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
0 comments:
Post a Comment