Kant 's Theory Of Space And Time

In the Critique of Pure Reason, philosopher Immanuel Kant aims to thoroughly explain his philosophy of the metaphysical world. Within the Transcendental Aesthetic, Kant focuses on confirming that space and time are a priori intuitions. He provides reasoning and arguments as to why they are transcendentally ideal but empirically real, making space and time subjectively necessary for experiences. Simultaneously, Kant distinguishes space and time from secondary qualities, which belong to our senses through experience, by confirming that unlike space and time, secondary qualities are not empirically real. Kant does run into conflicts with his theory, he still successfully claims that space and time are transcendentally ideal but empirically real, as well as distinguish them from secondary qualities by supporting his theories with reasoning.

One may first look at the argument contained within Descartes’ book Meditations on First Philosophy. In the sixth meditation Descartes states “On the one hand I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in so far as I am simply a thinking, non-extended thing and on the other hand I have a distinct idea of body, in so far as this is simply an extended, non-thinking thing. And accordingly, it is certain that I am really distinct from my body, and can

In this paper, I will argue Kant’s categorical imperative's through a condensed summation of his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals with specific regard for the need for categorical imperative and how it's flaws can disband the efficacy of his claim.

Despite this problem, we believe it is the same piece of wax we see, touch, or imagine. But it is not our feelings or imagination that gives us the idea. If we had evaluated these abilities, and if the wax is distorted, we would not be able to agree that it is the same wax. This study enables us to recognize that the imagination, just like sensation, does not convey the true nature of wax; rather, this difficulty indicates that only understanding, exercising its powers of conception and judgment, performs the unifying function that constitutes the self-identity of the piece of wax: “our perception of the wax is neither a seeing, nor a touching, nor an imagining… but the mind alone” (68). Although the changing characteristics of the body has been transported through our senses and imagination, the identity of the matter is provided by the understanding of the wax itself. This analysis confirms Descartes’ view that “what we thought we had seen with our eyes, we actually grasped solely with the faculty of judgment, which is in our mind” (68). Therefore, any sense of the body is actually an introspection of our mind, not an external inspection.

There is very little question as to what action a strict deontologist would do in the scenario for this assignment he or she would unequivocally adhere to his or her duty. The more pressing question, of course, revolves around just where that duty lies. For a deontologist, that duty would lie with the job at hand and its responsibilities. As one who took an oath to only program software in accordance to the company that he or she works for which is essentially operating as an extension of the government that wishes the programmer to 'push the button' and destroy millions of innocent lives in World War II it would strongly appear that such an individuals would consider it his or her duty to effectively start World War III.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, or how we know anything and what it means to know anything. It is where one can explain how our mind is linked to reality and if these relationships are valid or invalid. In this paper, I will first present the views of Descartes on epistemology. Next, I will clarify his view of God, the body, and the mind. I will also discuss how well Descartes presents the arguments and how well they work for each topic. Lastly, I will discuss my overall agreement with his project for knowledge in general, however, I further discuss a few key components that later philosophers came to add on.

Immanuel Kant claims that our concepts of space and time are transcendent and provide a framework for cognition to begin to understand raw sensory input from the outside world. For Kant, space and time are a priori pure intuitions, knowledge existing outside of sensory experience. This paper will further dissect Kant’s arguments for space and time as pure intuitions before making an argument in favor of Kant’s understanding of space and time.

One claim is that material things, including the human body, are totally subject to physical laws. Another claim is that the immaterial mind is capable of moving a human body. It can be argued that the two claims are compatible. In this world, there is material substance in which extension is its essential attribute. There is also the mind in which thought is its essential attribute. Since a substance doesn’t require anything apart from itself to exist, then matter and mind are compatible independent of one another. All in all, the material body and the mind usually interact in a living person. The body’s motion is sometimes affected by the mind, and the mind’s thoughts influenced by physical

Some have suggested that René Descartes argues that sense perception relies on the mind rather than on the body. Descartes asserts that we can know our mind more readily than we can know our body. In support of this idea he gives the example of a piece of wax which is observed in its solid form and its liquid form. After pointing out the difficulties of relying on the senses of the physical body to understand the nature of the wax he makes this claim: [P]erception ... is neither a seeing, nor a touching, nor an imagining. ... [R]ather it is an inspection on the part of the mind alone (Section 31). 1 This quote is perhaps the most direct statement of the author's thesis on this subject.

