Author

Tutor

Course

Date

Introduction

Philosophy has been one of the most fundamental aspects of the human society. While it has been extremely difficult to place a finger on or outline the importance of philosophy, it is primarily concerned with enabling individuals to think critically about the varied things or points of view that they encounter in their day to day lives. Needless to say, there have been numerous philosophers, each of who have been postulating different theories and ways of reasoning. Nevertheless, Emanuel Kant carved a niche for himself as one of the greatest philosophers, with his works being explored even in the contemporary human society. One of the greatest works of Emanuel Kant revolves around his critique of pure reason, in which he primarily aimed at determining the scope and limits pertaining to pure reason. This means that he wanted to determine what reason alone has the capacity to determine without any assistance from the senses or any other faculties. Metaphysicians come up with grand claims pertaining to the nature of reality on the basis of pure reason alone. However, these claims are often conflicting with one another. On the same note, Kant was prompted by the skepticism that Hume exhibited as to doubt the very existence or possibility pertaining to metaphysics.

In his critique of pure reason, Kant came up with two crucial distinctions. The first distinction pitted priori knowledge and posteriori knowledge, while the second distinction was between synthetic and analytic judgments. Priori knowledge refers to the universal and necessary knowledge that individuals gain from experience, while posteriori knowledge refers to the particular knowledge that individuals gain from experience. Kant’s epistemology, in essence, does not offer any other path for knowledge other than through empirical means. Indeed, knowledge, for cant cannot be established or attained via abstraction abstractness or speculation. This acknowledgement underlines the fact that the term “noumenon’ only revolve around a modification in technology rather than a variation in thinking from the general position that Kant defends in the process of knowing what something entails.

Noumenon underlines what something is in itself. Kant underlines the foundation of positing things in themselves as securing a requirement for knowledge objectivity. This is because although these things are unknowable, they are the causes of the sensations that individuals have. Kant insinuates that the thing-in-itself underlines an object pertaining to an appearance, and is appropriately referred to as a non-empirical and transcendental object as it is impossible to intuit its principle to individuals. Indeed, the thing-in-itself concept underlines the concept pertaining to an unknown object, which means that an object whose nature is completely unknown, in which its varied members pertaining to some sensory representation sets are united, given objectivity through being fixed to a particular object, in which case it would be made into the appearance pertaining to a non-transcendental empirical object. This view underlines the notion that there exists more to something than what its appearance says. Things-in-themselves are unknowable. Their nature would never be known as they represent am insoluble problem especially considering the nature of individual’s understanding.

This declaration means that a noumenon is perennially unknowable and knowledge represents a tension between phenomenon and noumenon in which the noumenon would be gradually reduced to the group of appearances that are knowable. The nature of individual’s comprehension revolves around their deficiency of access to a noumenon, and can confirm new appearances that could complement the existing ones, but would not allow individuals to know all things pertaining to something.

Kant also explained the notion of the phenomenon where he stated that the synthesis of positions that results in actual knowledge pertaining to an object would be likely via the powers pertaining to cognitive judgment, which is the intuitive sensibility that produces sensation, as well as the conceptual comprehension that gives rise to thought. The account pertaining to the aspects represented in Kant’s epistemology only speaks of objects pertaining to sensory experience or items as they are in appearance or even those things that are and are related to human cognition. this perspective underlines the notion that the things that pass for knowledge would be explained via two perspectives. First, there is the knowledge of facts, which an individual’s senses can determine (Kant 39). Second, there is knowledge pertaining to the general links between filets, which is also made likely in the human senses’ rubric. While there are varied opinions as to the noumena and phenomena linkages as presented by Kant, there exists an element of consistency in the statements.

