![]() The fact that we recognize a boundary reveals that we can trust the noumena exist. ![]() But a boundary only makes sense or can be recognized as such when there is something on the other side of the boundary. Phenomena function as a boundary to reason. Previous metaphysics operated without recognizing this fact.īut in a surprising twist, recognizing that what we know is experience or appearance ends up saving the noumena and metaphysics–not as a science but as a moral practice and as the rational yearning of the human being.įor Kant, while access to the noumena is denied, in admitting we are denied access, we simultaneously preserve the reality of the noumena. We are enclosed in the boundary of experience. We cannot get around appearances to glimpse or confirm the objects in themselves. Kant begins by arguing that the objects of our knowledge, of science, of the senses, etc. To deny this, that is, if we deny things in themselves, is to return to the naivete of treating appearances as the things in themselves–for without the noumena, the phenomena must usurp their place as the objects. But in order for something to be an appearance, it must be an appearance of something. Rather than walk through his argument systematically, here is a summary of one aspect of his work which I found if not ultimately satisfying, at least rich and correct in its own light:įor Kant, we cannot know things in themselves (the noumena), only our experience or appearances (the phenomena). Kant in effect attempted to pause this argument and turn his reflections on the possibility of metaphysics, whether such a science could be justifiably demonstrated as within the realm of human power. ![]() In the midst of this argument, Hume injected a radical skepticism about the possibilities of knowledge, rejecting the concept of cause and effect. Substance for Locke was reduced to a mental construct. For Locke we learned everything we know from the senses, but we never know real essences or natures. Locke denied these undeniable innate ideas and rejected Cartesian realism for a form of modern empiricism. Both Cartesian and Lockean philosophy had stepped out on limbs assuming all sorts of things about the reality of beings.ĭescartes had claimed God was the clearest and first thing we know, and that all science and truth must begin from undeniable innate ideas. In the context of Cartesian realism and Lockean Empiricism, but especially in light of Hume’s deep skepticism, Kant prepared a response to the current questions and woes of Modern Philosophy. As I have mentioned, I am studying at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Connecticut and I am currently enrolled in course on Modern and Contemporary Philosophy. The power of Kant’s approach to metaphysics stood out to me in a recent reading of his Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |