Kant, The Pure Intuitions Of Time And Space And Knowledge FormationDocument Transcript
I liked this article and then using google Tolkit did the translation of the text. The author of the
text has not been contacted to review the text.
Kant, the pure intuitions of time and space and knowledge formation.
Reading the young doctoral thesis Kant (Thoughts on the true estimation of living
forces) have learned not to be afraid to expose my opinion on complex issues and
does not look like this to be arrogant or conceited. With the old Kant learned the
importance and need to leave the minority and especially to make public use of reason.
As a result assure that:
I can sometimes be heard in the tone of a man who is very sure of the correctness of
his theory, which does not fear being rejected or that their conclusions can fool you. I
am not so foolish to think that really also have no reason to eliminate so diligently all
the appearance of error in my thesis, since, after all the slips that have been submitted
at all times the human understanding, not a disgrace to be wrong (Kant, 1988, p.24
In this paper I seek only to analyze the design accepted by Kant to the "concepts"
(intuition) of time and space as possible or influence the acquisition of knowledge.
Statements and conclusions to be correct and about complex philosophical systems
are always accompanied by long studies, juxtaposing various texts in different periods
of life of the author etc. When it occurs is not common to have misunderstandings. To
illustrate the need for a thorough investigation and without hasty statements let us see
if we have too-familiar quotes about Kant's life, perhaps one of the most repeated is
that the people of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad - Russia) Set your clocks when the
always punctual tours of the philosopher. However comparing this information with the
book of Manfred Kuehn - Kant: A Biography - we have what is said there that the
mechanical and repetitive tours of no more than myth. Myth also be his reclusive life,
away from society, without friends and parties and their isolation to write his works.
Another thing is quite repeated the passage in which Kant says that David Hume
awakened him from his dogmatic slumbers. Drawing simple conclusions could be said
that Hume had importance in the Kantian work. However the influence of Hume,
especially in the Critique of Pure Reason, appears to be minimal, and infinitesimal
compared with the influence of Leibniz. Throughout the critique, Kant cites Hume and
Leibniz 12 times 21, not counting the 8 citations to Wolff, disciple and systematizing the
work Leibniz. However, even such statements are based on numbers, may be
precipitated and even incorrect if there is a thorough and consistent research and
understanding of the system being studied, so as to allow such conclusions.
To illustrate this thought see what Kant says in the Critique of Pure Reason about
In implementing the plan prescribes that criticism, that is, the future system of
metaphysics, then we have to follow the rigorous method of the celebrated Wolff, the
greatest of all dogmatic philosophers. Wolff was the first who gave the example (and
this example was the founder and the spirit of the depth it has not yet extinct in
Germany) how, by the principles of self-determination, a clear definition of concepts,
the accuracy required in the financial and prevention of reckless leaps in establishing
the consequences, you can follow the secure path of a science. (Kant, 2001, B XXXVII)
After reading this excerpt on the apressássemos the conclusions probably would be
that Kant appreciates leibnizio-wolffian system, however despite this pompous
concession to Wolff, because we care what Kant says is considered that: "The
Philosophy of Leibniz and Wolff pointed out a totally wrong in all the investigations
about the nature and origin of our knowledge "(Kant, 2001, A 44)
Done these considerations and due to the lack of adequate time to study, this text is
more than paraphrase and under review.
The scenario that Kant found in the epistemology XVVIII was quite controversial. The
one hand rationalism, especially Leibniz and Wolf, Hume's empiricism and Newtonian
physics. Rationalism thought possible universal knowledge and necessary counting
only on the use of reason, not requiring experiments. Already the limited empirical
knowledge to the fields of experience, it could not establish the value and necessity of
the universal scientific laws, and the rationalists came to dogmatism, the empiricist
skepticism in the fall. But where Kant discovered the synthetic a priori was in
Newtonian science, which starting from observation and experimentation came to
universal truths and necessary. When talking about mathematics and physics is
possible judgments such as "The line is the shortest distance between two points"
which is a synthetic statement (expands our knowledge, the predicate is not included in
the subject) and also a priori (and universal necessary).
This "membership" Newton is not the total is one more way in which Kant held a survey
among the ideas of Leibniz and Newton and reaches its own conclusions, especially on
issues over time and space.
In his dissertation in 1747 where he completed a doctorate (Thoughts on the true
estimation of living forces) influenced by the Leibnizian admits that the objects are pre-
space, then tending to the ideas of Newton reversed its position and argues that space
is pre - all things, and finally leaves these theses conceivably the time and space are a
priori forms of sensibility.
Time, space and the possibility of knowledge.
Kant check carefully investigate the principles and rules to underpin the knowledge in a
solid and secure. Systematized theory of knowledge. Inquire about what is and what
are the conditions of possibility of knowledge.
Kant says that "All our knowledge begins with the senses" we must emphasize the
term begins or knowledge only and is not only a consequence of the senses, the
complete sentence is: "All our knowledge begins with the senses, there is an
understanding and ends in reason, beyond which nothing is in us to produce higher
matter of intuition and bring the highest unity of thought. " (Kant, 2001, A299)
knowledge begins with experience, but still gets to make up their training, modeling for
print inner faculties of man. Here there is more than just a synthesis of empiricist and
rationalist ideas, there is a clear improvement over these systems.
If all knowledge begins with the senses may ask, what is before the experience? There
is a priori what is prior to experience, to put it another way, before the experiment is the
guy who through a priori elements (sensitivity, understanding) can know things that are
It should be noted that this form of the subject know the world is not a subjective
manner in the individual sense, but that is the only way mankind can perceive the
world, better to say something like "transcendental subjectivism." Says Kant
We are completely unknown nature of the objects in themselves and independently of
all this receptivity of our sensibility. We know only our way of perceiving them, so we
are distinctive, but may well not necessarily that of all beings, although it is of all men.
(Kant, 2001, A 42)
As the aim of this paper is the consideration of the notion of time and space in the
formation of knowledge, there will be steps ahead of how they can be aware. There will
be a purposeful disregard of issues such as the types of statements:
Analytic known without trial (the line is the shortest distance between two points) a
priori information have a universal and necessary, but do not show any enrichment of
knowledge for the predicate is contained in the subject.
Synthetics, known through experience (The plane took off) are a posteriori and add
new information, but are contingent and particular.
Synthetic a priori, present new information, and, moreover, universal and necessary
Before reaching this kind of knowledge is needed to order something and make
conceptually inconceivable to the intellect the chaotic maelstrom of data that is
The pure forms of time and space makes the subject knowledge possible.
The idea of Newton, which still prevails in many parts of it (say in a very simplistic) that
space is a large container that exists independently of the universe, God created space
and also the time and then thrown into this cosmic container, the stars, galaxies, the
entire universe. Newton admitted beyond this time real, absolute and mathematician, a
kind of relative time used for things like an appointment, days, months etc.
Leibniz defines the space and time as "Far from being a substance, the space is not
even a being. It's an order, as the time an order of coexistence, as time is an order
among the stocks that are not fulfilled "(Leibniz, 2009, p.79). In fact, time and space
and even food for Leibniz there. Leibniz accepts relations, for example, that space
would be the set of relationships between objects in the world possible. In one
classroom there may be students and teachers and various types of relationships
between these people, the idea of Leibniz is that to be possible to have such relations
is first necessary to have students and teachers, there is a set of teacher-student
relationship that there by itself, stop at any point in the world waiting for a joint student-
teacher. However these relationships are effective and real what is unreal is that there
is this relational space waiting to be occupied by people. There is no absolute space,
prior, after which God has placed all beings in the universe.
For Kant, time and space have different meanings of these data by Newton and
Leibniz. Criticizing both Newtonian and Leibnizian states:
those who assert the absolute reality of space and time, consider whether the
substances or accidents, they have to put in contradiction with its principles of
experience. If you opt for first party I (who usually take the mathematical physicists)
have to take two non-eternal and infinite, existing by itself (space and time) which exist
(yet without being something real), only to cover
itself all that is real. If they take the second party (they belong to some physical
metaphysical) and consider the space and time as relations of phenomena (relations of
juxtaposition and succession) abstracted from experience (although I vaguely
represented in this abstraction) have to challenge the validity of the mathematical
theories priori, for real things (for example, in space), or at least their apodictic
such a sure there is only a posteriori, a priori concepts of space and time, according to
this view, would only be the product of imagination and its use should really be looking
for the experience. Imagination formed relations abstract from this experience
something that actually contains in it: in general, but it would not be possible without
the constraints that nature imposes on him (Kant, 2001, B 56)
At this point it is clear that while Kant has studied the concepts of space and time of
Newton and Leibniz their own conclusions are not mere summaries of these ideas, but
a significant step forward as can be seen here:
"Also in the analytical part of the Critique to show that space and time are only forms of
sensible intuition, that is, only the conditions of existence of things as phenomena" ...
(Kant, 2001, B XXV)
Time and space are pure intuitions, intuitions, because given that there is only one
space and one time can not be concepts, because the term always refers to a
multiplicity. Pure intuitions because they have no empirical content, content of
About the area says:
The space is a necessary representation a priori, which underlies all external intuitions.
One can never have a representation that there is no space, although it may well think
that there are some objects in space. We, therefore, the space the condition of
possibility of phenomena, not a determination that depends on them, is a
representation a priori, which necessarily underlies all external phenomena (Kant,
Space is not an empirical concept, derived from outer experiences. Indeed, for certain
sensations are related to something outside me (that is, with something located in
another part of space, other than that I am) and also so that may pose as outside [the
couple] to each other, therefore not only different, but in different places, it is required
as the foundation of the concept of space. Therefore, the representation of space can
not be extracted by the experience of the relations of external phenomena, on the
contrary, this external experience is only possible, first of all, by this representation
(Kant, 2001, A 23).
And along the first section of the critical Kant continues by listing and defining in detail
the space and the second section deals with the time and then says:
Time is a necessary representation that is the foundation of all our intuitions. You can
not delete their time in relation to phenomena in general, although it may very well
disregard the phenomena of time. The time is therefore given a priori. Only it's possible
all reality of phenomena. Of all these may be dispensed with, but the time (while the
general condition of their possibility) can not be deleted (Kant, 2001, A 31).
Time is not something that exists in itself or is inherent in things as an objective
determination, and therefore remains, when it disregards all the subjective conditions of
intuition of things (Kant, 2001, B 49).
"The time is not more than the form of inner sense, that is, the intuition of ourselves
and our inner state (Kant, 2001, A 33).
"Time is the formal condition a priori of all phenomena in general. The space, while
pure form of all external intuition, merely as a condition a priori, simply to external
phenomena. Rather, like all representations, whether or not they object to external
things, are, in themselves, as determinations of the mind, the internal state, which, in
turn, is subsumed under the formal condition of
inner intuition and, therefore, time, time is the condition a priori of all phenomena in
general, is undoubtedly the immediate condition of the internal phenomena (the soul),
and for that reason also, mediately, the external phenomena. If I can say a priori all
external phenomena are determined a priori in space and in the relations of space, I
can also say with complete generality, assume the internal sense, that all phenomena
in general, ie all the objects of sense are in time and necessarily in relations of time
(Kant, 2001, A 34).
Since space and time pure intuition we can explain that most of the judgments of
mathematics are synthetic a priori. The geometry is related to space, with the mean
time, the sequence number has its basis in temporal succession. Because space and
time intuitions, judgments of mathematics are synthetic and are a priori reason that the
intuitions are pure.
