Kant Metaphysical Exposition of Space Essay Example for Free

Kant Metaphysical Exposition of Space Essay Kant: Explain and asses what you think to be the best argument Kant gives as his Metaphysical Exposition of Space (B37-40) that space cannot be either and actual entity (Newtonian concept) or any independent relation among real things (Leibnizian concepti be on). In other words, is he successful in arguing that space must be (at least) a form of intuition? Do any of his arguments further show that space must be ONLY a form of intuition and not ALSO something Newtonian or Leibnizian? In his Metaphysical Exposition of Space, Kant attempts to show that the experience of space is just a form of intuition. Kant defines space as that of which we sense out side of us, in comparison to our mind, which is our inner sense. This outer sense of space, he claims, is known only to us because we have a intuitive sense of there being space in the first place. Kant asserts this argument in direct response to two other claims about the nature of space. The Newtonian concept of space holds that space is an entity existing in its own right, with objects merely being in it. The Leibnizian concept of space however holds the opposite, space doesnt really exist and is just a relation created between existing objects. Kant believes both concepts are wrong and claims that to first know about objects in space, we must have some deeper knowledge of space to put them in space. He further tries to claim that space is only a form of intuition and not just the foundation to support either of the other two concepts. Kant presents some strong points showing the faults in the other concepts and provides a reason alternative to what makes the nature of space. However his concept too, that space is known only through intuition, also isnt as strong as it should be. It appears that space may be known through intuition from an individual perspective, but on closer investigation, taking in all forms of life and evolution, where did this pre wired intuition of space have its start? Kants concept of space seems to be well grounded in some areas and not in others. Kants definition of space helps him prove that the concept of space is a form of intuition. Space, he holds, is everything that is sensed outside of us. The mind is the inner sense and everything else is in space. We then represent objects in that space, where they are interpreted as having shape, magnitude and relationships to other objects in space. But then what is this space, Kant questions? Not satisfied with the current theories of the nature of time, Kant moves to show their faults through a set of arguments. The Newtonian concept of space claims that space exists as an entity in its own right. This concept is the most user friendly, and it is similar to the common sense view that most people grow up with. That is, we experience objects around us as exist in a void of space, where that void itself can exist on its own. Objects exist in this space, which is an infinite entity. The theory claims that through our sense, sight, touch extra, we learn about the world. We learn from our senses about space and how it works. We start of in the world with no idea of space and through a trial and area type system of learning, we being to understand the nature of space and of objects in it. Space exists and we lean of its existence though life experience. Kant cannot accept the Newtonian concept of space. In his first argument, Kant claims that space is not a concept that has been drawn from our experiences. His reasoning behind this is; how can we know to put the data that we gain from our senses into a world of space if we dont know of space to begin with? That is, to know to put this sensory data into a thing called space, we must first have some idea of space. Kant does not think that it is possible to stumble across the idea of space just through trial and error. Space, he claims, must be an intuitive idea that we are born with, so we know to put the data we gain into some logical order. We cant experience space without first having some idea of it being there. We must know what we are looking for, before we can find it. Kant seems to be onto something with this argument. It does seem plausible to think that the idea of space is already programmed into our brain. For we are objects ourselves that did develop in this world. But then isnt that learning about space through experience just over a few generations. So on a longer time scale we gradually learnt how to interact with space. The intuition of space is just another characteristic that we gain from our ancestors. The species, or life, learnt about space. But this is not what Kant is trying to claim. He is claiming that it is intuition that we have always had, the entire human existence has always had. This on the biological level seems rather odd. Is it just humans that have this intuition? It doesnt seem grounded to answer this question with a yes. But then back in early beings of life, do single cell organisms also have this intuition, do they even know they exist? So Kant must mean fully developed humans, or at least fairly intelligent animals. But this still suggests that having the intuition of space is something that is developed over evolution. So in turn is something that is gain from the species evolutionary experience. It is an odd claim to say that just one day a higher level animal just suddenly experience space. Perhaps now we have some basic animal instinct of how space works, Kant does not justify how this come about. The intuition of space my have evolved, which is a from of long term experience. The Leibnizian concept claims that space is just the relationship between objects and cannot exist on its own. Unlike the Newtonian concept of space, this theory claims that space does not and could not exist without the presents of objects. Space is just an attribute of objects, without them space is not present. If there was no objects there would be no need for space and it would not be present. We see objects all around us, and in order to understand the raw data presented by our senses we dream up relationships among them which we call space. Space is not an entity in its own right, it is simple the relation between existing objects. Kant can also not accept the Leibnizian concept of space. In his second argument, Kant claims that it is possible to have space without the presents of objects. Using a thought experiment Kant tries to show that we can image an empty space, a space without objects in it. He uses the experiment as a direct attack on the Leibnizian concept that space is just an attribute of objects. Kant believes that it is possible to image empty space, free of any objects. He claims that since this is possible space must be more then just an attribute of existing objects. Kants argument here doesnt seem as strong. He just seems to state that we can imagine empty, boundless space. It seems slightly more difficult to achieve