The Copernican Revolution and the Senses

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

Re: The Copernican Revolution and the Senses

Postby Positor on May 19th, 2017, 8:01 pm 

Neri » May 19th, 2017, 8:04 pm wrote:If things in themselves provide the matter [whatever that might be] of the representation, that matter should somehow be contained in the perception. But we are told that the perception contains nothing of things in themselves, for the reason that the perception is limited by the intuitions of time and space that have no counterpart in things in themselves. Thus, the whole explanation is internally inconsistent.

Is it possible to think of the "matter" of things-in-themselves as something like a code ("digital", so to speak) which does not occupy time or space? Our intuitions of time and space, and the correspondence between an event therein and an element of the code, would then constitute the "key" to the code. The perception and the code, though corresponding, would be two quite different types of entity; we would have no knowledge of the code as a code.

I am obviously not claiming that Kant thought of the explanation in those terms — I am just wondering if that would save its consistency.
Positor
Member
 
Posts: 956
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: The Copernican Revolution and the Senses

Postby BadgerJelly on May 20th, 2017, 3:25 am 

Neri » May 16th, 2017, 1:06 am wrote:BIV,

I noticed your last post.

Modern science seems to contradict Kant’s Copernican revolution. The notion that the universe follows our intuitions (rather than the other way round) is no longer supportable.

Modern instruments such as space telescopes and neutron colliders have expanded our senses far beyond our intuitions.

Therefore, it appears that empirical data is not a slave to our thought processes, as Kant claimed. This is a severe blow to his antirealism.

Nature has a vote after all.


I see Biv liked this post also. I am a little baffled here because Kant does not make such a claim at all. What I see is you are trying to push him to either one side or the other. He actually worked to unite/reconcile both positions.

Kant does not stay onside with either rationalism nor empiricism. He was looking for the middle ground (so to speak). He is anything but anti-realist!!?? He doesn't really question things existing. What he looks at is how we understand things at all.

I have noticed a certain perspective on this forum which tends towards viewing anything veering away from empiricism, or discussing such, as being anti-realist or 'fantasy' (I guess I shouldn't be overly surprised by this considering this is a predominantly 'science' forum - that is why I enjoy it here).

After all if you are a hard core empiricist you are necessarily casting yourself in a anti-rationalist position. Kant's attempted to reconcile these positions not dismiss one or the other.

The 'limiting' nature of the concepts Kant uses need to be understood to understand his position. His use of "noumenon" fits this bill. We do not learn purely through experience or come to 'know' purely through experience. That may sound contrary I know! We rationalize our experiences we don't form rationalism from experiences (this is in line with what I was saying about causation and the chess board with the pieces nor the chess players being what causes the chess board).
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Previous

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests