This document discusses the differences between rationalism and empiricism in epistemology. Rationalism holds that there are innate ideas that cannot come from experience alone, while empiricism believes that all knowledge comes from sensory experience. Key rationalist philosophers discussed include Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. Descartes used rational intuition and deduction to establish certainty. Spinoza believed God, nature, and mind were one substance. Leibniz argued against the tabula rasa view and proposed parallelism between mind and body with preestablished harmony.
Classic and Modern Philosophy: Rationalism and EmpicismMusfera Nara Vadia
Rationalism and the rationalists, such as Plato, Descartes, and so on.
Empiricism and empiricists, such as Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Kant, William James.
Classic and Modern Philosophy: Rationalism and EmpicismMusfera Nara Vadia
Rationalism and the rationalists, such as Plato, Descartes, and so on.
Empiricism and empiricists, such as Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Kant, William James.
This report discusses about Logical Empiricism, or Logical Positivism – from its origins, who founded this "movement", its influences, weaknesses, and its contribution to education in general.
CHAPTER 4The Nature of Substance, Reality, and Mind Idealism,.docxchristinemaritza
CHAPTER 4
The Nature of Substance, Reality, and Mind: Idealism, Dualism, and Materialism
There are a number of complex philosophical issues brought about by a discussion of substance. As you may recall from an earlier chapter, the Ancient Greeks were very much concerned about the question of substance. At present, science tells us everything is made up of material atoms, and yet, philosophers still debate this scientific conclusion. It is not to say that atoms do not exist (although no one has actually seen one, which is another question about scientific realism), but rather a question of what is reality made up of, mind, matter, or a combination of both.
These questions lead to other questions regarding the nature of the human mind. Is it just the brain or does it have an immaterial component? What of the soul? All these questions will be considered in the following sections below.
POWERFUL IDEAS: THE NATURE OF SUBSTANCE
Materialism claims that all real objects are physical. Dualism claims that all real objects are either physical or nonphysical. Idealism claims that all real objects are nonphysical.
Berkeley and Idealism
Berkeley contends that the only things that are real are ideas. This view is known as idealism. All the objects we encounter in the world (which is an idea as well) are nonmaterial objects. As bizarre as this may at first sound, what you should be aware of is the fact that the only objects that we do have direct access to in our mind (or brain) are ideas.
We assume that our idea of objects in the world is tied to or come from these objects; some underlying physical substance, yet Berkeley is denying that we have any good reason to infer to this material substance. Berkeley employs a radical empiricism. He thought that we can only acquire knowledge from our experiences—from our per- ceptions. What is the nature of our perceptions? We assume that we perceive objects directly, yet in fact, what we are doing is experience an idea of the object, which has been constructed by our mind. Berkeley goes on to argue that “to exist is to be perceived.”
Berkeley contends that the only things that are real are ideas. All the objects we encounter in the world—which is an idea as well—are nonmaterial objects. As bizarre as this may at first sound, what you should be aware of is the fact that the only objects that we do have direct access to are our ideas. We assume that our idea of objects in the world are tied to or come from those objects (we think those ideas correspond to object in reality), some underlying physical substance, yet Berkeley is denying that we have any good reason to infer to is this material substance.
He may have a point. Consider a strawberry, for example. It has a certain color, shape, and weight; it has a particular texture, taste, and smell. These are all perceptions, ideas in your mind. If you take away the taste of the strawberry, take away its smell, its weight, its shape—what do you have left? Nothing. The ...
Chapter 7. The Mind-Body ProblemChapter 7. The Mind-Body Pro.docxspoonerneddy
Chapter 7. The Mind-Body Problem
Chapter 7. The Mind-Body Problem
Chapter 7
The Mind-Body Problem
During week 6 read the second half (Sections 6-end).
Copyright by Paul Herrick, 2020. For class use only. Not for distribution. This chapter: 32 pages of reading.
