"Kant, a rationalist, believed that humans possessed innate, inborn knowledge. In other words, the conditions necessary for thought existed a priori. Kant believed in an interaction between sensory information and categories of thought (Hergenhahn, 2009)." Dr. Matthew what is an argument that you could develop that counters Kant's observation and that does not rely on Locke's perspective? Use just current research. [200 plus word count. In text, citation required and 2 sources needed. Write in 3rd person scholarly writing. No quotes please.] This is a personally developed question not an assignment or home work.
Kant tried to split the difference between rationalism and empiricism. While he held that the conditions for perception and thought were innate, this only became knowledge wen joined by the sensory data coming from the outside. The origin of this chaotic flux of images is the "thing in itself," that which cannot be known by human beings. Knowledge is not innate, but is a combination of the innate categories and external sense data. What we analyze in our sense data is not the same as the things in themselves. So knowledge is as much subjective as objective. Kant termed "dogmatism" to mean that we actually pick up objects "out there." We do not, we construct them using our innate resources.
This is how he rejects metaphysics: the objects of metaphysics, that which is not relative to us, is unknowable. Knowledge is relative to possible experience, which itself is conditioned by the categories that we have in our own minds. Unconditioned objects such as God or the world, or Being, cannot be known given the inherent limitations of our mental process.
One important critique of Kant was G. Fichte. His problem was ...
The solution discusses rationalism proposed by Kant.