Kant’s Rejection of Empiricist Conception of Space and Time

Name:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:

Kant’s Rejection of Empiricist Conception of Space and Time

Introduction

        In the western philosophical traditions, Immanuel Kant stands as the central figure that irrevocably changed the path of philosophy, especially on his famous work, the Critique of Pure Reason (Smith 2). In this work, Kant tries to explain how people can know things. He opines that science and mathematics can constrain human knowledge. Consequently, he argues that it is hard to extend human knowledge to speculations such as metaphysics. Therefore, he proposes that the mind has an active role in explaining human experience, and its limits to time and space. In this regard, he rejects the empiricist conception of time and space, arguing that “they must be a priori synthetic concepts.” Essentially, empiricist had argued that at birth, humans begin on a blank slate, and their experiences of the empirical world shape their knowledge. However, Kant refutes this claim, arguing that some truths are verifiable independently of the “a priori” or experience (Smith 4). This paper investigates the origin of empiricist concept and explains how Kant refutes it systematically.

Locke and Hume’s Views on Origin of Empiricism

        Empiricists’ primary concern of explaining human knowledge depends on sensory experience. In essence, empiricists argue that human knowledge comes from sensory experiences, arrived from physical experience of the world (Smith 10). In effect, they opine that there are no inborn ideas or ideas that a person can have a priori or before any experience. Locke, one of the most prominent promoters of this concept argues that at birth, a person’s mind is like a blank slate. According to him, children at birth have no ideas, but have the capacity to hold such ideas or reason. Therefore, Locke claims that human knowledge develops through interaction and experiences with the empirical world.

        Locke argues that if people had a priori or innate ideas, then every person would have these ideas. However, according to him, there is no single universal idea. His arguments refute claims by early rationalists who had proposed the notion of universal ideas such as goodness, morality and existence of God Smith 12). His argument is that some people such as idiots, mentally ill or children may not fully comprehend such ideas, even if such ideas were accepted as universal truths. Importantly, Locke strives to differentiate between complex and simple ideas. According to him, people gain simple ideas from their perception or interpretation of the physical world. It is these simple ideas that provide people with the foundations for creation of complex ideas through their minds. In this regard, people use both their experience of world and their creative minds to create complex ideas.

        Just like Locke, David Hume is also one of the most renowned supporters of empiricism. He argued that at birth, children have a mind that is blank. However, unlike Locke, Hume does not believe that every person has an inborn capacity to reason. According to him, people at birth have neither inborn ideas nor capacity to reason, but people acquire all knowledge and capacity through experience (Smith 20). He proposes that people gain knowledge through inward or outward experiences. The inward experiences are those that require internal creativity, while outward experiences are those derived from sensory experiences. These two experiences are similar to Locke’s simple and complex ideas, where the simple ideas or outward experiences help create complex ideas that it may not be possible to experience. For instance, it is possible to create an impression of a unicorn by inferring on simple experiences with horns and horses.

        Hume argues that a priori knowledge, which a person can gain through deductive reasoning, cannot help create new knowledge concerning the world. In this regard, he argues that a posteriori knowledge or knowledge gained through facts is the most effective way of understanding the world. Through a posteriori approach, he opines that one can use past experience to make presumptions concerning the future (Smith 25). For example, since the sun rises from the east, it is possible to infer that it shall always rise from the east and set on the west. Nonetheless, he cautions that such believes can be misleading, since there are no guarantees in life. In effect, Hume argues that natural laws do not exist.

Kant’s Rejection of Empiricist’s Views

        As evident above, empiricists such as Hume and Locke argued that human knowledge is a posteriori. I addition, they considered knowledge as a product of synthetic judgment, or one that the predicate is not part of the subject. To an extent, Kant agrees with empiricists that knowledge has roots at and begins with an experience. In addition, he concurs that some posteriori knowledge may require both experience and reasoning (Smith 30). For instance, when studying a given scientific phenomenon, one would require seeing the reactions of given valuables, while at the same time application of some scientific reasoning for reasonable inferences. Nonetheless, Kant disagrees with empiricists that all posteriori knowledge is of a synthetic judgment.

        Synthetic judgment presumes that the predicate would add a new concept to the subject, creating a new knowledge.  In effect, by considering all posteriori knowledge as synthetic, one would assume that the knowledge acquired through experience is the one that helps create new knowledge. On the contrary, Kant argues that although most synthetic judgment occur posteriori or after observation, they can also occur a priori or before an observation (Smith 40). In this regard, he argues that there is knowledge a priori and necessary, and knowledge that is posteriori and contingent. For instance, Kant argues that some knowledge such as that of divine may not be possible to understand through experience. Therefore, because people consider the knowledge about God as a necessary part of human life, then that knowledge is priori rather than posteriori. It is not possible to acquire knowledge of the divine through experience or logic, nor is it correct to dismiss it for lack of evidence.