Time and space are thus two sources of information which can be extracted a priori
knowledge several synthetic, which gives us the shining example, especially, pure
mathematics, as regards the knowledge of space and relationship. Taken together are
pure forms of all sensible intuition, allowing synthetic propositions a priori (Kant, 2001,
Continuing Kant points out limitations of these sources of knowledge:
But these sources of knowledge a priori determine the limits for this very reason
(because they are simple conditions of sensibility), is that they are directed only to
objects which are considered as phenomena, but they are not things in themselves.
Only those phenomena constitute the field of its validity, leaving this field can no longer
make use of objective sources. This reality of space and time leaves the rest intact the
certainty of knowledge from experience, it is also safe for us, whether these forms
necessarily inhere in the things themselves, or only in our intuitions of them (Kant,
2001 , B 56).
So far Kant has established how and why science, especially the Euclidean geometry
and Newtonian mechanics, advanced (formulation of synthetic a priori) and
metaphysics were stagnant, showed that knowledge and answered the question of
what is possible to know. How far human reason and in what areas it has authority to
issue judgments universal and necessary.
Space and time are not real things, have no existence independent of the subject
(human race) did not appear due to the experience, the experience is only possible
precisely because there is already in the structure of human cognition, the intuition of
time and space. It is these capabilities that are able to organize and rule the gross
mass of data provided by sensitivity. Without the intuition of time the data appear to
understand without the concept of "before, now and then" can not even be said to be
coming to understand simultaneously because concurrency is a concept involving the
notion of time. Without the intuition of space objects would be given without regard to
any reference "far, far, etc.." also could not be submitted all "together" in the "same
place" because there is already implied the notion of space. Without time and space,
no object would be given and consequently the understanding could not think of any
object and not be known. However with the intervention of the pure intuitions of time
and space are the classification and ordering of information provided by sensitivity are
forming a data set on which there is currently only in a position to know, these figures
now become capable of being processed and organized by the understanding
(categories: quantity, quality, relation, modality) only after this process can be said that
No sensitivity, no object to be given, without understanding, none would be thought
(Kant, 2001, B 75 A 51).
The understanding can intuit nothing, and the senses can think nothing. Only for its
reunion, obtaining knowledge (Kant, 2001, B 75 A 51).
If this process does not occur, the subject is not able to acquire knowledge, only after
these features of the subjectivity of the subject being "increased" built into the object
captured by the sensitivity, it becomes apparent that the phenomenon, only then there
is to know.
Thus, this "growth" (works of sensibility and understanding) that the subject adds to the
objects to say that the man did not "discover" laws and legal in nature, but rather that
he forge and create these laws, even if tell them that they can be universal and
necessary. We know the thing itself, but what we know, the world of phenomena, we
know the true way. (is valid for all mankind)
It happens to hear them quite often things like "it is not possible today to be a Kantian,
not after the emergence of non-Euclidean geometries." What is meant by this is that
Kant's system has the universality and necessity that he said Tues It is based this
conclusion on the understanding that after the non-Euclidean geometries "come into
fashion," Newtonian physics and Euclidean geometry no longer a knowledge that Kant
considered synthetic a priori and became analytical. The universe ceased to have
characteristics of Euclidean geometry and could be described also with other types of
mathematics. The sum of the angles of a triangle always results in 180 degrees
according to Euclidean geometry. However in other geometries developed by
mathematicians such as János Bolyai (1802 - 1860), Nikolai I. Lobachevsky (1792 -
1856), Johann CF Gauss (1777 - 1855) and Georg FB Riemann (1826 - 1866) showed
that the angles of the triangle result less than 180 degrees and there was no
contradiction, inconsistency with these systems. It was possible geometry of the world,
consistently and without the fifth postulate of Euclid.
However, the curious thing is that Kant, before these mathematical already envisioned
different geometries and the possibility of universes with dimensions above 3. And
more curious, this is shown in his first writing his doctoral thesis in 1747, the young
Kant was then with 23 years of age. In theory, called Gedanken von der wahren der
Schätzung lebendigen Kräfte (Thoughts on the true estimation of living forces, under
the rigor would be: Thoughts on the true estimation of living forces, the critical
statements that Leibniz and other mechanics have used this issue , along with some
preliminary considerations that concern the forces of bodies in general.) Kant says that
although the world has characteristics such as the common three-dimensional
Euclidean geometry, things could very well be different, there would be other possible
worlds, other possible worlds, dimensions beyond the three-dimensionality of the
universe so far accepted and therefore other geometries that the Euclidean.