Kant has stated that sense does not necessarily have to be the only technique through which individuals would intuit something. Indeed, part of noumena are thing that are ambiguous and vague and things whose only existent individuals can only know of through analytic deduction by pure comprehension. For instance, individuals can know for sure that there exists a Supreme Being in the world even if individuals cannot perceive it. Individuals do not perceive using sense data this world and the process that are around them, rather, their pure comprehension leads them to a source for all these, which essentially entails a higher power. It goes without saying that a higher power falls under noumena as it is impossible for individuals to perceive the power using sense data. However, human beings have sufficient pure comprehension, even with observation, to obtain an intuition pertaining to His existence. This is the same case that applies to the molten core that resides at the center of the earth. Of course, no one has ever been to the center of the earth, in which case it would be a noumena. However, human beings have justified the existence of this core through the use of pure comprehension, as well as other phenomena.

However, Kant’s phenomena and noumena notion is discredited by other philosophers especially positivist philosophers, thanks to the lack of evidence pertaining to their existence. These philosophers outlined some verification conditions for the existence of something. They outlined the justification conditions, where they stated that if an individual can justify the truth pertaining to something, they would have the capacity to have evidence pertaining to the same (Kant 43). There is also the meaning conditions, which outlines the fact that if an individual says something, then it should have meaning within the rest of the world. The justification and meaning conditions usually follow either direction , considering that if an individual has justification with evidence, or even can create meaning in the things that they say, then they would have truth. However, this would only work in instances where all these can cohesively work together.

However, this notion presented by positivists seems to be founded on flimsy grounds. This is especially considering that there exists two ways in which individuals can justify the existence of things that they cannot see or noumena. First, the phenomena whose intermittent occurrence individuals can see around them would point towards certain other aspects that they do not have the capacity to see using their sense data within their perceptions (Kant 47). In the case used before, for instance, human beings gain perceptions as to the existence of a molten core in the earth thanks to the massive magnetic polar charges that they can see on the poles of the earth, seismic waves, earthquakes and volcanoes, as well as the existence of certain minerals that they cannot categorize as normal on the surface of the earth. All these things underline the fact that there exists a different material inside the earth that is, in essence, in a molten state. It is worth noting that all of the phenomena deduced from the materials would not essentially be perceived by human beings using the sense data pertaining to the core, rather they entail phenomena that are intermittent and random than everything when it is tested together, which points to the molten core. This is the same case for the existence of a higher power or Supreme Being. Human beings have the capacity to perceive the sun, eclipses, the varied earth processes, or even the occurrence or endurance of mitosis by the cell, among other numerous things that would never occur or be caused by chance. Indeed, all these things follow an orderly process, which means that they are under the control of another being that human beings are yet to perceive. This means that the phenomena would, essentially, be noumena. Nevertheless, the phenomena that occurs all at the same time or simultaneously around individuals, when observed collectively or even studied together, points towards a new hypothesis or theory pertaining to the collective cause for the varied things and occurrences (Kant 49). This is irrespective of the fact that human beings are yet to perceive the cause of all these things using some sense data. Indeed, phenomena would usually point to the existence and varied aspects pertaining to undiscovered noumena.

In addition, human beings, more often than not, have faith as a result of phenomena. According to Kant, human beings have the capacity to comprehend noumena using pure understanding. On the same note, they must have other techniques for gaining intuits other than sensory impressions. This means that seeing does not necessarily have to entail believing. Using all the phenomena that can be used to point to the existence of noumena, human being can have faith in the existence of the noumena as they have the assurance pertaining to it. A Supreme Being does not or has never appeared to them or offers them assistance in life, rather intermittent things happen to individuals thereby helping them out, which may essentially be related or connected to the existence or presence of a Supreme Being (Kant 57). Faith, in essence, is a self-described term, while the noumena revolves around the things that individuals must have faith in following the observation of the surrounding noumena, as well as making a purely comprehension decision pertaining to the same. This means that the use of evidence as the only way in which individuals would get intuition pertaining to the existence of items is flawed.

Works cited

Kant, Immanuel, Werner S. Pluhar, and Patricia Kitcher. Critique of Pure Reason. Indianapolis, Ind: Hackett Pub. Co, 1996. Print.