Spinoza Rationalism Analysis

Improved Essays
Modern philosophy presented several important contributions to different matters, such as rationalism. Rationalism is the explanation, and understanding of the universe through the use of the human mind. Spinoza, and Kant are two major modern philosophers, who provided their own philosophical systems involving rationalism. Spinoza’s interpretation involving rationalism was partly succeeded by Kant. Spinoza considered rationalism to provide guidance in human understanding. In order to successfully reach this understanding, the mind must process particular ideas. Spinoza’s philosophy contains a system of ideas; the more distinct ideas are, the easier it is to comprehend those ideas (Spinoza, 1998, p. 66). Ideas that are more particular allow …show more content…
When the mind concentrates on a thought, it is able to come to a true conclusion by using what is identified in a logical way (Spinoza, 1998, p. 69). When the mind encounters a thought that is considered true, it will start to logically decipher what is true about it. Although, in order to follow through with this process, a foundation of true knowledge must be established. This foundation consists of true intellect knowledge; the only groundwork to comprehend all thoughts from (Spinoza, 1998, p. 69). Once individuals achieve this foundation, it enables them to form true, and intellect …show more content…
Kant inspected the differences between knowledge obtained from the senses, and knowledge obtained from the mind. He did not argue that all knowledge comes from reason, nor that all knowledge comes from experience. Instead, Kant’s main intention was to define the limits, and capacity of pure reason. He desired to figure out what reason alone can determine without the help of the senses. Kant concurred that knowledge begins with experience; however he did not agree that experience is the only source of all knowledge (Kant, 1998, p. 99). He clarified his analysis that valid knowledge is produced by a combination of reason, rationalism, and experience, empiricism.
Kant distinguished between reason, and experience through a priori knowledge, and a posteriori knowledge. A priori knowledge is the universal knowledge, independent of experience; while a posteriori knowledge is the particular knowledge gained from experience (Kant, 1998, p. 100). A priori knowledge is based on reason alone. A posteriori knowledge is based on experience alone. A priori knowledge is considered pure reason if it does not hold anything empirical, or impure reason if empiricism is

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Kant’s passage explores the foundations of human cognition. His principal intention was to determine the limits of pure reason and understanding. His ‘grand question’ from the preface to his introduction, The Critique of Pure Reason epitomises ‘what and how much can reason and understanding apart from experience, cognize?’ (Kant et al., n.d.). In other words, he wants to know what reason alone can determine without empiricism. However, Adorno disputes Kant’s main focal point within the passage and argues that he places more emphasis on ‘the objective nature of cognition’ (Adorno and Tiedemann, 2001).…

    • 1178 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Kant refers to this external object as a thing-in-itself (ding an sich), which he claims cannot be directly or immediately known. We can’t have knowledge of things in themselves, because we can only know what is given to us in sensibility (intuition) and thought through concepts. Kant argues the only things in themselves are space and time, which he still argues are merely formal features of how objects are perceived. Fichte introduces a similar philosophy, however, doing away with the contrast between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, takes out the concept of a thing-in-itself. In the preface to the first edition of Concerning the Concept of the Wissenschaftslehre, Fichte touches on Kant’s spirit of genius saying that Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is filled with deep and profound insight.…

    • 1363 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Humans contain a deep yearning for knowledge. Given that the previous sentence is merely an assertion with no justification, there is no need for one to believe me – it may be true, but until that is justified and found to be true, it is nothing beyond a belief. Prior to a proposition’s justification, one should not be infer that it is knowledge. Justification for objective knowledge can be divided into two categories: a posteriori arguments and a priori arguments. These categories take many names; a posteriori is similar to empirical arguments, which are defined as observational proof.…

    • 1153 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The arguments are related to Descartes and Berkeley’s different stances on rationalism and empiricism, or if our minds identify knowledge of sensible objects through experience or innate knowledge. In what follows, I will compare the two arguments and their connections to functionalism and empiricism. I will argue that Descartes’ substance theory is more plausible than Berkeley’s bundle theory because common sense tells us that we can perceive mind-independent objects, which counters with his theory. Descartes’ substance theory states that all sensible objects are made of a substance distinct from its properties. A substance, how Descartes defines it, is any entity that can exist on its own.…

    • 1212 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    He says that if reason or the understanding, which he often equates with this conception of reason, did determine the belief, then it would have to proceed upon a principle which is well-founded, a just conclusion; the transition would have to be a just inference and the conclusion built on solid reasoning. He then proceeds to show that these conditions are not fulfilled in these instances, for we in fact have "no reason to believe these things. It is because the beliefs are unreasonable, then, that reason cannot be the source of them. Thus Hume, like…

    • 2418 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Kant holds that reason has a tendency to take these nonempirical structures, and move them beyond the sensible manifold and into the noumenal realm itself.18 While this subject does not arise phenomenologically, Kant holds that it is necessary for us to have any idea of a coherent experience at all. While fundamentally critical, Kant still demands a form of…

    • 1927 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The major and minor premise must coincide to yield a conclusion; this one of the rules that should always be applied when observing a syllogistic argument. One must use good reasoning when creating a logical statement. To look at the big picture, since logic deals with correct reasoning and since correctness of reasoning is closely related with truth and falsity, then when one reasons correctly, “if the premises of his/her argument are true, then it will be impossible for the conclusion to be false” (Popkin and Stroll, 243) because the statement is valid. Validity is the structure of an argument. Once the validity of an argument is established, one can acquire justified true belief.…

    • 1512 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    The concept of the noumenon is something that is specifically meant to be thought of purely as a thing in itself, and not as an object of the senses. This happens through pure understanding. This concept is non-contradictory, which is problematic for Kant. He defines this concept as problematic, because it is connected with cognitions; and the objective reality of these can in no way actually be cognized. The concept of noumenon is non-contradictory as it cannot emphasize sensibility by demonstrating it is the only possible kind of intuition.…

    • 1787 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    This is an example of a maxim. A maxim, per Kant, can be defined as, “the subjective principle of acting must be distinguished from the objective principle, viz., the practical law” (30). Kant uses contradiction to test the moral worth of maxims. On page 32, Kant explains that “some actions are so constituted that their maxims cannot without contradiction even be thought as a universal law of nature, much less be willed as what should become one” (32). Kant goes on to talk about the universality of moral…

    • 1228 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    One very impressive attack on Hume’s argument, trying to solve it with its definition, is as follows. The first premise of the argument is challenged, which is “if we want induction to be rationally justified, induction must be reliable.” Since the definition of deduction is based on the validity of an argument, which is assumed to be reliable, why couldn’t reliability be a part of the definition of induction? Induction is defined to be reliable in this attack. However, reliability cannot be a part of the definition because it is a way to evaluate those methods, such as deduction and induction. The criteria for the evaluation is a totally different idea than the method itself.…

    • 1698 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays