Empirical Consciousness

Posted on February 17, 2015 by | 2 comments

Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason uses difficult language, and I found myself constantly referencing the introduction or making a quick google search to help guide me through this piece. One word that stuck out was “empirical” because I had seen it before in chemistry classes referring to the “empirical formula” of a compound. This piqued my curiosity and so I went searching for what this word was doing in a philosophical piece, because I had only seen it in a scientific context. Continue reading →

2 Comments

Posted in Experience, Knowledge

Tagged , , , , ,

Kant’s Universe

Posted on February 17, 2015 by | 2 comments

Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason illustrates the inevitable limitations of our ability to discover “reality”. Kant asserts that what we perceive to be “real” is not absolutely “real”. The brain receives stimuli from the “real” world; it organizes, processes, and shapes the stimuli in a certain fashion before feeding it back to the person. As a result, the person only perceives the already processed and shaped information. To Kant, the brain is constantly changing “reality”. His assertion is further explained as he introduces two vital terms, “phenomena” and “noumena”. Our knowledge of phenomenal objects is merely the processed information that our brain comes up with. On the other hand, noumenal objects are the “real” objects that are not processed by the mind. Because noumennal objects are not processed by the mind, it is impossible to learn about them. Consequently, our knowledge and reason is only restricted to the phenomenal universe.

The implications of Kant’s assertion are revolutionary. According to Kant, the characteristics of the universe (such as space and time), which we thought are built into nature, could be mere illusions of the mind. Most people believe that space and time are external truths of the universe, and using reason one can decipher their nature. However, if they are noumenal objects it is impossible to gain knowledge on their nature. Kant argues that we are able to learn about space and time because they are phenomenal objects, productions of our own mind. Kant’s argument is similar to a concept recently developed by American scientist Robert Lanza. This concept is biocentrism, which essentially asserts that our universe did not create life but rather life created the universe. Lanza even utilizes Kant’s arguments about space and time to illustrate his idea. It is a counter-intuitive idea but still remains a potential solution to the mystery of the universe.

2 Comments

Posted in Experience, Knowledge

Tagged , , ,

Composition of Identity

Posted on February 17, 2015 by | 1 comment

“Our understanding can only think, and must seek intuition in the senses. I am, then, conscious of the self as identical, as regards the manifold of the presentations given to me in an intuition, because I call them one and all my presentations that make up one presentation” (B 135).

I think this passage is fascinating for its description of the relationship between knowledge and intuition, and Kant’s declaration of the self as being based on identity. Here, he states that understanding allows for the processing of information taken in through perception of the environment. Such understanding is supported by evidence gained from the outside world through perception, and further substantiated by instinct. Therefore, identity, or the self, is founded upon the “manifold of presentations,” or information gained from the environment and from instinct, coming together to form one presentation through the analysis of such data. This culminates to form the identity of self, as understanding and intuition allow for consciousness of oneself and comprehension of one’s position in relation to one’s environment.

Therefore, the distinction between knowledge and intuition allows for a better understanding of the composition of identity. Understanding is based upon thinking, whereas intuition is based upon feeling or sensitivity. This means that the self is based upon a balance between the objective and subjective. Identity is based upon the culmination of knowledge and instinct, or the analysis of various forms of information retrieved by the senses into one presentation.

I am not 100% sure whether I interpreted this passage correctly. I am a bit confused about his statement that many presentations combine to make up one presentation. Does this mean that many presentations culminate to form one presentation? Furthermore, what exactly is he referring to when he uses the term presentation? Does he mean the way in which things in the environment are positioned or something else?

1 Comment

Posted in Identity, Knowledge

Tagged , ,

recognition in context

Posted on February 17, 2015 by | 1 comment

The way that I interpreted Kant’s belief about observing known and unknown objects is that, known objects will cause one to subconsciously recognize it, requiring no new cognition. However, unknown objects need forms of cognition to perceive and understand the uses and identity of an object. Yet, I think that even if one is able to subconsciously recognize the object, one can still not know the identity and purpose of the object.

The way that we differentiate between objects and store them into our minds is through the objects characteristics. We look at a television and see that it is rectangular, the more modern one are flat, chords are running from the back of it, and it provides images. Hypothetically, if I were to look at a rectangle with chords running from the back of it that also provides images, I would assume that it was a T.V. But, these qualities are shared by a desktop monitor. Which is similar in all of these ways, as well as size. In this case, the two objects are not differentiable, if they were provided in an environment that does not appeal to one of the object’s inherent stigmas, as a desktop would normally be seen in an office setting, and a TV would be seen in a living room. Therefore, I do not think that one can subconsciously identify all objects known to him. There must be some subconscious decisions that require some cognitive input to achieve the identification of an object. If one were in a office building, they would initially think that I am in an office building, and, from that, if they were to see an object that has the similar characteristics of a television, they would not assume that it were a television, but a computer monitor. But this is achieved through the initial input that they are in an office.

1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,

Effects of Schooling on Identity

Posted on February 16, 2015 by | 2 comments

In his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant discusses what makes up identity. He suggests that identity comes from self-consciousness and that self-consciousness arises from a combination of ideas that a person calls their own. This combination of ideas arises as a result of understanding how things are related. This seems to mean that the more people relate different ideas in the same ways the more similar their personal identities.

