Please note! This essay has been submitted by a student.
Subjective certainty is different in that it is based on the size of the inductive gap relative to all information gained by the system at a given point. Subjective certainty is sufficient for most pragmatic applications. Particular sense data are information, not truths, because they form no relations on their own. Rationalist philosophers believed that it is possible to uncover truths about the world by way of reason and reflection only. Descartes who thought he could arrive at philosophical foundations by just closing his eyes and thinking hard about it. Rationalist are usually described as relation to “empiricist” philosophers who argue that there are no true ideas and that all source of knowledge is coming out of our sense of impressions of the world in the mind. Idealism would also be defined as an opposition to materialism. According to Descartes, he divided most of the world up into two categories: mental stuff as known as recognitions which doesn’t take up any physical space and extended stuff as known as “res extensa” which does take up space. One of the most philosophical problems in modern philosophy was called the “mind-body problem” which had to do with some questions on how it was possible for mental beings are able to interact with material beings. Idealists also argue that everything must be made of mental things, while the materialist argues that everything must be made of matter.
Phenomenal is a world we are aware of, this is the world we constructed out of the sensations that present to our consciousness. Noumenal consists of things we seem compelled to believe in, which we may never know due to the lack of sense. Noumenal also contains the free will of which we may never have any sense of impressions, though we have to believe it in order to make sense of our moral life. Kant, he believes that empiricists are right when they say that our knowledge depends on our sensations, but the rationalist is correct when they say that we can all know the basic laws that could construct the world far apart from any sense of data. For example, every event has a cause but, we all know that because the mind tells us a sense so that this is true. According to my sources, I found our knowledge of the one differ from that of the other defines by how the other identify the other human being in his or her differences from themselves or acknowledge of being real. Some would say that the relations between the personality and the person is the relation of an essential and maybe has a superficial personality that might go with the relationship between different but corresponding characteristics of one knowledge and self. Kant also wrote “We should consider that bodies are not objects in themselves that are presented to us, but rather a mere appearance of who knows what unknown object; that motion is not the effect of this unknown cause, but merely the appearance of its influence on our senses. We can have cognition of no object as a thing in itself, but only insofar as it is an object of sensible intuition, as an appearance. We presume the distinction between things as objects of experience and the very same things as things in themselves.” In the first case, it would seem he means to say phenomena and noumena are ontologically distinct. The second deals with what Henry Allison called epistemic conditions, and supports the two-aspect view. There is much disagreement about which interpretation was closer to what Kant wanted the reader to take from his Transcendental Idealism.
Transcendental Idealism rules over the idea of reality and material objects. To compare how pragmatism and anti pragmatism views on idealism, pragmatism is often commonly known for its views in reality and also material objects. Some objects would be important and some are unimportant. Pragmatism is often criticized the idea of truth is a matter of corresponding to the nature of reality. As for anti pragmatism believes that among all things protesting against the idea that human beings must “humble themselves before something non-human.” I believe that if Kant were to be either a pragmatism or an antirealist I believe he would best suites as anti-pragmatism because Kant’s philosophical system shows that schools concepts, consists of three main parts: theoretical, practical and judgemental. Their corresponding areas are nature, moral and feeling. These three answers to the question “what is human”, what can I know, what should I do and what can I hope. Even though Kant eventually wanted his system to be taken up as a task in the cosmopolitan sense, it’s still taken up as a task of knowledge, striving and hoping. As human beings is a whole, Kant’s thinking is ultimately summed up in his system as a whole and one should not overlook one aspect at another’s expense.
Transcendental idealism maintains that how we represent objects, the form in which we represent the data or matter given to our experience, is mind-dependent, our way of representing objects. Empirical idealism takes also the given data to be mind-dependent or mind-internal, whereas transcendental realism takes the form to belong to the objects in themselves. Kant claims that only transcendental idealism can ground empirical realism, the realism that philosophers and scientists long for. The term “transcendental” Kant uses to signify the boundary of what can be known, the necessary formal conditions of experiential knowledge. This term has rightly been considered confusing. We could understand it in the terminology above as the view that the fundamental forms of objects or necessary conditions for the possibility of objects are given to them by our mental faculties idealism rather than inhering in the objects themselves. With Kant’s claim that the mind of the knower makes an active contribution to experience of objects before us, we are in a better position to understand transcendental idealism. Kant’s arguments are designed to show the limitations of our knowledge. Kant argues that we cannot have knowledge of the realm beyond the empirical. That is, transcendental knowledge is ideal, not real, for minds like ours.