A critique of Kantian Epistemology: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » A critique of Kantian Epistemology » A critique of Kantian Epistemology

A critique of Kantian Epistemology

A critique of Kantian Epistemology

cortezrex
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Location: Writing fiction, plays, watching classic cinema, new films.

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 67

Posted 01/15/04 - 08:28 PM:	#1
Immanuel Kant finish his paper on time. Ha Ha. Anyway, Kant worked very hard at arriving at a revolutionary theory of knowledge by combining the premises of Rationalism and Empiricism. However, while I applaud his work for being the most diverse and open minded that I’ve yet to read--on epistemology anyway--there is room for improvement. I have no doubt that had Kant been aware of the present Relativist situation, he would have attempted to marry both Relativism and Objectivism and create another revolutionary theory of knowledge. This is the most praise I will give any philosopher before finding flaws in their work. 1) Time and Space are necessary features of our experience. 2) A priori knowledge exists. 3) We experience the world of phenomena through our ‘conceptual lenses’ while the world of noumena is out of our reach (4, 118-119). I think Kant was aware that in order to have knowledge there first needed to be a foundation of it. In searching for such a foundation he must have arrived at the conclusion that Time and Space were necessary features in our interactions with the world. He felt that we could not construct any knowledge of our conceptual reality without having those two premises. He was correct in concluding that there is a foundation needed to build knowledge upon but I feel he was incorrect in assuming it was Time and Space. For example, I learned what an apple looks like long ago and can easily recall it in my mind whenever I choose to. Kant assumes that I cannot do this without giving that apple spatial and temporal qualities, but this is not the case. The apple in my mind is not taking any space in reality, I cannot measure the dimensions of it because it is only an image. Also, I cannot say that it has temporal qualities because as I think of it now, it is not aging or changing or moving. The apple in my mind is clear of temporal and spatial qualities because it is only an image of what I’ve learned an apple to be. Interestingly enough, I think of Plato and how he must have come across the same occurrence I just went through in remembering an apple in my mind. The apple does not take space, it is unchanging, unmoving, has no temporal qualities and is indivisible…all the qualities of Plato’s Forms. I wonder if Plato did not notice what I just noticed and build on what he learned from images in our minds? So if time and space are not the prerequisites for building knowledge, then what are? How about the Feminist claim that Social status, gender, culture and language are the contexts humans build upon when interacting with the world? Their claim that we are not individuals on a lone quest of acquiring knowledge is correct and I can build upon it. It is true that our interactions with the world and reason are essential to building knowledge, but so are many other influences in the world. A person’s parents, their upbringing, is essential during the early years of a child and will affect that being until their death. This fact Psychologists have known for years and it applies to epistemology. Other social interactions are equally essential in building a foundation for knowledge in a being. The same can be said for gender, as our respective cultures will assign certain gender roles and some interactions with the world are limited to certain genders. Language is another influence that is necessary for knowledge as a person cannot make sense of Indirect A posteriori knowledge without it. Why those? Realize that if a jolly old man wearing a red outfit, with a long white beard and white hair on his head and a bag full of wrapped presents were to appear before Heraclitus, he would not know who this person is. But if the same jolly old man were to appear before many children in the United States, they would immediately identify him as Santa Claus. The social context of the individual is necessary to make sense of some Direct A posteriori knowledge. Also, if a child were raised alone, with no human contact, as there have been many cases reported of such occurrences, then that child would not make sense of many of what is ‘common’ knowledge to those of us living in this society. Interactions with other human beings in a society and culture is necessary for any child to build a foundation of knowledge. Now, for all the males reading this, suppose I were to ask you to imagine what giving birth is like, I dare say that none would know what to say from Direct A posteriori knowledge, only from Indirect A posteriori knowledge of what your wife or girlfriend or mother has told you. Now the females imagine what it is like to have a circumcision and the results will be the same as with the males. Some interactions with the world are limited to gender and the perception of some is different with males and females. Now, lets say for a moment that I ask all the teachers in the United States to imagine what a Pear looks like. Most can do this easily, but now try to imagine what una mansana mordida looks like. The teachers that are not familiar with the Spanish language will find it impossible to imagine what I’m talking about. Those familiar and fluent in Spanish will find it easy to do so: una mansana mordida--an apple with a bite on it. To take that a step further, if I were to ask those teachers what the importance of that apple with a bite on it is I might get varying answers depending on whether or not they are part of a Christian religion or if they are familiar with their symbolism: An apple with a bite on it, the clear symbol of original sin committed by Eve in the Garden of Eden. Language is, in my opinion, the most important foundation for knowledge in the human mind. A priori knowledge, as defined in the first page of this paper, was very conceivable while working under the guise of ‘experience‘. When I replaced the word ‘experience’ with ‘interaction’ I eliminated the possibility for any a priori knowledge of the world. As I wrote above, there are contexts that are necessary for knowledge in human minds and these deal mainly with interactions with the world and other minds. To say that any knowledge is gained A priori to interactions is inconceivable. Consider the following example presented to me in a philosophy 1 text: Suppose I made the prediction that when I turn on the television to watch the evening news tonight that the male anchor (say, Dan Rather) will be wearing a tie colored in various shades of gray. Furthermore, suppose that I claim this knowledge about the real world is known a priori, independently of my past experience of seeing what sorts of ties he wears. Whether the tie is striped, polka dot, paisley, or whatever, I know ahead of time it will be shades of gray. How can I make this prediction? (4, 117) The answer was: In the case of the news anchor, I could know a priori that his tie would be gray if I knew that I would be watching him on a black and white television set. (4, 117) Was he right? Is this truly A priori knowledge gained aside from any interaction with the world? I could make a case for it if I were still using the old word ‘experience’ but with interaction, there is no case. He could not possibly have known that an anchor man would wear a tie unless he were familiar with the gender roles of males in that position. One rule of this gender role for anchors and other professionals is that they wear ties with their suits. You would not see the anchor man in a smart dress with high heels because that is not what our society dictates for males. His knowledge of the social context of the United States helped him make this ‘A priori’ claim. I could make the same case for any claim made ‘a priori’ to interaction with the world. Even the famous ‘all events will have a cause’ is at best Indirect A posteriori knowledge. It is saying that ‘all interactions will beget further interactions.’ It is not guaranteed that any event will have a single cause, but rather a world of influences that lead to what are known as ‘effects’ to ‘causes.’ To even be able to understand what the sentence says a person is required to have at least a language context with which to work with. Otherwise, it is merely a collection of symbols on paper that make no sense. Can we ever escape the realm of the phenomena and enter the realm of the noumena? I guess that would be hard to do if we were all viewing and interacting with the world with rose colored lenses on our eyes. Kant felt that only a being that exists independent of time and space and the senses could view the world as it is, but not us. In essence he was saying that humans construct their reality through ‘experience’ and to go beyond that was impossible. But if the pre-requisites for knowledge are social constructs, then can we not escape those to ‘see’ what the world is like? Our senses pick up information from the environment and our brains and minds process it to arrive at conclusions or merely for the sake of cataloguing it. If we know that our minds, male and female, perceive things differently in different social settings, then could we not then gather different representatives from these settings to compare and contrast our perceptions of reality? We’ve already made the big leap, knowing there is an objective reality, but saying that we can never know what that is like is mistaken. Immanuel Kant progressed the problem of epistemology and paved the way for the present philosophers to add the perspective of our time and continue on. I will come back to old Immanuel when considering Ethics.

