This week, we are treated to several attempts to recapture some ground for knowledge after the devastating analysis of David Hume.
After being awakened from his "dogmatic slumber" by Hume, and after much labor of his own, Immanuel Kant believed that he carved out a place for knowledge. He did so by both diligently charting the "limits" of reason in light of Hume's attack and also by rigorously analyzing the structure of knowing itself. His great system of critiques, judgments, phenomena, noumena, antinomies, and imperatives was the result.
By Kant, my knowledge is inevitably conditioned by the experience of my knowing it, but it is also conditioned by the system and structure of knowing itself. The former is particular to me, but the latter is the same for all rational beings. Thus while my knowledge is my own, it is always possible (at least in theory) for others to come to know it as well.
For his part, G.W.F. Hegel attempted to salvage by knowledge by removing it from the world of immediate experience and handing it entirely over to the world of Spirit. This Spirit, Hegel hypothesized, transcends any individual (no matter how brilliant s/he may be), and can be discovered only through a so-called "phenomenology" of Spirit as disclosed through the grand sweep of history.
By Hegel, it makes no sense to speak of "my" or "your" knowledge, but rather of "our" knowledge. Whatever knowledge exists cannot be particular, for knowledge is of the World-Spirit, and we are each mere slivers in its eons-long unfolding. The closest we can get to that knowledge is the attempt to phenomenologically puzzle out the movements of Spirit as best we can.
Alternatively, Soren Kierkegaard rejects the possibility of knowledge that in any way *transcends* the individual, but not the possibility of knowledge FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. In thus grounding knowledge entirely within the realm of the individual knower, Kierkegaard at once both greatly limits and expands the possibility of knowledge itself.
By Kierkegaard, "my" knowledge may never be "your" knowledge, and it makes no sense to speak of "our" knowledge at all. However, we both may be able to discover *our own* knowledge, and that, Kierkegaard believes, is the hard work of individual existence.
So the question is this:
epistemological approaches covered this week (Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard),
Of the three which strikes you as the best attempt to "rescue" knowledge, as it were, from the skeptical clutches of Hume? And, as every and always, WHY do you think so?
Of the three epistemological approaches covered this week (Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard), which strikes you as the best attempt to "rescue" knowledge, as it were, from the skeptical clutches of Hume? And, as every and always, WHY do you think so?
Of the three epistemological approaches covered, Kant's approach strikes me as the best attempt to rescue knowledge from the skeptical clutches of Hume. This is because Kant holds two major forces at bay, the dogmatic metaphysics and the radical skepticism in Hume's empirical approach. Kant considered that skeptical empiricism was mistaken in ascribing cognition to experience but rather viewed that for one to have true knowledge, one must be able to analyze how experience can be knowledge through reasoning, examining, and critiquing. Hume's skepticism especially on causality had greatly undermined the age old scholastic metaphysics. Kant reframed the skeptical impasse through his transcendental idea which rendered more radical skeptical arguments as undecidable (Chapter 9, n.d.).
Kant argued that "a prior form of cognition" exists and it is impossible to extended knowledge a speculative ...
Kant's approach is clearly justified in this solution and validated with sources.