General Relativity is a two part theory created by the German physicist, Albert Einstein. The two sections of relativity is special relativity and general relativity. Special relativity focuses more on lines, constant-velocity motion on the mass of objects, the passage throughout time, and that passing the speed of light is impossible. General relativity deals with accelerated motion, gravitational fields on mass, size, and time. General relativity also states that matter and space effect each other and that the universe ends and there may be more universes out there. Relativity also includes space-time. Many people think that space and time are completely different variables, but physicists often combine them into “space-time”. Space-time is a four-dimensional coordinate system used in relativity and other areas of physics. The dimensions are, length, width, height, and the 4th is the time dimension.

The key to (i) is to be found in his insistence on the cognitive certainty of the following metaphysical thesis. Even if the phenomenal self is completely determined causally, the moral self is free because it is noumenal (see the Critique of Practical Reason 28-34, 43-52, 55-59, 100-106; hereafter Practical Reason). He claims that the noumenal self is a cause imminent in "experience" because it is an "efficient cause through Ideas" (50). In short, Kant rejects the formation of moral habits through repetition in order to protect radically the freedom of the moral agent from phenomenal and scientific determinism. The key to (ii) is Kant's rejection of Aristotle's following advice. Since the cognitive results of a kind of reasoning is determined by its subject matter, it is foolish to require of moral reasoning the certainty and precision one can expect

Explain and asses what you think to be the best argument Kant gives as his “Metaphysical Exposition of Space” (B37-40) that space cannot be either and actual entity (Newtonian concept) or any independent relation among real things (Leibnizian concepti be on). In other words, is he successful in arguing that space must be (at least) a form of intuition? Do any of his arguments further show that space must be ONLY a form of intuition and not ALSO something Newtonian or Leibnizian?

As with many philosophers worth studying, a common theme present amongst René Descartes, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant is the fact that all three philosophers challenged the traditional ways of thinking about philosophy respective to their eras. In certain aspects, all three of these philosophers also grappled with understanding, discovering, and logically explaining the power of the mind to shape whole truths. From Descartes’ foundational work with methodological doubt to Kant’s contribution to previous philosophical concepts such as synthetic judgments, all three men made undeniably valuable advances in epistemological thought despite the occasional controversies associated with their forward thinking during their time.

Kant explains our knowledge of the world is based on our awareness of the world. Same goes our consciousness which gives us representations of the world: ideas of things. There are several main ideas in Kant work that I would like explore in this paper. He talks about experience, ideas, logic, and the five main human senses. He explains that in order to have an idea of something, humans first have to experience something that is similar so that they can create something new in their mind. If this does not happen, then they cannot have the idea of the thing since the idea would have no experience to gain from. For example,

It is paradoxical to have a course, which revolves round the corrosiveness of faulted Western notions of time and its depiction through abstraction, identify itself with an abstract title but argue for the concreteness and tangibility of the portrayal of time and space. A Place Beyond Time does just that. Containing a vastly abstract title, A Place Beyond Time may at first glance appear to properly relate time as a tangent notion with space. Upon further contemplation, however, it becomes patent that A Place Beyond Time possesses a conspicuous absence present in its philosophy of aloofness from intangibility. And although the name of the course attempts to tackle and manifest the complications of abstract and concrete time, it is through its lack of definition and precision, lack of possession, and lack of sensation of repetition that A Place Beyond Time fails to properly capitalize on this dilemma.