"Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer." Initially, reading this made me think reading the this book would be vain. But no philosophy has found an absolute and definitive answer to philosophy; that is not its purpose. It appears that Kant is demarcating boundaries for the practice of philosophy?
When Kant writes, "we have no knowledge antecedent to experience, and with experience all our knowledge begins." Yet, there is universal truth that is more pure and exist independent of reason. These I believe are certain principles such as in math (the angles of a triangle adding up to 180 degrees). Kant calls this a priori. Yet, he does not try and define this universality, unlike many other philosophers. I think that this approach is brilliant even though I am still very new to understanding it. If he is correct in this matter it seems that a priori and a posteriori knowledge would be a system that would save many philosophers from contemplating things that do not abide by this system, things that exist beyond the foundations of Kant's critique. Kant writes, "it is possible to show that pure a priori principles are indispensable for the possibility of experience, and so to prove their existence a priori." The root of a priori knowledge still is not clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment