused by a being provided to them by what must have been placed in me by an infinite and perfect, that is the cause of the ideas of infinity and perfection that is in me. From them, Descartes demonstrated the existence of God through the two known arguments based on the idea of \u200b\u200binfinity and perfection. Demonstrated the existence of God, because God can not be imperfect, eliminating the possibility that I've created so I always cheat, and the possibility of allowing an evil genius deceiving me constantly, so that the grounds for doubting both the mathematics and general truths of all the intelligible and the truths that seem to derive from the senses are eliminated. I can therefore believe in the existence of the world, ie the existence of an external reality me with the same certainty with which it is true the statement "I think, I exist" (which led me to the existence God, who appears as the ultimate guarantor of the existence of extra-mental reality of the world).

In conclusion, intuition and deduction are the way knowledge that elapses. The method has to show the internal dynamism of reason, which is unique. Therefore, we can say that "I think, therefore I am" is the result of intuition. This intuition will be the first in a genetic system such as Cartesian. For Descartes, knowledge does not come from reality, but of reason, which raises the thought. Things are objects of knowledge. It is a symmetrical inversion of classical thought: if, before the foundation was out, now inside, if before the truth was the adaptation of thought to reality, now is clarity of thought itself, which in itself imposes like rational evidence.

Like Descartes, Kant in his famous work: CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON (1781), we are also going to talk about intuition as a starting point, but it will explain the concepts of empirical intuition and pure intuition. The first deals with the set of sensations or impressions that we perceive the outside world (through experience), and the second is formed by space and time as pure forms, a priori, sensitivity. But before delving here, we will explain the development of his thought, which goes to show that the order, rationality, which we found in the outer, is given by the inner of the subject. The notion of building knowledge will drive the intuition. Metaphysics in which Kant was formed to take mathematics as an ideal of science and believed that philosophy should be a deductive activity, based on pure reason (Descartes). Kant argued at first this kind of philosophy but later found a new foundation of metaphysics, which consisted of a critique of reason itself on its scope and limits. The most important thing is that Kantian work tries to establish the parameters of the exercise of reason that does not take his support in the experience but that unfolds from itself. Kant believes that legitimate use of reason when limited to knowledge of empirical objects, objects that appear in our perceptual experience (whether internal or external). However, when using pure reason with the aim of reaching non-physical objects or psychic but transcendent, human reason beyond its limits and leads to contradictions and absurdities.
Kant: "There is no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience. Then why would wake up where the ability to know, for exercise, and not through objects that affect our senses and now lead their own representations, now set in motion our intellectual capacity to compare, link them, or separate and develop so, with the raw material of sensible impressions, knowledge of objects called the experience? "(...)" But if it all our knowledge begins with experience, not all of it that originated in the experience, "15 there knowledge priori, independent of all experience and empirical knowledge which subsequently found its source in experience. In asserting that knowledge is limited to the experience, the Kantian philosophy is close to empiricism, and say that not all knowledge comes from experience is close to dogmatism. The essential problem is to try to Kant is the limit and the possibility of human knowledge. The experience can only be understood through an interior space-time structure. In Kant, for example, mathematics is not placed priority field of the derivation of logical principles, is not analytical, but it is synthetic because it requires the intervention of intuition (space-time) a priori in the measure that is independent of experience.

