Another question that Kant asks is "how is pure natural science possible?" To this Kant says that when we talk about nature we are talking about objects of experience as they appear to us.
These experiences should be in line with universal and necessary laws . According to him, we do study the natural sciences and utilize universal and necessary laws. Thus there is some pattern of regularity in our experiences, but the question is how can this be?
For Kant, there is a difference between judgments of perception and judgments of experience. The former bring together many empirical intuitions and are only subjectively valid. The later apply concepts of understanding to judgments of perception, changing them into objective, universally valid laws. The difference between these two forms of judgments is that the former deal only with what we sense, while the latter deal with what we infer from our perceptions. Judgments of perceptions are not disputable because they are completely subjective. You can't tell me that the sky doesn't appear blue, red, white, or hot pink to me. Judgments of experience can be disputed because they are objective. Although you couldn't tell me what color the sky looks like to me, you can tell me what color it really is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
yeah, i don't like kants distinction betweem those two judgements. mainly because he calls them judgments which implies subjective. Judgment of experiance is still a judgment confirmed by others and are based off of judement of perception, so you can't know somthing objectivly in the way Kant has explaned it.
Post a Comment