1. Are You Your Brain?
Sometimes we refer to our brains; other times we refer to our minds. BJ the Chicago Kid titled his second album In My Mind. But Screeching Weasel titled its third studio album My Brain Hurts. Are the mind and the brain two different things? Or are they one and the same? To put the question another way: Are thoughts, sensations, mental images, and such nothing more than physical events or processes of the physical brain? Are they just neurons (brain cells) firing or something like that? Or is the mind an immaterial, nonphysical entity distinct from the brain but interacting in some way with it? In philosophy, these and related questions make up the mind-body problem.
Since ancient times, the common view has been that the mind—the part of us that is conscious, that thinks, that makes choices, that bears moral responsibility—is immaterial and cannot be physically seen, touched, weighed, or otherwise directly detected by instruments. On this view, the mind--often called the “soul,” “spirit,” or “self”—is not the brain or any part of the body or any physical thing at all. However, since mind and body obviously interact, the common view has long been that the mind or soul can affect the body and the body can affect the mind. More specifically, the immaterial mind can cause changes in the physical body, through the interface of the physical brain, and the brain can cause changes in the mind.
In philosophy, this traditional view is called “mind-body dualism” (“dualism” for short) because it claims that mind and body are two distinct things. The common view is sometimes also called “mind-body interactionism” because it claims that mind and body, though distinct, interact. Philosophical dualists argue that the universe divides into two radically different kinds of substances—mindless matter and thinking mind or, as some prefer to put it, matter and spirit, or as still others put it, matter and consciousness.
Most religions of the world teach a dualist account of human nature. Each human being, they generally claim, is composed of an immaterial mind or soul joined to a material body. On the religious view, the mind, or soul, rather than the material body is the part that will be judged by God in the end. As the basis of moral responsibility, the soul is the root of one’s identity as a person. In other words, the soul is the true self; the material body is merely the soul’s temporary lodging place during its journey on earth. Most religions also teach a doctrine of immortality, or survival—the claim that the immaterial soul lives on in a higher realm after the death and disintegration of the material body.
If dualism is true and your immaterial mind, or soul, is the .
Chapter 7. The Mind-Body ProblemChapter 7. The Mind-Body Pro.docxrobertad6
Chapter 7. The Mind-Body Problem
Chapter 7. The Mind-Body Problem
Chapter 7
The Mind-Body Problem
During week 6 read the second half (Sections 6-end).
Copyright by Paul Herrick, 2020. For class use only. Not for distribution. This chapter: 32 pages of reading.
1. Are You Your Brain?
Sometimes we refer to our brains; other times we refer to our minds. BJ the Chicago Kid titled his second album In My Mind. But Screeching Weasel titled its third studio album My Brain Hurts. Are the mind and the brain two different things? Or are they one and the same? To put the question another way: Are thoughts, sensations, mental images, and such nothing more than physical events or processes of the physical brain? Are they just neurons (brain cells) firing or something like that? Or is the mind an immaterial, nonphysical entity distinct from the brain but interacting in some way with it? In philosophy, these and related questions make up the mind-body problem.
Since ancient times, the common view has been that the mind—the part of us that is conscious, that thinks, that makes choices, that bears moral responsibility—is immaterial and cannot be physically seen, touched, weighed, or otherwise directly detected by instruments. On this view, the mind--often called the “soul,” “spirit,” or “self”—is not the brain or any part of the body or any physical thing at all. However, since mind and body obviously interact, the common view has long been that the mind or soul can affect the body and the body can affect the mind. More specifically, the immaterial mind can cause changes in the physical body, through the interface of the physical brain, and the brain can cause changes in the mind.
In philosophy, this traditional view is called “mind-body dualism” (“dualism” for short) because it claims that mind and body are two distinct things. The common view is sometimes also called “mind-body interactionism” because it claims that mind and body, though distinct, interact. Philosophical dualists argue that the universe divides into two radically different kinds of substances—mindless matter and thinking mind or, as some prefer to put it, matter and spirit, or as still others put it, matter and consciousness.
Most religions of the world teach a dualist account of human nature. Each human being, they generally claim, is composed of an immaterial mind or soul joined to a material body. On the religious view, the mind, or soul, rather than the material body is the part that will be judged by God in the end. As the basis of moral responsibility, the soul is the root of one’s identity as a person. In other words, the soul is the true self; the material body is merely the soul’s temporary lodging place during its journey on earth. Most religions also teach a doctrine of immortality, or survival—the claim that the immaterial soul lives on in a higher realm after the death and disintegration of the material body.