As I remarked a vicious circle in the statement extracted by Leibniz somewhere in the
Theodicy on the number of lines that can be drawn perpendicular to a point, I prove the
dimensionality of space from what we perceive from the power of numbers. The first
three of these powers are quite simple and can not be reduced to any other, however
the fourth, as the square of the square, is but a repetition of the second power.
however, for good it seemed to me this property of numbers to explain the
dimensionality of space does not appear valid in practice. As the fourth power is, in all
that we can represent the space, an absurdity. You can not multiply in a square
geometry by itself nor by its cube root, so the need for dimensionality rests not so much
that if it is established more dimensions, it is more like a repeat of the above (same
What about the powers of numbers), but in another type of need, I'm not in a position to
explain (Kant, 1988, p.34 translation).
Unfortunately Kant does not develop the depth of its own thinking on issues related to
the dimensions of space (because it is busy with the "prime movers"), but you will note
below other features relating to the size and the possibility of geometry not Euclidean
If there may be extensions of other dimensions, is very likely that God has placed in
some part because their work has all the grandeur and diversity that only they can
fathom. Spaces of this class can not in any way be related to those of an entirely
different, therefore these spaces do not belong at all to our universe, but it would have
to provide their own universes.Before I showed that in the metaphysical sense could
exist multiple universes, however this in turn is the only condition under which, I
believe, would also likely there were many universes. Because the only possible three-
dimensional space, the other universes outside of which could relate to dwell in the
space with our own, as are spaces in the same class. So the question could be
separated from God because the universe of others, as through their connection would
be communicated to his work more perfect (Kant, 1988, p.36 translation).
Despite considering the possibility of many universes Kant concluded:
So it is likely that there are many universes (although that is possible), unless it is
possible the various classes of space that I mentioned (Kant, 1988, p.36 translation).
Kant wishes to make clear that these theories are not yet sufficiently developed:
These thoughts can be the outline of an account that I reserve. However I can not deny
that I inform you as they occur, without securing his conviction by a more detailed
investigation. However, I am willing to abandon them as soon as a more mature mind
discover its weakness (Kant, 1988, p.36 translation).
Well, these are reflections of a young man of 23 years on different geometric
possibilities of the space that had not yet been developed, perhaps because these
ideas emerge in a job that is not directed to this end, the matter is addressed only in
passing. Whereas the Critique of Pure Reason is the result of a mature work, written
several decades after this publication, developed with great accuracy and precision, no
longer by a young brash, but by a wise and informed you of 57 years of age, would not
be appropriate to ask whether the Kantian system is really upset, in fact and law, the
emergence of non-Euclidean geometries?
It is the purpose of this paper to clarify it, only show, as mentioned earlier in this article,
the need for developing a sensible judgments about complex philosophical systems.
I understand that for Kant, it seems evident that the world of experimentation is not
confined to the Euclidean world, there are other possible experiments, observing the
requirements for this, although considering it's only a mere possibility.
The limitation of the experiment is given in accordance with the limits of the intuitions of
time and space. If it is possible to formulate concepts than those demonstrated by
Euclid there is nothing there that is disastrous for the Kantian system. It is due to the
sensitivity and understanding, the pure forms of intuition that these different concepts
are possible. It is simply that these concepts apply to different areas, as likely to give
because of the use of different categories, conjunctions or different from those used in
the development of Euclidean geometry, or perhaps to differences in how they can give
the pure intuitions.
I believe to be a consensus that, for example, if someone had a brain damage that
affected the areas responsible for the design of the a priori of space and time, the
individual would become an alien with mental weaknesses that render him incapable of
seeing the world the same way that a person not having that particular disability.
