Kant Rationalism

Kant credited both empiricism and rationalism movements. He believes that they both contributed to human’s knowledge and should not reject neither one of them. So, he keeps some parts of those principles and defines empiricism a posteriori knowledge and rationalism as a priori knowledge. His goal is to explain and then justify the possibility of scientific knowledge.

The empiricist following throughout Western philosophy was started by John Locke. In spreading this new idea of learning, he saw his mission as clearing away the metaphysical rubbish left by rationalists which was hindering the path to knowledge. Locke rejected many of the ideas which Descartes fought for. Rationalists claimed there to be two fundamental innate ideas, the logical principles of identity and non-contradiction. Locke argued that for any innate ideas to exist they must be approved by everyone. He decided that a test should be created, thus determining if these ideas reside in the minds of everyone regardless of age or education. In his study he found that these principles, as he suspected, failed to be universally assented.

Immanuel Kant was a famous philosopher whose philosophical influences impacted almost every new philosophical idea, theory, concept etc. In a sense, he was considered the central face of contemporary philosophy. Kant spent his whole life in Russia. Starting out as a tutor, to then a professor, he lectured about everything; from geography to obviously philosophy. In his early life, he was raised to emphasize faith and religious feelings over reason and theological principles. As he got older though, that position changed. It then became that knowledge is necessarily confided and within the bounds of reason. Now with this in mind, Kant claims many different things that derive from this. There are many different parts and aspects to it which is why it relates to almost every philosophical idea out there. Kant referred his epistemology as “critical philosophy” since all he wanted to do was critique reason and sort our legitimate claims of reasons from illegitimate ones. His epistemology says that we can have an objective, universal, and necessary knowledge of the world, and that science cannot tell us about reality. He claims science cannot tell us anything because it only tells us about the world as it is perceived, whether it’s based on measures, manipulations, experiments and so on. Kant says that we all have knowledge; that the mind and experience work together and that we construct and gain this knowledge by both reason and experience.

Socrates once said, “As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.” Several philosophers contradicted Socrates’ outlook and believed that true knowledge was in fact attainable. This epistemological view however had several stances to it, as philosophers held different beliefs in regards to the derivation of true knowledge. Rationalists believed that the mind was the source of true knowledge, while in Empiricism, true knowledge derived from the senses. Rene Descartes, a rationalist, and John Locke, an empiricist, were prime examples of epistemologists who were seen to differentiate greatly within each of their philosophies. However, although Descartes and Locke’s ideas did contrast in that sense,

Through Kant’s views of reasoning, I believe that the ideal relationship shared between humans is based off of our unique ability to be able to decipher between information shared to us by others, though reasoning. There has to be a healthy balance between people that allows for communication. If you are used to having a higher power looking over you making your decisions, that no longer is a two sided relationship but a one sided relationship. Kant says that “it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out to the immaturity that has all but become his nature” (Kant 1). That immaturity that man faces, is the familiarization one feels when having others think for himself. The ideal relationship between other humans should work equally

When it comes to guiding our moral actions, I believe that care ethics is the better moral philosophy to follow over Kantian deontology. While both moral philosophies strongly believe in defending the dignity of our fellow man, care ethics believes that nurturance and caring is the best way to defend a person’s dignity, as opposed to Kant who believe that our actions alone determine our dignity and worth. There are a number of reasons why one should choose care ethics over Kantian deontology. The first reason is that, in his moral philosophy, Kant chooses reason over feeling. The second reason is that Kant lacks compassion for the unique situations of others by suggesting that the principle of good is universifiable. The third reason is that Kant ignores how the consequences of our actions affect others. Finally, the fourth reason is that Kant implies that while we should all seek to perfect our moral selves, we are not responsible for the moral growth and perfection of others. Instead, we are merely obligated to help others and promote their happiness.

Socrates once said, “As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.” Several philosophers contradicted Socrates’ outlook and believed that true knowledge was in fact attainable. This epistemological view however had several stances to it, as philosophers held different beliefs in regards to the derivation of true knowledge. Rationalists believed that the mind was the source of true knowledge, while in Empiricism, true knowledge derived from the senses. Rene Descartes, a rationalist, and John Locke, an empiricist, were prime examples of epistemologists who were seen to differentiate greatly within each of their philosophies. However, although Descartes and Locke’s ideas did contrast in that sense,

Empiricist philosophers such as John Locke believe that knowledge must come from experience. Others philosophers such as Descartes believe that knowledge is innate; this way of thinking is used by rationalist. In this paper I will discuss the difference between Descartes rationalism in his essays "The Meditations" and Locke's empiricism in his essays "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". I will then lend my understanding as to what I believe as the ultimate source of knowledge.