Jay
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2003

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1578

Posted 01/16/04 - 03:48 PM:	#2
cortezrex wrote: I think Kant was aware that in order to have knowledge there first needed to be a foundation of it. In searching for such a foundation he must have arrived at the conclusion that Time and Space were necessary features in our interactions with the world. He felt that we could not construct any knowledge of our conceptual reality without having those two premises. He was correct in concluding that there is a foundation needed to build knowledge upon but I feel he was incorrect in assuming it was Time and Space. For example, I learned what an apple looks like long ago and can easily recall it in my mind whenever I choose to. Kant assumes that I cannot do this without giving that apple spatial and temporal qualities, but this is not the case. The apple in my mind is not taking any space in reality, I cannot measure the dimensions of it because it is only an image. Also, I cannot say that it has temporal qualities because as I think of it now, it is not aging or changing or moving. The apple in my mind is clear of temporal and spatial qualities because it is only an image of what I’ve learned an apple to be. What you fail to acknowledge is that all your thoughts are representations. Consequently, they too are images. Now just because you are dealign with an image does not mean that you do not require to posit spatial-temporal qualities. To be able to have a thought you obviosuly need to be conceptualizing time, to conceptualize an image, particularly the form, color, and whatever other properties your image has you need the use of spatical qualities. When you say the mind is not taking space in reality you are mistaken because there is no such thing as space in reality or time in reality according to Kant. Time and space are not things in themselves and are utterly dependant on the subject. Hence your objection appears to me to be invalid.