That would have alienated their ability to order and rules knowledge very limited or
totally void, becoming an idiot.
Another example, but more difficult to agree and reach a consensus would be the
hypothesis of the possibility of the opposite happen, ie there is one person in whom the
ability to order the phenomena in several temporal and spatial scale than the other
people has it a level of knowledge above all.
It is fully acceptable and normal that for physical activities, there is laborious and
artistic courses and methods for its improvement and development.
It is fully acceptable, for example, can be successful when submitting an inexperienced
girl, say with reference to athletics, a race of a hundred meters, the proper training.
Such a person meeting the physical measures, but not developed, through training and
may improve physical and mental become a great runner and become champion, that
was better and much better than most of humanity simply because you have exercised
and colleges latent potentialities.
By individual characteristics that are better if not exercised subjects tended to atrophy,
at least that is suggests that research related to mental and physical part of man.
Following this reasoning aiming at improving the human as a whole, especially in
regard to intellectual capacity leads to a very controversial area and dangerous
approaches of eugenics, a concept introduced by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis
Galton (1822 - 1911) who theorized about the improvement of a species through
artificial selection. His Eugenics is defined by him as "the study of agents under the
social control that may improve or impoverish the racial qualities of future generations
either physically or mentally."(Available in <http://www.ufrgs.br/bioetica/eugenia.htm>
access on 10 Jun 2009) Today when we speak of eugenics logo is associated with
genetic manipulation and the like.
I wish to ask about only as a possibility, it would be quite likely that the a priori faculties
(sensitivity and understanding) the man if they were first known to himself and then
developed through appropriate training and exercise could enhance their ability to
make judgments and create a new class of knowledge.
It is true that we are aware, for example, our breathing, blood flow in veins and arteries,
all the mechanics that involves the simple act of walking etc.. Yes we are aware of
these things, but are unaware of why these processes to develop in such a way and
not another. Thus, because of ignorance, we believe that these internal processes of
the human person must always be this way and not another, because not even most of
the time we think about it.
Because of this neglect to the senses, faculties and capacity building, hardly able to
maintain a stranglehold on such procedures acceptable to merely modify the
respiratory rhythm is a great difficulty to raise or lower the body temperature is almost
an impossibility for most people, and got those with intense training.
According to Kant that what "discovered" in things contains elements that we put them
through our inner faculties. We do not know how the world itself, independent of us can
not say anything correctly.
And what is more unfortunate that our knowledge is poor due to a current and
temporary inability to know, is not that we have an inaccurate view of the real world, but
we have a perfectly clear vision and clear of an unreal world. Because of our cognitive
apparatus (as is the case here) does not permit an objective grasp of the world, one
can not say that today little is known, but tomorrow science will know more.
What is commonly admitted that through a detailed examination of the phenomenon, if
things are phenomenal studied in more detail then there will be an increase in
knowledge. There will be progress in science happen because "discoveries" of "hidden
variables" that today do not realize the theories, laws, theorems, procedures, etc..
It can be argued that scientific knowledge advances, correcting errors, however the
idea of progress suggests a continuous advance, not mere exchange of paths in a
maze. Find out who was on a path leading to a dead end and therefore change the way
does not imply in any way that a new unknown route is just right, wrong or less. This
method of proceeding as the case of a physical blind in a dark room is closed for a
black cat that is not there.
Making a brief digression on this point we have the case of the Chaldean astronomer
Kidinnu (Available at: <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/317347/Kidinnu>
access Jun 27th, 2009) who discovered the precession of the equinoxes and
calculated the length of the synodic month (new moon to new moon) as of 29 days, 12
hours, 44 minutes, 3 seconds and 3 tenths of a second. The measurement only differs
from the modern value Kidinnu in seconds, setting February 2 and 87 hundredths of a
second, so 43 hundredths of a second less than the Chaldean estimated at 2,400
years ago. Yet there seems to be a vice in the thought that suggests that although this
infinitesimal difference shows an improvement. But imagine if you could show these
data today as a result produced for example by the European Space Agency and the
other by NASA. Under these conditions the person has certainly think a bit more before
you set for what outcome would consider correct. There would be disputes between the
authorities saying that the difference obtained is because of different methodologies,
approaches and other factors. Would not go there immediately the assumption that the
study to 14 hours of the day, month and year x is lower than that achieved at 14:10 the
Kant showed the world the problem that the study of the phenomenon returns what we
think of it, nothing more.