If dualism is true and your immaterial mind, or soul, is the .
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docxvaibhavrinwa19
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptxPavel ( NSTU)
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
The Roman Empire A Historical Colossus.pdfkaushalkr1407
The Roman Empire, a vast and enduring power, stands as one of history's most remarkable civilizations, leaving an indelible imprint on the world. It emerged from the Roman Republic, transitioning into an imperial powerhouse under the leadership of Augustus Caesar in 27 BCE. This transformation marked the beginning of an era defined by unprecedented territorial expansion, architectural marvels, and profound cultural influence.
The empire's roots lie in the city of Rome, founded, according to legend, by Romulus in 753 BCE. Over centuries, Rome evolved from a small settlement to a formidable republic, characterized by a complex political system with elected officials and checks on power. However, internal strife, class conflicts, and military ambitions paved the way for the end of the Republic. Julius Caesar’s dictatorship and subsequent assassination in 44 BCE created a power vacuum, leading to a civil war. Octavian, later Augustus, emerged victorious, heralding the Roman Empire’s birth.
Under Augustus, the empire experienced the Pax Romana, a 200-year period of relative peace and stability. Augustus reformed the military, established efficient administrative systems, and initiated grand construction projects. The empire's borders expanded, encompassing territories from Britain to Egypt and from Spain to the Euphrates. Roman legions, renowned for their discipline and engineering prowess, secured and maintained these vast territories, building roads, fortifications, and cities that facilitated control and integration.
The Roman Empire’s society was hierarchical, with a rigid class system. At the top were the patricians, wealthy elites who held significant political power. Below them were the plebeians, free citizens with limited political influence, and the vast numbers of slaves who formed the backbone of the economy. The family unit was central, governed by the paterfamilias, the male head who held absolute authority.
Culturally, the Romans were eclectic, absorbing and adapting elements from the civilizations they encountered, particularly the Greeks. Roman art, literature, and philosophy reflected this synthesis, creating a rich cultural tapestry. Latin, the Roman language, became the lingua franca of the Western world, influencing numerous modern languages.
Roman architecture and engineering achievements were monumental. They perfected the arch, vault, and dome, constructing enduring structures like the Colosseum, Pantheon, and aqueducts. These engineering marvels not only showcased Roman ingenuity but also served practical purposes, from public entertainment to water supply.
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...Sandy Millin
http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/iateflwebinar2024
Published classroom materials form the basis of syllabuses, drive teacher professional development, and have a potentially huge influence on learners, teachers and education systems. All teachers also create their own materials, whether a few sentences on a blackboard, a highly-structured fully-realised online course, or anything in between. Despite this, the knowledge and skills needed to create effective language learning materials are rarely part of teacher training, and are mostly learnt by trial and error.
Knowledge and skills frameworks, generally called competency frameworks, for ELT teachers, trainers and managers have existed for a few years now. However, until I created one for my MA dissertation, there wasn’t one drawing together what we need to know and do to be able to effectively produce language learning materials.
This webinar will introduce you to my framework, highlighting the key competencies I identified from my research. It will also show how anybody involved in language teaching (any language, not just English!), teacher training, managing schools or developing language learning materials can benefit from using the framework.
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
2. Empiricism vs. Rationalism
Basic differences between empiricism and rationalism
Empiricists describe a somewhat passive mind which acts in mechanical
way
Rationalists proposed an active mind that acts on information from the
senses and gives it meaning
Empiricists proposed that experience, memory, associations, and
hedonism determine not only how a person thinks and acts but also his
or her morality.