Human reason is driven to want to know about issues that can not be answered by the empirical use of reason, nor by principles drawn from the experience: "From all this follows the idea of \u200b\u200ba special science that can be called critical Pure Reason. For reason is the faculty that provides the principles of knowledge a priori. So it is pure reason that it contains the principles for knowing absolutely a priori. "16 Kant called transcendental all knowledge which is devoted to study the mode of knowing objects, as this is possible a priori. TRANSCENDENTAL AESTHETIC
Kant calls, science of all principles a priori of sensibility, this section will present the concept of intuition: "The immediate reference to an object. But this does not take place but as an object is given to us (...). The ability to receive representations by how we are affected by objects, call sensibility. "17 This means that through awareness we are given the objects and it gives us insights. The sensitivity gives us feelings and intuition when referring to the object through sensation is called empirical intuition. They are pure intuitions "all the representations which is not anything that belongs to sensation." 18 The synthesis of sensations or empirical data, as matter, and form a priori is the phenomenon. The pure forms or a priori principles of the sensitivity are the space and time, conditions of possibility of all experience.
Kant argues that human receptivity has conditions, certain ways that do not depend on experience, which he calls, as stated above pure intuitions. Space is the form of all phenomena in the external sense and time is the form of inner sense, ie the intuition of ourselves and our inner state, how the sense by which we become aware of ourselves. Keep in mind that time is the formal condition of all phenomena in general, because all representations whether or not external things as objects in themselves belong to the internal state, such as determinations of the spirit. The exhibition
metaphysics of space, we say that space is not experience, but experience is the space as its condition, ie, space is a priori: "Space is a necessary representation a priori, that is based all external intuitions. We can never represent that there is no space, though we think very well that the objects are few. It is considered therefore the space as the condition of possibility of phenomena and not as a determination dependent on these, and is a representation a priori, which necessarily is the basis of external phenomena.. "19 Kant tries to show that space is the basis of certain a priori synthetic knowledge a priori. The geometry determined syntactically a priori the properties of space. For this, the space must be a priori or pure intuition. Space is not a concept but a pure intuition because it gives me immediately, not discursively not through abstracting the common note after passing through different representations. It gives me a whole at a time. Space has no boundaries, extending indefinitely:

"Space is nothing but us how all phenomena of outer sense, ie, the subjective condition of sensibility, under which is only possible for us outer intuition.. "20 The responsiveness of the subject to be affected by objects is precedent, the form of all phenomena is given in the spirit before the actual perceptions.
metaphysical time exposure, according to Kant, we says that time is not experience, but on the contrary, experience is the time as a condition of it, because the representation of time is not the way by abstraction of temporal relations, but they make sense only if they involve the time: "Time is a necessary representation that lies at the root of all intuitions.." 21 We can think of a time gap in which there is no object, but it is not possible to represent any phenomenon if there is time. The time is not a discursive concept but is a pure form of sensible intuition. The time is the form of inner sense, is the formal condition a priori of all phenomena in general, space is limited to external events can change over time gives meaning to our inner, reflective awareness of ourselves in front of what surrounds us and in front of our subjectivity.
Finally, Kant says that space and time have empirical reality and transcendental idealism, the first thing to say that space and time are valid for all objects that we sense in the experience, and the latter means that if we disregard the conditions of our sensibility, space and time are nothing, because all knowledge is knowledge of phenomena, things in themselves are unknowable: "We wanted to say that our intuition is nothing more than a representation of the phenomenon we sense that things are not in themselves what we sense in them, nor are they established their relations in themselves as we appear to us .... "22 The space and time itself can not exist by themselves, but only in us. We can not access the knowledge of what are the things themselves, we can only know how to intuit.
knowledge is not built only on intuition, they are the starting point by which an object is given to us, but then we have to think according to their representation. Sensitivity is the receptivity of our mind to receive representations in As it is affected in some way. Understanding is the ability to produce our own performances, or the spontaneity of knowledge. "Our nature entails that intuition can not be more than sensitive, ie to enclose only the way we are affected objects" (22)

however is understanding the power of thinking the object of sensible intuition. "If any of these properties is given then there is no knowledge." Without awareness, we would not be given any object, and without understanding, no one would have thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind (...) Only the union can lead to knowledge " 23
sensitivity performed the first synthesis to unify sensations in time and space. In the transcendental analytic is to study the faculty of understanding. Think the logic is concerned, Kant not build a general but a transcendental logic, which will study the pure thought, ie, a thinking which deals with the concepts which relate a priori to objects. As before we talk about the insights, concepts are also empirical and pure, the first derived from references given in the experience as "dog", the latter are concepts that refer to objects but are independent of experience, he calls categories (quality, quantity, modality of the relationship). The metaphysical deduction shows how many and what categories and the transcendental deduction, deals with the objective validity of pure concepts. Understanding is the ability to know the concepts, ie judgments. The judge is to link representations. Therefore, thinking is an act of synthesis or binding representations: "I understand short, in the most general sense, the action of adding different representations to each other and understand their diversity in knowledge." 24
The transcendental deduction of all a priori concepts thus has a principle to which should be straightened research: that these concepts have to be known as a priori conditions of possibility of the experience. The manifold of representations can be given in intuition, but the link is given by the spontaneity of understanding: "Link is the representation of the synthetic unity of the many" .25 However, for that link has all representations, is words, all are referred to a single consciousness to a unique self, because if a representation was not referring to me as a thinking activity, not absolutely nothing: "The I think must be able to accompany all my representations. (...) The representation that can be given before all thinking, is called intuition. So everything has multiple relationships with I think, in the same subject in which this manifold is found. ".26. The principle of the possibility of all intuition about the sensitivity, was that all the multiple of that is under the formal conditions of space and time, the supreme principle of the intuition regarding the understanding is that all the manifold of intuition is under the conditions of the original synthetic unity of apperception. The transcendental unity of apperception is a concept that unites all the multiple object given in intuition. For knowledge is need to link the diversity, this short, is what Kant called transcendental apperception, the synthetic unity of consciousness, which is the condition under which every intuition must be to become an object for me, if not multiple would not join in an awareness .

