\"il AT&T; 9:03 PM ocean.instructure.com to sleep. But Hume says that we cannot
ID: 3487381 • Letter: #
Question
"il AT&T; 9:03 PM ocean.instructure.com to sleep. But Hume says that we cannot prove this. All we can say is that Well, it looks exactly the same as I remember it." But if two things look the same, does not prove that they are the same? Moreover, if the world that we see now (our sense impression) is being compared to a mere "memory of the OCEAN world (an idea) from one hour ago. how reliable is that Hume also says that we have no knowledge that there is any causal relationships (necessary connections) within the world that we do experience at each moment. We can see that things happen one after another. But we cannot see that there is anything necessary in a sequence of events. We merely get into a habit of expecting certain things to happen, just as a dog gets into a habit of expecting a reward when it does something for which it has been trained to expect a reward. Is my "belief that someone is calling me, whenever my phone rings, nothing more than a habit-- a conditioned response? Can I prove that someone must be on the line? Or have I just bee trained to expect it? Dashboard Calendar 21 What do you think? Inbox The Kantian Turn Inward Help Kant both agrees and disagrees with Hume. He agrees that we cannot have knowledge of what the world is ultimately like "out there." completehy independent from the human mind. But he disagrees over whether we can have some basic knowledge about the world, as human being must experience it. Kant says that we can have objective knowledge of how the human mind organizes and shapes the world His philosophy tries to show that we all share an identical set of very basic concepts and categories, which we use to shape the basic features of the world in the same way. It's as if we were all wearing the same type of sunglasses. We would all see the world in the same way. And if we did not know that we were wearing these glasses, we would all likely believe that we were all seeing the world as it is "out there. Kant says that we can know that there must be a world "out there. But we cannot know what it is like, independently of how we must experience the world. Thus, the only world we can ever know is the human world, what he calls the "phenomenal" world, a world that is created by humans for humans. Is Kant right about this? Are human beings forever limited to (trapped within?) a world of their own making? Is any attempt to know ultimate reality a lot like any attempt to know what a banana looks like and tastes like independently from what it looks and tastes like to us? How could anyone ever prove that he or she had discovered the objective taste of a banana? What do you think? K- A Quality ResnonseExplanation / Answer
I am in agreement with Kant that there human beings are trapped by the limitations of their perpetual capacities. I would like to extent his point further by taking the example of dimensions. Although human beings experience a three dimensional world, theoretical claims have been made that there maybe up to 11 dimensions in the universe. However, it is impossible to even imagine, let alone display an accurate model of how that world would look like, as it is beyond our perceptual abilities. Similarly, for all the stimuli in the world, it is possible to have some amount of knowledge and awareness of its properties but the experience of it will always be tinted by our capacities. Going further into the subjective element, each person would experience the banana differently. Although some characteristics may remain the same, such as being sweet, soft etc. an individual’s preferences and past experiences also come into the picture while determining the taste. Given this level of subjectivity, I would find it close to impossible for one person to make an accurate determination of having found the objective taste of bananas.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.