Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
if it's different, then..
There is a self, there is an object (phenomenon). This subject does not exhaust itself with my presentation. That is, I see only the phenomenon and cannot understand its whole essence, I only know how it appears to me. In my head is an apparatus that receives information about an object through the senses… In the “apparatus”, this information is processed and sorted into shelves using space and time, categories. The categories are the same for everyone (and therefore science is possible).
We wrote above about the conclusions that follow from Kant's theory of knowledge, but I will try to tell you what problem it solves.
Kant tries to explain where human knowledge comes from. The difficulty is that he does not ask where this or that particular knowledge comes from, but where does knowledge come from in general. When we are interested in the source of a particular piece of knowledge, it is usually at least clear where to look. For example, to understand why distant objects appear smaller than those that are close, we can study the structure of the eye, find out what is inside the lens (lens), and then find out what happens to light rays when they pass through the lens. We are able to do this because the knowledge we are explaining (knowledge about how the apparent size of objects varies with distance) comes from something that can also be known (namely, knowledge about the structure of the eye). But what if we try to find the source not of any particular knowledge, but of all possible knowledge in general? This suggests that this source itself must be beyond all possible knowledge, which means that there can be no knowledge about the source itself!
This difficulty can be explained in another way: in this example, we cannot observe the refraction of light in our own eye; if we want to understand what is present, we must make a model of the eye and pass light through it in order to look at what is happening from the outside. That is, we are able to find out where the laws of perspective come from, due to the fact that we can observe the process of vision from the outside. But when we ask ourselves where all knowledge comes from in general, it is precisely “looking from the outside” that is impossible, because any answer itself will inevitably be an act of knowledge.
Kant offers the following solution: yes, he says, we cannot look at our own knowledge from the outside, but we can imagine what would have happened if it had been arranged differently. Therefore, we can ask meaningfully: what are the conditions for our cognition to be arranged in this way and not otherwise? This allows us to arrive at a specific knowledge (Kant calls it “transcendental”) that is not obtained in the same way as all other knowledge (not by contemplating objects), but is still knowledge, since if it were not true, we would not be able to contemplate objects as we contemplate them. For example, we would not know what a plane looks like if our representations were not “immersed” in a 3-dimensional space from which we can look at this plane. Conversely, since we can't have representations in 4-and higher-dimensional space, we don't know what 3-dimensional objects look like, but we always see only their 2-dimensional projections. Thus, 3-dimensional space is one of these transcendental conditions of our cognition.
In short, so.
The human senses are in contact with the surrounding reality, but the results of these contacts are received by the Moscow State University in the form of a continuous mess and mess. But in their minds, they are waiting for prepared templates: “pure forms of sensuality space and time” – thanks to these two templates, the mess of data is decomposed into more or less understandable piles, with which you can already do something, and “pure concepts”-these templates are rules for folding piles into ordered structures. All this is done quickly, faster even than on the iPad, so we do not have time to notice anything like this, but only immediately see (contemplate) a beautiful and orderly World.
The case is ready.