Can take this as an insurmountable problem, something which should pretend to not
know or accept some and reject the other. Accept that there is no absolute time of
Newton, but even then calculate .... time. Under certain conditions there is no time, in
others there is an "on time" and that can happen in general, restricted, etc.. We finally
face the Kantian theory with a limit to the knowledge or assuming these limits looking
for a way to overcome them (if possible).
A giant step Kant already made, showed that it is through thorough examinations of the
phenomena that takes or expands knowledge. But through the use we make of our
inner faculties. The man should know to leave his position of being a passive waiting
for a miraculous appearance of hidden truths in nature and occupy the position of a
central sun from which must come to know.
The self-knowledge, their basic functions, the subject usually has a total ignorance. For
instance, one person at a given time may not know the way your body regulates body
temperature around 37 degrees Celsius and is therefore unable to raise or lower this
temperature. However if you make learning about this topic and get the conscious
control of instinctive power then he will be able to change according to your will the
temperature of your body. It is a matter of wisely managing operations that are typically
left to the total ignorance.
For mankind to leave the state of groping in the dark, we need to produce knowledge of
a new way, consciously and not instinctive, not knowing how we are using the built
responsible for the acquisition of knowledge.
A sign of how this might work was done by Charles Howard Hinton (1853 - 1907)
British mathematician, who wrote some books (A New Era of Thought, The Fourth
Dimension, etc..) Solutions which also seems to really change and improve the
relationship we have with the way of producing knowledge. Hinton considering how
Kant that our intuition of space is a fundamental right, there we leave it to develop
accidentally. When that if there was a development planned and directed this new use
of these perceptions would show us totally new concepts. Hinton suggests in his books
for several years to develop then the sense of space.
It is likely that if there is a change and well-planned use of our terms of receptivity, the
upper classes of knowledge that make possible.
What different forms of the normal responsiveness are possible is a fact, several
studies related to near-death experiences show a plethora of reports on the
perceptions that people near death (heart attack, drowning, anaphylactic shock etc.).
They experience these moments. On the origin of these perceptions, their causes, it is
cerebral hypoxia, they are fantasy or not, that is not relevant at this time. Interestingly,
there is testing a new way of perceiving the world, as 360-degree view, shifting away
from the body, visualization of objects and people in distant parts of the body which lies
inert on your site near death, finally, a series of perceptions of quality are completely
different from usual.
The person seems to experience an increase in the capacity of cognition, because it's
aware of three-dimensional world and is still able to see a different dimension of space
and also a different notion of time. Using differential suffered by the intuitions of space
and time allows these people a new way of perceiving the world, forming different from
We seek to educate about things and how to dress, how to behave with label
ceremonies and social events, but not bothered to tell us how to think.
And quoting Kant again, I conclude by saying that:
These thoughts can be the outline of an account that I reserve. However I can not deny
that I inform you as they occur, without securing his conviction by a more detailed
investigation. However, I am willing to abandon them as soon as a more mature mind
discover its weakness (Kant, 1988, p.36 translation).
Florianópolis - Brazil
Kant, I. Critique of Pure Reason. Lisbon: Calouste Gunbenkian, 2001
Kant, I. Pensamientos sobre la verdadera estimación de las fuerzas alive. Bern: Peter
Kühn, M. Kant: A biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002
Leibniz, GW The Monadology and other texts. São Paulo: Hedra, 2009
Lucretius, De Rerum Natura (Available at:
0cosas.pdf> Access Jun 27th, 2009)