Philosophers

**__Immanuel Kant__**

“The mind does not conform to the world – the world conforms to the mind.” This is the main belief that German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had, brought about by his disagreement with a theory empiricists shared that the mind conforms to the world and as a result, it is uninvolved. He tried to create a middle ground between rationalists and empiricists: rationalists who believed that reason had a lot of power in obtaining knowledge, but who he believed went too far in their belief as to how much reason could know, and empiricists who believed that the world “impresses things on our mind,” but who he disagreed with in terms of their belief that “our knowledge ends with sense experience.” Kant believed we have two types of knowledge: //a priori // (innate) knowledge, which is always universally true, and //a posteriori // (empirical) knowledge, which is never universally true because it is based on what we observe and anything we observe can change at any time. His philosophy became a combination of what he agreed upon with empiricists and with rationalists, a philosophy he called Critical Philosophy.

How do they distinguish belief from opinion? To Kant, opinion is based on empirical knowledge and the use of reason to form a conclusion based on the information gained from empirical knowledge. Belief, on the other hand, is based more on reason. However, the more important difference between the two is the fact that belief is much more complex that reason alone cannot allow you to justify your belief. Such examples include God, freedom, and immortality. It cannot be justified completely by reason alone (or anything else), because they are complex concepts, whereas opinion can be justified by empirical knowledge and the reason used to gain the conclusion.

What does their reasoning process look like? A mix between rationalists and empiricists: you observe something with your senses and use your reason to form a conclusion.

What is defined as true? What is believable? //A priori // knowledge is always considered universally true, as it is innate knowledge, whereas //a posteriori // is never universally true, but still can be believable.

Are they a rationalist or an empiricist? Neither but tried to create a middle ground between the two.

What role do senses play in knowing? We begin gaining knowledge by sense experience, and a large amount of our gaining of knowledge is obtained by way of sense experience. However, it should be noted that we do not only use our senses alone to form a conclusion. We use reason based on the information we receive as a result of using our senses to form a conclusion.

What role does rationality play in knowing? Reason provides us with information we need in the world, however reason cannot help us know everything. There are several complex concepts we cannot comprehend based on reason.

Chapter about Immanuel Kant given by Mr. Klatt
 * Sources used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

Skit: **

**Sir Edward VI** : //(Walks in late to dinner) //Good evening, Sir Raphael the Great.
 * Sir Raphael the Great**: Good evening. Just a few hours ago, I reasoned, based on reason alone, that you were going to be late to dinner today.
 * Sir Edward VI**: Yes, but how would you have reasoned so if I have not come late in the past? You cannot have used reason alone. Nay! I have come late before and so you made this assumption based on knowledge that you have, which is that it is a habit of mine to come late repetitively. You did not use reason alone, because you used empirical knowledge. You knew I have come late before and so you assumed, based on previous experience, that I will come late tonight.
 * Sir Raphael the Great**: True, but how would I have known that you would have come late based on empirical knowledge if I did not have the power to reason that if you come late repetitively, you will come late again?
 * Immanuel Kant**: Gentlemen, gentlemen, please. Can’t you see that both reason and empirical knowledge were used in this process? Sir Raphael, how could you have reasoned that he would come late without the use of empirical knowledge? And you, Sir Edward, how could you assume that he couldn’t have reasoned without maximum use of empirical knowledge? You use empirical knowledge to obtain information, but not all of it. You use your reason to draw conclusions based on that empirical knowledge. You can gain most information with the use of two combined, with the exception of God, freedom, and immortality.
 * Sir Edward VI**: Then, according to you, not only do we use empirical knowledge, but we also use reason in the process to gain information?
 * Immanuel Kant**: Exactly!

Main Points on Immanuel Kant's Philosophy:
 * His philosophy was called Critical Philosophy
 * Tried to create a middle ground between rationalists and empiricists
 * Believed we had two types of knowledge, them being a priori (which is innate) and a posteriori (which is empirical)
 * He believed a priori knowledge to always be universally true and a posteriori knowledge to never be universally true
 * Agreed with rationalists that reason could allow you to obtain a lot of knowledge, but disagreed with just how much you could - agreed with empiricists on how empirical knowledge can help you obtain knowledge, disagreed with their idea that "our knowledge ends with sense experience"