Term
|
Definition
| Pure, unmediated reality as it is in itself, we can never access this according to Kant. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The phenomena is how Kant describes the world as it appears to us. |
|
|
Term
| What did Kant's "12 Categories" mean? |
|
Definition
| These categories order our sensory experience into a "coherent whole". Without the categories, Kant believes that the world would just be a buzz of sensory impressions. |
|
|
Term
| According to Kant, are ideas such as Maths, Physics and the sciences the same in the noumena as they are in the phenomena? |
|
Definition
No.
This is because they are products of the categories. We have to accept that they could be different in the noumena as we have no idea how much the categories interpret the world for themselves. |
|
|
Term
| According to Kant, are ideas such as Maths, Physics and the sciences the same in the noumena as they are in the phenomena? |
|
Definition
No.
This is because they are products of the categories. We have to accept that they could be different in the noumena as we have no idea how much the categories interpret the world for themselves. |
|
|
Term
| Is the fact that the mind may reconstruct the noumena through our categories a problem to Kant? |
|
Definition
No.
Kant believes that we can't ever access the noumena, so this isn't a problem. |
|
|
Term
| Does Kant believe that we all have the same 12 categories? |
|
Definition
Yes.
Kant believes that all humankind experience the phenomena in the same way, although may interpret what they are seeing differently. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
According to Kant, an antimony is a part of the phenomenon our categories simply cannot process.
Examples of antimonies are:
God, free will and immortality. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A schema is a variation from Kant's 12 categories, basically schemas are different sets of conceptual schemes. |
|
|
Term
| What are the two distinguishable elements in our experience? |
|
Definition
1: The data of the senses.
2: How this data is interpreted by the concepts we have.
John Hick called this interpretative process 'seeing-as'. It implies that different communities have different conceptual schemes. |
|
|
Term
| What are two examples of different communities with different conceptual schemes? |
|
Definition
| The Nootka tribe in Canada perceive the word "house" as a verb, not as a noun as we think of it in western culture. It is essentially a communal activity for them. e.g. "house occurs" |
|
|
Term
| What is "conceptual relativism"? |
|
Definition
This is the view that the way we experience reality is subjective.
For example, if cultural and linguistic schema is true as brought up by the anthropologists, then there is NO OBJECTIVE REALITY! |
|
|
Term
| In relation to linguistic schema, what did 'Sapir-Whorf' do, what did they conclude from this? |
|
Definition
Sapir-Whorf worked with the Hopi indians and found that their version of time couldn't be translated into English.
Thus, they concluded that language isn't shaped by reality, but it is reality itself that is shaped by the language we use within it. |
|
|
Term
| What are the implications of the Sapir-Whorf theory? |
|
Definition
| If Benjamin Whorf is right, then it would appear that reality is entirely subjective and dependent on our conceptual schemes. |
|
|
Term
| Why is Kant's approach known as the "Copernican Revolution" in philosophy? |
|
Definition
Because Kant put the mind at the center of reality, much like Copernicus put the sun in the center of the universe when everyone thought otherwise.
This disputed the way of thinking of most philosophers prior to his time. |
|
|
Term
| What is "weak" conceptual relativism? |
|
Definition
Weak conceptual relativism is the belief that there is one objective reality, but the truths within it is subjective to a communities conceptual scheme.
For example, it is true that in some cultures, the otter is considered evil because it lives on both land and water, however, this is not true in most western cultures as it is regarded as aesthetically pleasing. |
|
|
Term
| What is "strong" conceptual relativism? |
|
Definition
Strong conceptual relativism believes that there is no one objective reality, and that reality is relative to a communities conceptual scheme.
For example this is what Sapir-Whorf would say (linguistically). |
|
|
Term
| What are 3 objections to conceptual schemes? |
|
Definition
1: If they are true then we can't engage in any objective dialogue about the world.
2: We can't evaluate which schema best fits "the evidence" as we can't get outside ourselves to do so.
3: What we see as rational isn't necessarily universally rational. |
|
|
Term
| What did Quine say about the criticism of not being able to evaluate which schema best fits the evidence? |
|
Definition
Quine said that we could decide between conceptual schemes through evaluating their utility.
E.g. the scientific world view could be seen as better than one of spirits and demons because it combats disease better and has given us the industrial world. |
|
|
Term
| What is a defence of conceptual relativism? |
|
Definition
It means that we don't have the right to interfere in other people's lives that have foreign conceptual schemes, as they have their own truths.
For example, the Ancient Greeks believed that the only colour was Bronze, and every other colour is simply another shade of Bronze.
This didn't meant that they saw everything in bronze, this is just how they described it. |
|
|
Term
| What is a problem with strong conceptual relativism? |
|
Definition
It must be true that there is a set of sensory experiences which we all have in common which do not depend on our conceptual schemes, thus there must be an objective reality.
E.g. feeling cold or the smell of a flower. |
|
|
Term
| How do conceptual schemes relate to Empiricism? |
|
Definition
When our minds are blank slates, linguistic and cultural schema are imprinted onto it. This is then how we interpret the world.
This is considered to be 'putting a lens on the world' which we acquire at birth. |
|
|
Term
| What are the implications of conceptual relativism on Hume, Descartes and Kant? |
|
Definition
Hume: It attacks his assumption that we are simply passive receivers of information.
Descartes: It attacks his belief that there is foundational and indubitable knowledge that is objectively true.
Kant: It attacks his assumption that we all have the same categories, although this doesn't mean it rejects his ideas. |
|
|