So how does this factor into schooling? Schools are institutions in which students are taught to make connections in a specific way. For example, we learn relations between letters and words, colors and objects, reprimands or rewards and actions, etc. Everyone is taught to make these same connections. Furthermore, many schools are restrictive and do not allow for deviance. For example, in math class, a student may discover a new way to solve a problem, one that is different from the way the teacher explained. Although the student came up with the correct answer, the teacher reprimands the student, or takes points off a test because it was not the “right” way to solve the problem. This reinforces connections the teacher made earlier between the idea of correctness and her method of solving the problem.

I believe this shows the limiting effect of schooling. It creates fewer differences between the ways in which people combine their ideas and therefore fewer differences in identity.

2 Comments

Posted in Education, Identity

Tagged , , , , ,

The Leap of Faith

Posted on February 15, 2015 by | 1 comment

Reading Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” was helped immensely by the introduction. I was very relieved that I read it because when I was reading, I admit, I was a little flummoxed, but with the guidance of the introduction and its breakdown of the argument’s main points, I absorbed the information a lot better and cleaner.

Continue reading →

1 Comment

Posted in Experience, Knowledge

Tagged , , , , ,

Construction of Perception

Posted on February 15, 2015 by | 2 comments

In Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant discusses how people are able to perceive different objects and determine how those objects exist relative to other objects. Kant determines that in order to truly perceive that an object exists, one must synthesize their different presentations to create a more holistic perception.  Continue reading →

2 Comments

Posted in Ancient Philosophy, Education, Experience, Identity, Knowledge

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Why Only Physical?

Posted on February 9, 2015 by | 3 comments

In Book 2 of “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” by John Locke, Locke talks about how “the variation of great parcels of matter alters not the identity”, and then he goes on to give the example of the oak tree, and how “an oak growing from a plant to a tree… is still the same oak”, and that a “colt grown up to a horse, sometimes fat, sometimes lean, is all the while the same horse”. (Ch. 27, 3) This I completely agree with and understand. However, it appears to me that Locke is being a bit narrow in his argument. Locke is only focusing on the physical aspect identity instead of looking at the spiritual or emotional aspects identity, which I believe, when concerning humans, are the things that play the biggest part in altering one’s identity.

If I applied Locke’s argument about how physical variation does not alter identity to humans, he would be completely correct. Humans go from being an infant to an adult to a person of old age. Throughout this entire physical process, it is true that this person is the same. Their identity is not altered. If they were to take fingerprints when they were eight years old and then when they were eighty-eight years old, the prints would match because they are still the same person. However, from the age of eight to eighty-eight, the person has gone through a lot of spiritual and emotional changes. What they used to do and how they acted and what they believed in as a child changed when they became an adult, and may have even changed some more when they became elderly. And this change is what truly alters a person and causes them to not have the same identity as they did when they were of younger age.

This is the only problem that I have with Locke’s argument. I wish that when he talked about physical traits not altering identity that he would have compared it to spiritual and emotional aspects and how they do alter a person’s identity

3 Comments

Posted in Ancient Philosophy, Experience, Identity

Tagged , , ,

Locke on Identity

Posted on February 9, 2015 by | 2 comments

John Locke is an English philosopher best known for his idea of natural law. In his work An Essay concerning Human Understanding, he goes on to question the qualities that make up the things we observe. He begins by explaining his own definition of “identity” in respect to time, which he describes as “when we see anything to be in any place in any instant of time, we are sure (be it what it will) that it is that very thing, and not another” (329). Locke expresses here that when we see something (for instance an apple on the table), we are certain that it exists in front of our eyes and not in another place. To continue, he argues that “it follows, that one thing cannot have two beginnings of existence, nor two things one beginning; it being impossible for two things of the same kind to be or exist in the same instant, in the very same place, or one and the same thing in different places” (329). He expands on identity as a single object cannot be in the exact same place as a different object. From here, we can classify and figure out what exists at a certain place at a certain time.

Locke takes his thinking from small objects to the individual. His case for consciousness is intriguing because he presents our five senses as evidence for perception, even though our perception can be blurred. This is important to identity because even though our different senses are considered separate from each other, they combine to make up our body as a whole and thus form our identity.

Lastly, Locke asks an intriguing question about different states of consciousness. He declares, “But is not a man drunk and sober the same person? Why else is he punished for the fact he commits when drunk, though he be never afterwards conscious of it?” (344). This is interesting because while a man who is drunk and the same man while sober are in different states of consciousness, the sober man will have to endure the punishment that his drunk side committed. This could ask a question about how mental patients should be treated. Should split-personality persons face different punishments from persons who are consistently mentally ill?

2 Comments

Posted in Identity

Tagged ,

Defining the Identity

Posted on February 9, 2015 by | 2 comments

In this section of John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, the reader gets a glimpse into the tangled terminology of “identity.”  He introduces the idea of separating one from the other to create said identity when he says “one thing cannot have two beginnings of existence, nor two things one beginning” (II. 27. 1).  Here, Locke uses the approach of dissecting the concept of existence and being, therefore designating any one thing to solely one origin and by later providing examples using the atom and the oak from a tree. Continue reading →

2 Comments

Posted in Identity

Tagged , ,