For rationalists, there are rational reasons some acts or thoughts are
more desirable than others
Empiricists emphasize mechanical causes of behavior
Rationalists emphasize reasons for behavior
Epistemological distinction:
Innate ideas: cannot arise from experience and upon which, given
sufficient developmental maturity, will come to be known as certain
Methodological distinction:
Relative roles of induction vs. deduction
3. Chronological distinction
Plato’s nativism (truths are within our souls,
such that through discovery, we ‘remember’
them) vs. Man as the measure of all things
Aristotle’s ‘common-sense’ approach- senses
are accurate and reason can grasp the truth by
means of sense information
In middle age Scholasticism we had the
problem of universals
If there are universals one is assuming some
‘extra-sensory’ knowledge
Now, Empiricism vs. Rationalism
4. Rene Descartes
1596-1650
Discourse on Method, Meditations
Descartes sought to devise a
system of explanation of the
universe that could not be
questioned and developed by self-exploration
and observation.
Method was to determine that
which was certain and then
deduce other certainties
(deductive method)
Like Bacon, the enemy for Descartes
was Renaissance skepticism, though
is going about his battle in opposing
fashion
5. Rene Descartes
Method:
Accept nothing as true but that which is so
clear no uncertainty regarding it remains
Divide a problem into more simple elements
Solve the smallest problems first and work
your way up
Make sure that the conclusion is general
enough to have no exception
6. Rene Descartes
Starting point: skepticism, distrust of the
senses
How far can we go?
Can we even doubt ourselves?
We cannot doubt ourselves, for that which
doubts must exist; ideas must exist or doubt
is impossible
Cogito ergo sum
Reason provides undeniable proof to
existence
7. Rene Descartes
Through analysis of own thoughts he determined
that some ideas are innate (natural components of
the mind)
Among innate ideas were unity, infinity, perfection,
axioms of geometry, and God.
Was also a phenomenologist
Studied the nature of intact, conscious experience
In addition to the validity of rational processes,
knowledge gained through the senses could be
accepted because God, being perfect, would not
and could not deceive us
Sensory information had to be analyzed rationally to
determine its validity
Opposite Bacon, we must first begin with reason before
conducting experiments
Essentially the hypothetico-deductive method of today
8. Rene Descartes
Descartes explained the behavior of animals
including humans employing mechanical
principles
The nervous system was a set of hollow tubes
connecting the sense receptors with cavities in
the brain (the ventricles)
The system contained animal spirits which flow
through the nerves resulting in sensation and
movement
By explaining both animal and human
behavior in terms of mechanistic principles
and reflexes he made comparative
psychology legitimate
9. Rene Descartes
For Descartes an important difference between animals and
humans was that only humans have a mind which provided
consciousness, free will, and rationality
The mind, however, was nonphysical and the body was
physical
Mind consists thought, which is that which compels us to act or is
that which is responsible for feeling
The nonphysical mind and the physical body can influence
each other, thus, regarding the mind-body issue he was a
dualist and an interactionist
Having no real way of showing how this could be, he
determined that the mind/soul influenced the body at the
pineal gland in the brain as it was not duplicated like all other
brain structures
We now know it to have its own hemispheres
10. Rene Descartes
Among Descartes’ contributions to psychology are:
1. The mechanistic explanations of behavior and
many bodily functions which could be said to have
led to stimulus-response explanations and
behaviorism.
2. The focus on the brain as an important mediator
of behavior.
3. His description of the mind-body relationship
which provided others the opportunity to support or
refute it.
4. His study of the bodies of animals as a means to
understand the functioning of human bodies led to
physiological and comparative psychology.
5. He paved the way for the scientific study of
consciousness.
11. Blaise Pascal
1623-1662
Pensees
Although accomplishments more of the science and
mathematical nature, was also staunchly against the
rationalism of Descartes
"I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy he did his best to
dispense with God. But he could not avoid making Him set the
world in motion with a flip of His thumb; after that he had no more
use for God."
“Experiments are the true teachers which one must follow in
physics."
Pascal’s wager
Believe in God just in case. What do you have to lose?
Note that although we might put Pascal as anti-Cartesianism,
he was in general anti-reason, whether a priori (rationalism) or
based on sense (empiricism)
Sense argument as usual, but the a priori ‘truths’ assume others,
which assume other truths and so on, such that we can’t really get
to the original truths
Tweener
12. Spinoza
1632 – 1677
Descartes had clearly separated mind,
matter and God and Spinoza, while
being placed in the rationalist camp,
offers what would be a much different
take on matters
For him he saw no experiential or
rational reason for that distinction
The ‘new’ science must in some way
take on God or remove him completely
13. Spinoza
Proposed that God, nature, and mind were aspects
of the same substance (inseparable).
