Immanuel Kant VS. The Empiricists and Rationalists
Immanuel Kant’s view has the best supporting arguments to true knowledge and how to attain it. In comparison to the Rationalists and Empiricists, I believe Kant demonstrates the most realistic response of what true knowledge comes from. Immanuel Kant’s perspective joins both the rationalists approach and the empiricists ideas. Kant expresses, reasoning and sensory processes are both important factors to uncovering certain or true knowledge. Réne Descartes, a rationalist, believes that any knowledge that is doubted can be rejected. As well as, any knowledge that is based on sensation can also be rejected. I consider this idea incorrect, because I believe that knowledge is derived from what we see in front of us. Likewise, any knowledge can be doubted. Although, just because one person believes something to be wrong, doesn’t mean it is meant to be wrong for all of us. Afterall, we each see and feel things in different ways. The room temperature might be 20°C, but that might feel cold to one person and warm to another. How we see and feel affects us, and therefore gives us a basis of knowledge and understanding for each individual whether it be different for each person or not. …show more content…
They claim no knowledge is true or certain of the world as it is, but the knowledge we gather is merely a sensory perception. Objects only exist when one perceives them. The empiricists rely on sensory perception as the one foundation and manner of obtaining true knowledge. In turn, I disagree. I think that our sensory observations are definitely a key factor for one’s knowledge. However, all of our senses; sight, sound, taste, touch and smell are apart of our system that works together with our brain on a cognitive level. In other words, we can use our senses to make logical
Immanuel Kant’s view has the best supporting arguments to true knowledge and how to attain it. In comparison to the Rationalists and Empiricists, I believe Kant demonstrates the most realistic response of what true knowledge comes from. Immanuel Kant’s perspective joins both the rationalists approach and the empiricists ideas. Kant expresses, reasoning and sensory processes are both important factors to uncovering certain or true knowledge. Réne Descartes, a rationalist, believes that any knowledge that is doubted can be rejected. As well as, any knowledge that is based on sensation can also be rejected. I consider this idea incorrect, because I believe that knowledge is derived from what we see in front of us. Likewise, any knowledge can be doubted. Although, just because one person believes something to be wrong, doesn’t mean it is meant to be wrong for all of us. Afterall, we each see and feel things in different ways. The room temperature might be 20°C, but that might feel cold to one person and warm to another. How we see and feel affects us, and therefore gives us a basis of knowledge and understanding for each individual whether it be different for each person or not. …show more content…
They claim no knowledge is true or certain of the world as it is, but the knowledge we gather is merely a sensory perception. Objects only exist when one perceives them. The empiricists rely on sensory perception as the one foundation and manner of obtaining true knowledge. In turn, I disagree. I think that our sensory observations are definitely a key factor for one’s knowledge. However, all of our senses; sight, sound, taste, touch and smell are apart of our system that works together with our brain on a cognitive level. In other words, we can use our senses to make logical