Kant To conclude, we refer to the concept of idea that works in the Dialectic Trancendental. The knowledge we have not enough things in themselves, but this is a phenomenal knowledge, ie we know is the way things appear to us. But this does not mean that our knowledge is illusory, however is a valid and objective knowledge of real things not appearances, but things appear to us: "The transcendental dialectic be content therefore with discovering the illusion of trials, transcendental and prevent the same time, that this delusion." 27
Man's knowledge can not reach the absolute. Understanding by its very nature is led to make ever larger synthesis, until a time that jumps beyond all that experience gives us. Then when you make this leap of understanding that is why we in the faculty of principles, of the unconditioned of ideas: "I understand by idea a necessary concept of reason, for which there can be in any way consistent object. "28 The ideas as Kan (of soul, God and the world), spring from reason itself, and in this sense, metaphysics is a natural disposition, but not enough reason never absolute. The reason you think the ideas but can not know. No intuition any ideas are empty concepts of reason are referred to objects that can never be perceived. The proposed nature of reason and are transcendent because they exceed the limits of all experience. Are soul, world and God. The ideas are pure representations, not empirical, of Reason, are generated as a result of the operation of this peculiar cognitive faculty (the search of the unconditioned or the ultimate foundation of phenomena) and are the traditional object of metaphysics, the soul, world and God. Do not have a constitutive but regulative use: that to which they refer (the soul, the world as a whole and God) can not be object of knowledge (metaphysics is possible as a science) but they serve as regulatory elements and principals of the activity Thus science, reason falls into fallacies and contradictions. In the Transcendental Dialectic, Kant asks if possible a priori synthetic judgments in metaphysics, asked about the transcendental conditions of the power of reason. Metaphysics seeks an understanding of reality as and as is itself beyond the limits and conditions of the experience. Knowledge is the noumenon which is divided into the ego (rational psychology, the world (cosmology) and God (natural theology). The knowledge of God seeks to go beyond our experience, something transcendent, beyond time and space. The I of metaphysics is the soul as substantial reality and the world is the substance and reality independent of us. Knowledge is a synthesis of the diversity of feelings in the institutions and institutions in the trials. The power of reason bearing unifying tendency of human thought to the search for a synthesis unconditioned of our knowledge. Thus, it is the idea of \u200b\u200bsoul (synthesis unconditional phenomenal knowledge of our inner experience), it forms the world's idea (synthesis unconditional phenomenal knowledge of our external experience) and the idea of \u200b\u200bGod (unconditional summary of our experiences internal and external). Metaphysics seeks an application of the principles of reason beyond the scope of experience, so here the use of transcendental ideas leads to mistakes, which Kant called the transcendental illusion.


Metaphysics can not be a science in that it seeks knowledge beyond phenomena, even if science in establishing the foundations of knowledge, ie as critical metaphysics. Kant studies deceptive reasoning: the fallacies (is part of the inner experience to affirm the reality of the soul like substance that is the subject of such acts. What is the condition of consciousness can not be also the subject of consciousness. The antinomies (shown as the reason falls into contradiction with itself when it seeks to extend knowledge beyond the phenomena, the antinomies are arguments that state a thesis and its opposite). The ideal of pure reason reveals the inability of the reason for demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of God. The cosmological argument and the teleological argument is reduced to the ontological argument, and reaching a uncaused cause, which has to be perfect. Both are wrong, because they aim to reach an abused from the conditioned to the unconditioned.
After the above, having developed as each author works the subject of intuition, one might conclude that there is an important connection between Descartes and Kant, as both relate to the need of intuition as a starting point for understanding . For Descartes, there is a relationship between the intuitive and deductive reasoning, intuition is connected to innate ideas brought by the divine hand, have an order divine order yet abstract concept. The first intuition is the "I think, therefore I am" which is also the foundation of knowledge and certainty. For Kant, as well as the need for an object in mathematical reasoning, establishing the need for construction of knowledge from pure intuition. The notion of intuition is linked to the construction. The "I" in Kant, appears in two forms, empirical and pure, the first is the empirical subject as it offers the experience, the self as phenomenal reality, subject to time and space, the second is the transcendental subject , the self to the extent that a condition of possibility final synthesis of all knowledge. The "I am" Descartes, is a thing in itself, exists as an absolute substance, whose existence is not dependent on any condition. According