cortezrex
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Location: Writing fiction, plays, watching classic cinema, new films.

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 67

Posted 01/16/04 - 09:05 PM:	#3
"To be able to have a thought you obviosuly need to be conceptualizing time, to conceptualize an image, particularly the form, color, and whatever other properties your image has you need the use of spatical qualities." This is true for the object of the data, but um, the apple in my mind does not exist in space-time. My thought is not taking up space anywhere. Well Kant had his idea of space and time, but sadly his ideas went the way of the dodo and we have modern physics. If he was right about space and time then by all means, yes he would have been right. But with advancements in physics including quantum theory, you can't honestly say that what the man thought of the two subjects is true.

Jay
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2003

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1578

Posted 01/16/04 - 09:54 PM:	#4
cortezrex wrote: This is true for the object of the data, but um, the apple in my mind does not exist in space-time. My thought is not taking up space anywhere. I'm not claiming that it has to take up space. And that is precisly the point, nothing actualy takes up space according to Kant because that would require the object to be a thing in itself which Kant says you can know nothing about. The spacial qualities of the apple in your mind is the conception of the three dimensions. Even in your mind you must make use of width, depth, and height to be able to conceptualize the image of the apple and any other image for that matter. Just like you need to conceptualize time to be able to differentiate between thoughts. Well Kant had his idea of space and time, but sadly his ideas went the way of the dodo and we have modern physics. If he was right about space and time then by all means, yes he would have been right. But with advancements in physics including quantum theory, you can't honestly say that what the man thought of the two subjects is true. I'm not quite sure if the modern sciences you discribe change anything at all unless you are a direct-realist. Every other method of thought involves some form of representation and consequently I'm not sure we can just throw Kant's ideas out the windows. We might have elaborated on them more extensively but I think, and please correct me if I am wrong, space and time are still subject dependant.

cortezrex
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Location: Writing fiction, plays, watching classic cinema, new films.

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 67

Posted 01/16/04 - 10:19 PM:	#5
No, i was not suggesting we do. I think in honor of the man we need to take his epistemology and update it in view of the current relativism vs objectivism problem that the postmodernist relativists brought to light. I think i see your point now on space time as subjective. My point was, we need a language, society, culture and gender context to interpret interactions with the world and have knowledge built on these contexts. Kant felt that space and time was a necessity in all experiences, but the knowledge gained is not subject to these.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2002

Total Topics: 465
Total Posts: 12173

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 01/16/04 - 10:56 PM:	#6
corezrex wrote: I think Kant was aware that in order to have knowledge there first needed to be a foundation of it. This was the fatal flaw of Kant's epistemology -- he was, undeniably, a foundationlist. While I agree with empirical foundationalism and his form was essentially empirical foundationalism, his problem was that he took this as all there is to epistemology and so expected the knowledge should seriously be justified absolutely in relation to the empirical foundations. If Kant's epistemology is subjegated into a part of a coherentist epistemology which recognizes empirical foundationalism, then it's correct. Taken as Kant took it, it falls victim to all the usual problems of foundationalism as it does not allow most of the things we know to be called knowledge. It's only improvement over regular foundationalism is that it recognizes much better what the implications of truth are and what it means for something to be true. (Sets up Wittgenstein.)

