"pico" <pico@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:13c41vch9mga093@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "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 .)
This gets to the very heart of the "matter" re trees falling etc etc.
"Out there" is a swirling infinity of "all there is". "Our" sensual
perceptions have developed to the quantum level. This is a step closer to
the understanding of the true nature of the observer.
In that sense, It would be more accurate to say "we each dont 'have' a
priori knowledge, but in fact "are" such knowledge,. It is not found
looking
through "we" observation.
>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.
Making sense is fitting the "swirl" to suit the level of the capacity of
the
observer, where the subject and object appear to have clear demarcation
lines.
The way "we are", but NOT the way "I am"
>
> It is a truly human oriented philosophy so far, no? No appeals to
> mysticism here.
Yes for "we"and no for "I"
>
> 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.
He was where he was.
>
> Quite practical so far, yes?
Indubitably 'old bean' ;-)
BOfL
>
>
>
|