“Things which have nothing in common cannot be one the
cause of the other”
If God is the author of all things, His presence must be in
all
God was nature, to understand nature is to
understand God.
Pantheism- God is present everywhere and in everything.
The mind-body issue was dealt with by assuming
that the mind and body were two aspects of the
same thing (double aspectism)
Upon death, one survives as the idea of their
essence is retained in the mind of God
14. Spinoza
As God is the cause of all things we do not have
free will.
Nature (God) is lawful, humans are part of nature, thus
thoughts and behavior are lawfully determined.
“The mind is determined to wish this or that by a cause,
which has also been determined by another cause… and
so on to infinity.”
Man’s idea of free will is due to ignorance regarding
possible causes
Our “freedom” is realizing that everything that is
must necessarily be and everything that happens
must necessarily happen - because everything
results from God.
Stoic
15. Spinoza
Categories of Spinoza’s psychology
Passion
A feeling about which we have no idea attached (blind rage)
Emotion
Shaped by a distinct idea (love for fellow man)
Reason
Intuition
Learning and memory
Memory is enhanced or degraded based on the contextual
details of the material to be memorized
Interference from learning similar material
Memory is a brain process
Every idea has a correlate in the real world
Distinguishes sensation from perception
16. Spinoza
In terms of good and evil, they are ‘nothing
else but the emotions of pleasure and pain’
Pleasure and pain as the mind’s recognition of
its strengths and weaknesses
Ordinary folk go about seeking for pleasure
without the application of reason (a clear idea)
The goal of human psychology is self-actualization
Driven to create pleasure in the mind and work toward
our essence, pain arising due to its denial
17. Nicolas de Malebranche
1638 - 1715
"We must follow reason despite the caresses,
the threats and the insults of the body to which
we are conjoined, despite the action of the
objects that surround us....I exhort you to
recognize the difference there is between
knowing and feeling, between our clear ideas,
and our sensations always obscure and
confused."
God mediated mind – body interaction.
When a person has a desire to move a part of
the body, God is aware of this and moves the
body part (occasionalism).
18. Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz
1646 - 1716
Voted best hair in philosophy 1700-
1702
Specifically disagreed with Locke
and the notion of a tabula rasa
Some thing has to have an experience
and be prepared in some way to have
experiences of varying kinds
Empiricist thinking “Nothing is in the
intellect which was not first in the
senses.”
Leibniz “Nothing except the intellect
itself.”
Was also not so keen on
Descartes’ brand of dualism
19. Leibniz
Ideas, being immaterial, cannot be caused by the senses
Nonreductionist- ideas/perception cannot be reduced to
sensations
Experience allows us to discover or take notice of ideas that
are in us
Provides a context for thought
Regarding the mind-body issue, he proposed a
psychophysical parallelism with a preestablished harmony
Parallelism
The mind and body appear to influence each other but they do
not, work in parallel
Work in harmony established by God
There are perceptions (which are purely psychological events
driven by reason) which are conscious and those which are
below consciousness
Reach a threshold and become conscious
Note that this is not in any way a precursor to Freud’s
unconscious as there is no talk of motivation or psychopathology
20. Leibniz
For Leibniz, the universe consisted of an
infinite number of simple/irreducible/
dimensionless units called monads
Can be seen as a ‘living atom’, active and
conscious
Mind as monad
Monads differ in clarity of consciousness in
a hierarchy
In general the hierarchy goes from God, the
highest, to humans, followed by animals, plants,
and nonliving matter
21. Immanuel Kant
1724 – 1804
One of the most influential
philosophers of all time
Critique of Pure Reason
Had done much philosophical and
scientific work up until age 46 when
realized that he hadn’t really
addressed the argument of the
senses vs. the intellect
Spent 10 years on the Critique in
an attempt to solve the problem
22. Immanuel Kant
Initial distinction
Analytical statements
Predicate is contained within the subject, the proposition adds nothing to the
subject
Cars are motorized vehicles
Synthetic statements
Do add something
Milk does a body good
The empiricists (Hume in particular) suggest analytical statements
are
Logically necessary (if true are necessarily so)
Certain as opposed to probable
A priori as opposed to experiential
Synthetic statements are
Contingently, not necessarily, true
Probable, never certain
A posteriori
Kant was to suggest that some synthetic statements can be a priori
truths
23. Immanuel Kant
Kant agrees with the Empiricists as we have
presented them (e.g. sense as starting
point, judgments of experience are
synthetical etc.), however wants to
determine the limits of empiricism
Causality- how do we get to it?