Ethereal
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 12, 2003

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 507

Posted 01/22/04 - 08:31 AM:	#7
Jay wrote: I'm not claiming that it has to take up space. And that is precisly the point, nothing actualy takes up space according to Kant because that would require the object to be a thing in itself which Kant says you can know nothing about. The spacial qualities of the apple in your mind is the conception of the three dimensions. Even in your mind you must make use of width, depth, and height to be able to conceptualize the image of the apple and any other image for that matter. Just like you need to conceptualize time to be able to differentiate between thoughts. I would actually dispute this point. When I or anyone for that matter conceptulise an object in my mind, I do not imagine it in a such a way that if a machine which could translate what I imagine to images which can be projected on a screen were to be invented, it would actually convey my thoughts. When I hear the word "apple" I do not actually see it in my mind's eye, I merely understand what it means. When I imagine an apple, I cannot "see" how large it is until I imagine its size (the same goes for its other qualities). There is confusion here, probably because people still cling to the concept of a "mind's eye". Such an eye does not exist, for are no thoughts without perception of them. The mind works in a bizarre manner.

TheHED
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Philly

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 01/25/04 - 07:16 AM:	#8
Kant assumes that I cannot do this without giving that apple spatial and temporal qualities, but this is not the case. But it is the case. To conjure up an image of an apple, and to know what an apple is are two very different things. In order to image an apple in one's mind, one must attach physical characteristics to the apple. These characteristics such as color, size, depth, etc only make sense when viewed within the only context we have-- our world. In order words, to image the apple, the subject must be able to see it as would exist in this world. The representation in most probability will not match the initial, however, that representation must be presentable within the confines of nature's laws. Thus, to image the apple as a physical object, we rely on experiences of what exists in the world to create the image. Every physical however exists in space as the mind must contrast and compare to decimate and distinguish the physical. For instance, an apple existing without the presence of light cannot be seen. For you to recognize it as independent of its surroundings, it must be realized in space. The physical of the apple exhibits a temporal because it exists in the sequence of experiences-- time. Was he right? Is this truly A priori knowledge gained aside from any interaction with the world? No, he was not right, and I believe Kant would concur. I equate and expand on Kant's concept of a priori knowledge with evolutionary predispositions, and our ability to imagine. Without knowledge of the effects of falling from a twenty-storey building, does one take the jump? Kant felt that only a being that exists independent of time and space and the senses could view the world as it is, but not us. In essence he was saying that humans construct their reality through ‘experience’ and to go beyond that was impossible. But if the pre-requisites for knowledge are social constructs, then can we not escape those to ‘see’ what the world is like? Our senses pick up information from the environment and our brains and minds process it to arrive at conclusions or merely for the sake of cataloguing it. If we know that our minds, male and female, perceive things differently in different social settings, then could we not then gather different representatives from these settings to compare and contrast our perceptions of reality? We’ve already made the big leap, knowing there is an objective reality, but saying that we can never know what that is like is mistaken. What you suggest is in essence, a combination of all subjectives to create an objective. This is impractical and impossible as subjectives, past, present, and future exist(ed).

Nihilism
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 90

Posted 10/25/09 - 08:17 AM:	#9
I read about halfway through. I think its good, although you are very empiricist about the whole thing. Truely you stick to posteriori knowledge.
To criticize is only to establish that a concept vanishes when it is thrust into a new milieu, losing some of its components, or acquiring others that transform it. But those who criticize without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life, are the plague of philosophy. All those debaters and communicators are inspired by resentment. They speak only for themselves when they set empty generalizations against one another. Philosophy has a horror of discussions. It always has something else to do.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/26/09 - 03:04 PM:	#10
Which definition of knowledge are you using Paul? Ie. If you change the qualia which defines the definition of 'apple pie' should you not check as well whether or not the definition of apple has changed? Otherwise you can never have a post-kantian apple pie if you still continue to claim 'apple' by some other definition. Only pre-kantian pies are allowed. The adage "We build knew knowledge upon existing knowledge" may be slightly flawed. What happens to definitions or terminologies when the qualia of which X is based from changes? If the Kantian model finds an alternate set of qualia of which X is based from then the previous qualia is no longer a valid argument for the definition of X. In other words... look at death. Because there is no natural death anymore - the qualia used to define death may no longer be valid. As such we are already immortal. Basically - any change for qualia that we use as definition invalidates pre-existing knowledge as well as new knowledge. Through both regression and expansion - no knowledge exists. Edited by Cadrache on 10/26/09 - 03:41 PM. Reason: additions.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.