My mind is like a filing system.

Hello,

Back to Kant...

Have you ever wondered how we can get a grip on the world? We seem to experience so much of it in just once one glance, how do our minds cope? For Kant this ability to process everything is helped out with a little innate knowledge, known as the conceptual schemes. Kant supposes that if we did not have this innate understanding of these schemes/catorgeries our mind would be an unintelligible "buzz of sense data" = major confusion. So for Kant these schemes are examples of synthetic a priori knowledge as these schemes are innate = a priori - meaning knowledge which does not need to be checked against experience YET is still helpful to further our understanding of the world, not trivial.

Now: The Schemes, there are a vast amount but the most helpful (in my opinion) are that of time, space and causation...For Kant these are innate we just know them, they are very helpful in sorting out all the sense experience's we are exposed to. For example if you were to drop a mug of tea, you are bombarded with the sense experience of the spilt tea, the shattered china and the sodden carpet. How do we cope? What do we really know is happening with the sense experience? Well if we implement Kant and his schemes we can know for sure that whilst the mug is falling, time is passing and space is being occupied and it is you who caused the mug to fall (butter fingers).

So Kant can be used on a daily basis for causation in general, so we don't need to go pointing out every that blog had a cause - ie someone to write it, we just know innately/synthetic a priori that EVERY EVENT HAS A CAUSE - conceptual schemes.

However, there are objections to Kant and his scheming ways. Firstly the concept of innate knowledge in general can be criticised as innate means that everybody has the same concepts - however this is not the case, via the development of anthropology we can see other societies which do not have comparable ideas of time e.g. the Hopi Indians have nothing like the time we have.

So it is not truly innate - how can rely on a flawed foundation?

But to be fair to Kant, he had never heard of the Hopi Indians

A second more considerable objection comes from the Empiricist Hume and his idea of causation - this idea essentially illustrates that we can never see the cause of an action (only it's effect) meaning that we can NEVER have EXPERIENCE cause = no experience = no knowledge. Hume states that just because it seems like common sense doesn't mean it's true - and as Hume denies all innate ideas it's a big slap in the face for Kant.

"All ideas derive from sense experience which they copy". Discuss.

This was said by empiricist Hume. It means that we can never an idea which is not somehow based on sense experience. It is logical to agree with Hume that our significant knowledge does derive from our sense experience. However there are counter arguments for the origin of all our ideas being derived from sense experience, which this essay will aim to evaluate.

Empiricism is the theory that the origin of our ideas is experience. Our concepts are derived from our sensory experiences of sight, touch, smell, taste and sound - and our concepts are consequently copies of these sense experiences. So under empiricism we will point to sense experience to back up our beliefs and ideas. As a result we can never imagine a totally original idea, it will be a manipulation of the composition of and already existing thing. To illustrate when we have an idea of an angel this is not an original idea - in fact it is based on the sense experience of a birds wings and a body of a person.

This leads on to the other significant feature of empiricism, this is the use of simple and complex ideas. We learn simple concepts by associating them with experience, then the word/concept becomes meaningful. For example the word "horse" will only become meaningful to a child when the word has been associated to an experience at a petting zoo for example. We then can generate complex ideas from manipulating simple ideas, to illustrate Hume used the example of manipulating the simple ideas of "gold" and "mountain" to the complex idea of "gold mountain".

Locke is a second example of an empiricist who states that from birth we are a "tabula rasa" with no knowledge as we are yet to experience anything. Locke claimed that the rationalist suggestion of innate ideas as the origin of ideas is wrong, as Locke states that if they were to exist "children and idiots" would possess the same level of knowledge - which is untrue. He later states that if these idiots and children were to learn what is claimed to be innate such as the laws of logic, Locke would state this was an example of reasoning, which he claims is based on sense experience.

However, although it seems logical that empiricism is the best way to explain knowledge there are criticisms of the empirical theory. The first criticism concerns the issue of simple and complex ideas. As stated empiricists suggest that a complex idea can be broken down into simple ideas. To take the example of my shoe it can be broken down into the simple ideas of "laces", "eyelits", "fabric" and so on. This is where the objection arises. The empiricists do not make it clear when a simple idea stops and a complex one starts. This means the theory becomes less clear, how can one concept be based on so many sense impressions?

A second objection in regard to empiricism in relation to the origin of ideas is the missing shade of blue. According to the empiricists we cannot have concepts which have not been based on sense experience. But if we take a range of shades of blue with one shade missing it seems that we can imagine that missing colour with no sense experience of it. But to reply to this objection perhaps this illustration suggests that the missing colour is simply another complex idea made up of the other shades. However this still leaves us with the problem of when do simple ideas become complex ones? arguably from this example it is possible to suggest that all colours are complex ideas.

A final empirical claim is Hume's objection to the idea that the action of one thing obviously causes the effect of the other. For example when we see a billiard ball strike another - which then moves, Hume suggests that all we know is that the first ball moved, heard a sound then the other ball moved off - so we have no sense experience of the cause. This leads Hume to suggest that when we talk about causation we actually me "constant cojoining" if events, and there is no necessary connection.

However a reply to Hume and causation is Kant's idea of conceptual schemes of causation. He suggests that innately we know that every event has a cause, whilst Kant agrees that we cannot directly experience "cause" we know that it exists a priori.

In conclusion the statement was suggesting that the origins of ideas are linked to experience. I agree with the empirical idea that all useful knowledge comes from direct sensory experience. However I think that Kant's account for "causation" and conceptual schemes is a good challenge to all knowledge being derived from sense experience.