, Morente, "Kant called transcendental to the condition in which I discover an object into unknowable object: And the first step in the position of the object-subject correlation, is that in which the subject printed in the order terms of space and time. Terms of space and time are not transcendent, not properties of things, but they are properties that things have for the subject in a spirit of knowledge, has been the object. (...) So say that Kant has put on the things themselves (which vainly chasing the idealists came from Descartes), a definitive statement of exclusion. Things in themselves do not exist, and if so, we can not tell them anything ... "29 In closing, in modern philosophy" I "will occupy a central position, the subject becomes the center around which rotate all the problems. The spirit of objectivity will be supplanted by subjectivity. Every phenomenon is our creation, nothing beyond the phenomenon exists. It is not that the powers of self-producing a legislative but reality itself. Idealism is characterized precisely by not being achieved and thrive in a world of pure possibility.


Conclusion:

both Kant and Descartes, the starting point for the construction of knowledge is intuition, therefore, can be said to reflect through the characteristic epistemological theory important modern philosophy is subjectivity, and that intuition is not a quality of the thing but belongs to the subject, for both thinkers the construction of knowledge is because the subject has this insight that will allow to know the objects, but Descartes speaks of intellectual intuition as a property of spirit and Kant speaks of pure intuition as a way of feeling and intuition as a set of empirical perceptions. Similarly, despite some differences, the similarity is shown that gives the subject a central place in the construction of knowledge. Although Kant, will try to overcome the dogmatic conception of reason as to say the sole possessor of knowledge, as it will demonstrate the importance of sensible option for conocimeinto of phenomena. Understanding shapes reality, the subject makes things phenomena then become the object of knowledge.


Notes:

1-Descartes Rule 1 Rules for the Direction spirit.

2 - Rule III. Ibid.
3-Rule IV: ibid.

4-Discourse on Method
5-Rule III. Ibid.

6-Rule III. Ibid.

7 - Metaphysical Meditations, the 3rd Medit .-

8-Rule IV. Ibid (I)

9 - Rule XII. Ibid (1)

10-First Meditation. Ibid (7)

11 - Second Meditation.

12 - Ibid (7)

13-Ibid (4)

14-Ibid (7)

15 - Kant: Critique of Pure Reason. (Introducción. Of the distinction of pure and empirical knowledge).

16-Introduction VII. Ibid (15) 17-

Transcendental Aesthetic. Ibid (15)

18-Ibid (17)

19-Ibid (17)

20 - Ibid (17)

21-Ibid (17)

22-Ibid (17)

23 - Analytical transcendental . Ibid (15)

24 - Third section. Ibid (23) 25-

transcendental deduction of the concepts of pure understanding. Ibid (23)

26-Ibid (25) 27-Dialectics

transcendental-28-Ibid (27)

29-García Morente: Preliminary Lessons of philosophy. Lesson II.


Bibliography:

Descartes: Discourse on Method, Alianza Editorial, Madrid 1995.
Descartes: Rules for the Direction of the Mind, Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 2003.
Descartes: Meditations on Metaphysics, Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 2005.
Kant: Critique of Pure Reason. Edit. Colihue, BA, 2007.
Morente: Preliminary Lessons of philosophy. Edit. Losada, Buenos Aires, 1983.
Ángel González Álvarez: Manual of history of philosophy. Edit. Gredos, Madrid, 1960. Mora Ferrater
Dictionary of philosophy. Edit. Ariel, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b1994

Days Of The Week Boxer

Ritual Coffee and Peppermint Dreams "

