The Great Philosopher: Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant is recognized as the greatest philosopher since Plato and Aristotle (Wolff). He is most widely known for his work in the fields of metaphysics and epistemology (McCormick). Kant published many works regarding his epistemological views, but his most famous work is The Critique of Pure Reason (McCormick). He noted that Descartes had “simply accepted consciousness as an…inexplicable fact” (Wolff). Kant utilized this observation to refute Descartes’ famous quote, “I think, therefore I am,” with a slightly revised premise— “I am conscious” (Wolff).
Kant’s argument continues with his thoughts of a ‘unity of consciousness,’ which is the notion that “thoughts and perceptions of any given mind are bound together…by being all contained …show more content…
Things-in-themselves, or reality, are “absolutely real” (Rohlf). These are things which, according to Kant, are perceivable even if no one is perceiving them. However, how is the mind to know that a thing-in-itself exists when the mind is not, at that moment, perceiving it? The answer, for the sake of Kant’s argument, is that one cannot.
Appearances, on the other hand, are “absolutely not real” (Rohlf). Kant describes appearances as things whose existence “depend on human perceivers” (Rohlf). In other words, appearances are “mental representations” of things-in-themselves (Rohlf). Appearances exist only in the mind and cannot be perceived by the senses. Therefore, Kant concludes that they cannot be considered reality.
I do not agree with Kant’s reality versus appearance argument. I do not believe that the distinction between things that are real and things that are not real can be as black and white as Kant has described. For example, according to Kant’s argument, ‘love’ is not real because one cannot perceive it with the senses. However, just because love cannot be perceived should not automatically disqualify its existence. While I agree that Kant’s argument was fairly thorough, I cannot say that I agree with his
Kant’s argument continues with his thoughts of a ‘unity of consciousness,’ which is the notion that “thoughts and perceptions of any given mind are bound together…by being all contained …show more content…
Things-in-themselves, or reality, are “absolutely real” (Rohlf). These are things which, according to Kant, are perceivable even if no one is perceiving them. However, how is the mind to know that a thing-in-itself exists when the mind is not, at that moment, perceiving it? The answer, for the sake of Kant’s argument, is that one cannot.
Appearances, on the other hand, are “absolutely not real” (Rohlf). Kant describes appearances as things whose existence “depend on human perceivers” (Rohlf). In other words, appearances are “mental representations” of things-in-themselves (Rohlf). Appearances exist only in the mind and cannot be perceived by the senses. Therefore, Kant concludes that they cannot be considered reality.
I do not agree with Kant’s reality versus appearance argument. I do not believe that the distinction between things that are real and things that are not real can be as black and white as Kant has described. For example, according to Kant’s argument, ‘love’ is not real because one cannot perceive it with the senses. However, just because love cannot be perceived should not automatically disqualify its existence. While I agree that Kant’s argument was fairly thorough, I cannot say that I agree with his