"yandahir bazoot" <justinlesaux@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1187118853.616173.96150@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...] it has always seemed to me that Kant misses
> something about normal, naïve, empirical realism, and that from this
> normal point of view although his system is very intellectual, and
> subtle it runs the danger of being a ridiculous sort of over subtlety
> that is unbelievable.
I think you might be referring to the 'a priori'. Kant's a priori seems to
be misunderstood here and elsewhere (or I am all wet).
Kant said that the a priori knowledge was not knowledge 'out there' and
independent of us. What was 'out there' makes itself (or some of itself)
known to us through our senses and then became available to empirical
knowledge (experiencing .) That seems straightforward, no? But then he
goes
on to say that this occurs because humans have epistemic facilities that
make them receptive. Our particular epistemic abilities give the thing
sensed certain structure. It is the way we are.
It is a truly human oriented philosophy so far, no? No appeals to
mysticism
here.
Kant goes on to discuss a framework of understanding, and this can get
confusing. The framework is, in part, our a priori facility _made evident_
in the framework, or seen as part of the framework itself. Regarding the
transcendental part which confuses about everyone, Kant did not claim that
we could actually gain _knowledge_ about what transcended our experience.
Quite practical so far, yes?
|