Ideal for those days fall or winter where the only thing we want is to be pampered a little bit o. .. just as a contingency plan if things go as we want and we're a little low morale. The ritual DREAMS OF COFFEE-MINT is the perfect solution for revive the senses and stimulate the minds to raise to the sky. Your ritual begins with a facial and body scrub made with an exotic mix coffee and oil "almonds of the Antilles" that will leave your skin like new by removing dead cells. Once finished, we will make a thermal blanket wrap to help heat penetrate the active ingredients of caffeine. Then, carefully remove the product and then we will make a spray of water fresh mint , followed by a delicious ultra deep massage with peppermint moisturizer that will leave your skin with an irresistible touch. When you leave the table want to eat the world. Caffeine and mint are great stimulants ideal for those days when you feel a little "down"

Total War Gold Medieval No Cd

Miss Barcelona 2011 and a Miss-DL IOLOGICAL


Ll egan to Dermolight, he, first, with a scarf divine Barcelona complaining about the cold this time of year. She comes later, with some delay ... laments that evening the car had been towed. Each in his own style, so different but so alike ... it: Ricardo Rodriguez, profession "miss-IOLOGICAL" she Andrea Huisgen, Miss Barcelona 2011. Both Dermolight visit to discuss what more they know in life: d and aesthetics, beauty queens and beauty contests.

A Ricardo Rodriguez
worldwide called "The Informant." Your web www.laesquinadelsoplon.net is one of the most visited and popular themes of beauty contests. The greatest fear of Andrea (as any Miss World) is out there criticized by the sharp teeth of Ricardo.

"I am a very honest man, I speak clearly, say things bluntly and go straight to the point" - is the first thing we answered after asking the reason for the success of your website. In one year, the corner of the informer has reached visits of records unimaginable

.
-Ricardo: how do you find out all the news about beauty queens and beauty pageants? :

(laughs). I have spies in every corner. The corner of the informer is a community that exchanged information and I concentrate. Many of them have become good friends even though we know in person. I hear about any news that happens anywhere in the world almost simultaneously. Thank God and there is a BlackBerry

"For you: where are the women most beautiful in the world?
Venezuela I will say no because it is a myth. In all countries there are gorgeous women. Here in Barcelona, \u200b\u200bwhen I go down the street sometimes I'm amazed at the potential of some girls to become beauty queens or models, but ... in Venezuela are among the few who know how to exploit that potential.

- What qualities should have a woman to be Miss?
A Miss is not born, it is. A Miss is a product, a creation that is made through hard work and advice from a group of experts. Say that all you have to Miss is having a height. Osmel Sousa is right in saying that the only thing not changed is the height

- And what qualities do you think are important for any woman to be beautiful?
For me the most important thing is to take care of both inside and out. Our body is to be loved and respected and that helps us to raise our self-esteem and improve our health. Be beautiful must be a way of life. Eat healthy, do not take any drug, alcohol and stay moderate weight are basic tools. After all this is accompanied by technical / physical tricks that help you look better and you're there secrecy.

"I see you're very picky about weight, Ricardo huh?
lot, we all want to win the lottery but never buy a ticket. Everyone wants to look slim in size but eating mini-atrocities and look in the mirror are frustrated. I myself have already lost 6 kilos since I realized that health is most important. Everyone should start there. The perfect weight is the way to get a better picture.

As we talked to Richard, Andrea, Miss Barcelona 2011 will be listening intently. The aspiring lawyer and future Miss Spain paying attention to all the expert advice given on matter

-Andrea: How do you feel now that you are participating in the Miss Spain? Nerve
but with much encouragement. I have nine months to prepare for the title and I will make every effort to achieve world

- A fan asked our Facebook you (both) that treatments and cellulite reduction are the most desirable in the market?
"Diet, exercise and cavitation. The combination of the three is ideal to keep a body free of cellulite and sagging," answered Andrea as Ricardo asserts head

-Andrea, what is the best advice he has given you Ricardo?
I have to lose weight. I'm thin but to be Miss me a few kilos too many

- And the best thing that has given you?
Do not be too hard on the Misses

For a while we talked with both characters, each in his own style, but drawing the same conclusions: feeling good about yourself is important both inside and out. Looking good self-esteem rises my diet is essential in the way of people who want to look better.

end the interview suggest having dinner at a nearby restaurant. Miss Ricardo Barcelona and just drank tea. At night are prohibited carbohydrates