then what he makes out. At first it seems sure, we can think of empty space, but is it really empty space that we are imagining here? Maybe we can think of a void, but isnt that just the space between objects? The depths of space, are just long distances from existing objects, not empty space. It seems every time we try to think of space it is in relation to objects or boundaries. Kant tries to make the thought experiment seem simple, but on closer inspection, imagining space total separate to objects is very difficult. Space might be its own existing thing, but it is not shown through this method of reasoning. It still seems plausible that space in known by our intuition, however that intuition is just knowing to see that existing objects have the attribute, and relation to other objects, space. Kant does not strongly prove that space can exist on its own. Kant claims that space is an existing thing that we are born being aware of and nothing more. It can only be this and not a combination of intuition and the Newtonian and Leibnizian concepts of space. It cant be, for example, that space is an intuition of a simple relationship between objects, or that we intuitively need to learn of its existence through experience. Kant uses further arguments to show this. In his third argument Kant further shows that to understand space we must first have the framework set out to understand that space must exist. That is it must be known by pure intuition alone. For the Leibnizian concept to be correct, it would seem possible to think of separate spaces. That is, according to the theory, space only exists with resect to objects, or every object has its own space. It seems the concept is suggesting that there is lots of little spaces everywhere, that connect, or not connect, regarding if the objects are close or near. Kant believes that is not a very reasonable way of seeing how the world or space works. Intuitively we seem to know that there is one infinite space, that maybe divided up by objects, but is still known to be part of the one big whole of space. Kant even seems to suggest that it is impossible for our minds to imagine no space at all. Our intuition of space is so strong, our minds cannot interpret the world without it. Space cannot be intuitive and a relation between objects, Kant believes it must only be known intuitively The mind experiment Kant uses here seems much more agreeable. I does seem that we see space as one big infinite entity, in which all objects exists. The Leibnizian theory does seem to infer that there are lots of little independent spaces following the object they belong to. This seems to be a very strange way of seeing the world indeed, and one very hard to imagine. Kants argument against the Leibnizian concept is strong here, but does it prove that both space is an intuition and not at all an aspect of an object? It appears we can agree with Kant that space is not just a relation between objects, that it exists in its own right. But what is not strong is that intuition is the way we can experience and not through learning from our senses. In his forth and finally argument on the nature of space, Kant tries to show that it is not something we intuitively know to look for, but that we are already born knowing of its existence. Kant believes that it is not possible to interpret the raw data given to us by our senses into any order without first knowing to put it into space. The data would simple not make any sense. And why would just having this data spore the idea of putting into an order of space. How do we know to link that sound with that vision? Yes we learn other things about the world from experience, but this only possible by having the framework of knowing how space works in our heads to being with. All other knowledge is built on the bedrock of us knowing that things outside of us work in space. Kant claims that knowing space is through intuition alone, and through a combination of intuition and learning. Kants argument here is partly agreeable. He makes a strong point that linking to very different experience, like sight and sound, into one event, would be very difficult achieve, if at all, if they werent put into space. From a person to person basis his concept of space is quiet agreeable. If each person was to learn in their life time about how space worked, wouldnt there, by numbers, be some people they never stumble across its working, or even people taking different amounts of time to achieve this knowledge. It would seem that these people would behave very strange in the world. Babies seem to develop an idea of how space works in all about the same way and time frame. If it was up to each individual to learn, or to stumble across the truth, the world would probably be a very different place. So yes, Kant seems to be on the right track that each person is pre wire to expect a world with space, this does not however explain how and when and for what level of life this pre wiring occurred. Kants theory of intuitive space needs to be more developed. Kant finally concludes that space cant be known through trial and error, it cant be an attribute of objects, and must be known through the intuition alone. The raw data that our eyes and ears gather would be useless if our mind didnt have space to make sense of it all. But would space still exist even if it wasnt an intuition? Kant would seem to answer yes to this. So is the need to have the intuition of space to understand it just a human condition? Kants reply to this one does not seem as clear. Surely before humans there were living beings interacting in space. Did these living things need an intuition of space to survive? For humans it seems necessary that we understand the nature of space, otherwise I dont think we would be able to survive. But then if we didnt understand what our senses where telling us by putting them into the concept of space, why would we evolve senses at all? Surely we wouldnt have eyes and ears ect. If we evolved not needing or using them. So does every animal that has the same sensors as us have the same intuition of space as we do? This idea seems to be begging the question ? what came first the intuition of space, or the senses and the ability to perceive it? For one seems to be seems to be surely useless with out the other. Kants concept seems to work if we just look at a snap shot of the world functioning today, however it does not satisfy how the world got to be the way it is. Perhaps this is not goal he was wanting to achieve, but for his concept to hold these questions of evolution need to be answered. Kants claims show the faults in past concepts, however his concepts is not total solid yet either. Kant resolves some issues, but then raises some more. It seems now that we cant take for granted what we all assume that we learn about space through experience, and it seems too that space exists in its own right. Kant seems to make this clear, he does not however clearly prove that space is known by intuition alone.