Recall Hume’s stance:
There is no necessity to an assessment of
causation
Causality (including moral law derived from it) is
a result of experience only, and we can never
prove a causal relationship
24. Immanuel Kant
Starting point
‘Experience is possible only through the
representation of a necessary connection of
perceptions’
‘Everything that happens, that is, begins to be,
presupposes something upon which it follows
according to a rule’
Recall that Hume suggested causality is
derived from things like contiguity in space
and time
B always follows A
Kant asks, From whence time?
25. Immanuel Kant
The argument:
A. An object must exist in time to have any real existence
(following our second starting point, it follows something else in
time necessarily)
B. We can distinguish an event from an enduring state of affairs
in serial fashion, and such a change has a cause
C. Hume states that for a cause and effect relation to be
determined, C & E must be contiguous in time (and space),
and through repetition we can inductively conclude the relation.
However time is not given to our experience by the object
itself, but rather permanence is understood a priori such that
we can see it as existing in time
The reply: Unless there was some a priori category of
understanding (time) how would we make the association in
time to begin with?
Hume’s stance (B&C) implies Kant’s (A), i.e. an a priori
understanding must be available in order to experience a causal
event psychologically
26. Immanuel Kant
Kant proposed that the mind must add something to sensory
data before knowledge could be attained, that something was
provided by a priori categories of thought
Empirical knowledge, though granted, is not sufficient to explain
the attainment of all knowledge without reference to an a priori
understanding
These categories contain the possibility of all experience in
general
Concept of Quantity Concept of Quality
Unity
Reality
Plurality
Negation
Totality
Limitation
Concept of Relation Concept of Modality
Inherence & Subsistence
Cause and Effect
Community
Possibility-Impossibility
Existence-Nonexistence
Necessity-Contingency
27. Immanuel Kant
Our mental experience is always structured
by the categories of thought
Thus our phenomenological experience
(subjective mental experience) is an
interaction of sensations and the categories
of thought
We can never know the true physical,
objective reality (noumena), just
appearances (phenomena) that are
controlled by the categories of thought
28. Immanuel Kant
A basis is now provided to move away from the
‘pleasure principle’ stance of the Empiricists
Laws of experience are authored by those of reason
Not enough to judge good and evil based on feeling
unless can explain how the feeling attaches to the
act
The attachment assumes a rule, a rational principle
which governs or should govern moral behavior
The Categorical Imperative:
Act in such a way that the maxim of your action could
serve as a universal law
29. Immanuel Kant
Such ideas had wide ranging influence on later
psychologists
The concepts of innate logical structure to language and
thought, a priori principles of perceptual organization etc.
affect every branch save perhaps physio and strict
behaviorism
However while giving us back mind (over the
senses), he did to some extent stall the study of it
Not too sure about a true science of the mind
Provided the Psychological Uncertainty Principal
Merely observing the contents of mind alters it
Furthermore, the a priori categories are not amenable to
empirical investigation by definition
30. The Rationalist Legacy
Science would initially draw upon both rationalistic
and empiricist tenets while not strictly adhering to
either, though empiricism would in a sense win out
In fact, much of psychology implicitly assumes a
materialistic stance
However we do see it’s resurgence in current
developmental psychology and our understanding
of language
Furthermore cognitive psychology as a whole
explicitly assumes the Kantian contribution of
having both bottom-up (sense-driven) and top-down
affects on experience and understanding