Suppose you met a man who has been blind his entire life. Eventually, he was given surgery to gain his sight. Can this man differentiate a sphere from a cube? This man has not been able to touch the sphere or the cube after the procedure, but knew the difference between a sphere and a cube when he was blind. Once he can see, the man will be able to distinguish a cube from a sphere. The man can tell the difference between the sphere and the cube by use of reason, experience and from the obligation of others to spread their learnings.

According to my humble reading, Kant is considered the hardest to read, grasp and understand among the philosophers that we came across studying ethics. According to Kant, nothing could be called good without qualification except a good will. And the good will is the desire or the tendency to do your duty because it is your duty, not anything else. Thus, nothing can be gained out of an action. And only this motivation that gives moral worth to do an action; and only that shows you are a good moral person because when a person does his act based on doing just his duty, that action would pass the categorical imperative test (doing act is based on doing the duty (period) actually, not because passing the categorical imperative test for itself) (Kant, the Good Will). Also, it shows you are a good person if you have a good will and vice versa. Only the good will virtue is the virtue that had been accepted by Kant and not anything else. Because you might be courageous or intelligent but that does not mean you would be good moral man because you might be criminal or thief unless if you enhance your courage or intelligence with a good will. Even happiness, must have good will. For a broad example about good will, you do not cheat in exam because you do not cheat not because the professor is present at the room, or you don not steal from the grocery store because you do

He argues that reason dominates human, each person has their own, different and elementary idea and they try to improve that idea. Kant thinks that nobody can reach absolute reality with limited thinking. Reason is not appropriate for thinking limitless. Also, he points that, human being was born with natural abilities, those abilities direct our point of view towards objects. Kant separates between a priori and a posterior

“There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in this world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualifications, except a good will.” (Kant, pg.7 393). No other thing that may appear good can be unqualifiedly good, as even “Talents of the mind…Gifts of power…[Other] qualities…Have no intrinsic unconditional worth, but they always presuppose, rather, a good will, which restricts the high esteem in which they are otherwise rightly held.” (Kant, pg.7 393-394). So Immanuel Kant introduces the public to his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, which results not in simply a grounding work, but one that is utterly groundbreaking. This opener, wholly devoted to the establishment of the importance of will and intention, notes the guiding characteristics of a good will. As enumerated previously, Kant recognizes the plausible potential positivity of plenty concepts, but remains of the mind that none of these are good in themselves without the efforts of a good will to guide and restrict them in a manner that perpetuates their positivity.

Immanuel Kant was a philosopher who took ideas from the empiricists and rationalists to create is own view of how humans come to knowledge. Essentially updating and blending science and logic based knowledge. Kant was a rationalist, yet had empirical views much like John Locke and David Hume. Kant agreed with Hume and Locke on experience. Yet, Kant developed a priori idea of how humans learn to learn that was very different from Locke and Hume.

John Locke (1632-1704) was the first of the classical British empiricists. (Empiricists believed that all knowledge derives from experience. These philosophers were hostile to rationalistic metaphysics, particularly to its unbridled use of speculation, its grandiose claims, and its epistemology grounded in innate ideas) If Locke could account of all human knowledge without making reference to innate ideas, then his theory would be simpler, hence better, than that of Descartes. He wrote, “Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas: How comes it to be furnished? To his I answer, in one word, from EXPERIENCE.” (Donald Palmer, p.165)

Rene Descartes was a rationalist who believed that knowledge of the world can be gained by the exercise of pure reason, while empiricist like Locke believed that knowledge of the world came through senses. Descartes from his meditations deduced from intuitive first principles the existence of self, of God, of the mind as a thinking substance and the extended body as a material substance whereas Locke, asserts that knowledge is acquired through perception, direct sensory of the world, reflections, the mental processes of breaking down complex impressions into simple ones and comparing them, conceptualizing them and recommending them to form new philosophies.