Position:Home>Philosophy> How does Kant endeavour to end the see-saw between “rationalism” and “empiricism

No!. He fails!. He said we cannot know the "real" reality because it is hidden to us, in something he termed "noumena!." That does not square with either Empiricism or Rationalism!.

"Empiricism: (1) A proposition about the sources of knowledge: that the sole source of knowledge is experience, or that either no knowledge at all or no knowledge with existential reference is possible independently of experience!."
"Rationalism: A method, or very broadly, a theory of philosophy, in which the criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive!."
http://www!.ditext!.com/runes/index!.html

We can't have knowledge from sensory experience because phenomena is only an illusion, since "noumena" is the "real" reality!.
Yet, we cannot gain knowlege from the intellect and deduction because everything we base it on is "phenomenal!."

"Kant’s expressly stated purpose was to save the morality of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice!. He knew that it could not survive without a mystic base—and what it had to be saved from was reason!."
“For the New Intellectual,” For the New Intellectual, 30

"No, Kant did not destroy reason; he merely did as thorough a job of undercutting as anyone could ever do!.

"If you trace the roots of all our current philosophies—such as pragmatism, logical positivism, and all the rest of the neo-mystics who announce happily that you cannot prove that you exist—you will find that they all grew out of Kant!."
“Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 64!.

Both Empiricism and Rationalism were attempts to define the nature of "knowledge," and where it comes from!.

But these are Kant's own words, and deal directly with that "mystic base" he is said to have sought:

"“I have, therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith!.”

In this way, he DENIES both Empiricism and Rationalism!.

If you can understand the backwardness of the logic in this next quote, if you can understand that he is saying "black is white," and if you can understand that he was DELIBERATELY the most confusing philosopher in history, you will see how he failed at what you ask!.

"“It is a duty to preserve one’s life, and moreover everyone has a direct inclination to do so!. But for that reason the often anxious care which most men take of it has no intrinsic worth, and the maxim of doing so has no moral import!. They preserve their lives according to duty, but not from duty!. But if adversities and hopeless sorrow completely take away the relish for life, if an unfortunate man, strong in soul, is indignant rather than despondent or dejected over his fate and wishes for death, and yet preserves his life without loving it and from neither inclination nor fear but from duty—then his maxim has a moral import” (Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, ed!. R!. P!. Wolff, New York, Bobbs-Merrill, 1969, pp!. 16–17)!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

In order to understand Kant's position, we must understand the philosophical background that he was reacting to!. First, I will present a brief overview of his predecessor's positions with a brief statement of Kant's objections, then I will return to a more detailed exposition of Kant's arguments!. There are two major historical movements in the early modern period of philosophy that had a significant impact on Kant: Empiricism and Rationalism!. Kant argues that both the method and the content of these philosophers' arguments contain serious flaws!. A central epistemological problem for philosophers in both movements was determining how we can escape from within the confines of the human mind and the immediately knowable content of our own thoughts to acquire knowledge of the world outside of us!. The Empiricists sought to accomplish this through the senses and a posteriori reasoning!. The Rationalists attempted to use a priori reasoning to build the necessary bridge!. A posteriori reasoning depends upon experience or contingent events in the world to provide us with information!. That "Bill Clinton is president of the United States in 1999," for example, is something that I can know only through experience; I cannot determine this to be true through an analysis of the concepts of "president" or "Bill Clinton!." A priori reasoning, in contrast, does not depend upon experience to inform it!. The concept "bachelor" logically entails the ideas of an unmarried, adult, human male without my needing to conduct a survey of bachelors and men who are unmarried!. Kant believed that this twofold distinction in kinds of knowledge was inadequate to the task of understanding metaphysics for reasons we will discuss in a moment!.
http://www!.iep!.utm!.edu/k/kantmeta!.htmWww@QuestionHome@Com

---

---