The Ju-Wasi Experience :: essays research papers

My visit to the Ju/wasi area of Botswana was an eye-opening experience. At first sight, I could not believe they lead an able way of life. The entire society is built around waterholes, and they herd cattle. The idea of a modern village or town does not exist. They do not process their food, and their water is very scarce and unsanitary. Nevertheless, the living conditions of the Ju/wasi rarely inflict any diseases upon them. Rather, it is the Western world that has brought in viruses and bacteria that affect the health of the Ju/wasi the most. Out of all the noticeable problems that afflict the Ju/wasi, however, this was the least visible. The lack of organization among tribesmen, a constant food staple, and a stable economic model are the issues the Botswana government needs to address. In this regard, I agree almost fully with the previous panel that suggested improvements in several of the key areas. First and foremost, organization is key. The government needs to help the Ju/wasi build several villages. This will bring an element of government into the tribe, which will help the Ju/wasi make central decisions about the tribe’s actions. Digging the wells is not essential because a water supply already exists; yet it fits in well with the overall plan of improving the Ju/wasi living conditions. In order to provide a constant staple, the government need not distribute domesticated animals. Instead, they should institute an economic model and integrate tribesmen with Botswana’s job market. The Ju/wasi can then use their new income to finance a food supply or a cash crop. The key is to spend money as efficiently as possible in order to help the Ju/wasi, and my slightly modified plan accomplishes that purpose. Following these guidelines does not guarantee the Ju/wasi a carefree life.

Social Control

Social Control 1 Social Control and Behavior Samantha Sipes Criminology 1017-42 1. Cesare Beccaria argued that the threat of punishment controls crime. Do other forms of social control exist? Aside from the threat of legal punishment, what else controls your behavior? In my opinion a lot of factors play a role in social control such as family, church and school. These Three factor can determine a person behavior. You are taught how to act, morals and beliefs at a small age. Having fear of losing your family or have them look at you with a despise is a strong social and self control. Everyone wants to be accepted and belong in today’s social environment. Church is can also be a strong social control instation by providing you with a strong foundation of faith which can determine your behavior toward life. Being a teenager myself school played a big social control for me most of my lessons were taught in school. 2. Aside from the threat of legal punishment, what else controls your behavior? A person’s personal sense of right/wrong, fearing of disappointing loved ones and friends and caring about other people are main factors in controlling my behavior. I big social control for me was my family I knew the consequence if I failed them or hurt them. I don’t have the heart to misbehave and treat people wrong. It is believed that most humans have a built in guide to what is morally right and wrong. Society in general sets a standard for what is right and wrong (not laws) and most people want to be seen by their friends and neighbors as good people with high morals. I personally believe this has more to do with our behavior than the threat of punishment. If the threat of punishment controls crime then why are our prisions overcrowded? Some people believe in God and believe he demands that we be morally good, but that is also made with the threat of punishment if we do not follow his teachings.

Figure of Speech and Ancient Greece Essay

Modernity has certainly evolved from the time of the ancient Greece. However, the advancements in technology have not necessarily created a Utopian society. In â€Å"Icarus,† a poem by Edward Field, a mythological character is placed in the bustling and oxymoronic reality of the modern world. Figurative language, irony, syntax, and perspectives are essential elements of Field’s relocation of Icarus, whose relocation exposes an alienating and unrelenting 20th century setting. Irony and contrast are immediately evident as Icarus’s story unfolds in the second millennium of the common era. Beginning be depicting the setting and its inhabitants, the speaker highlights some oxymorons in current behavior. Witnesses to Icarus’s mishap run off to a â€Å"gang war,† a cruel satire of urban life and ironical reversion of roles in just one line. Furthermore, Icarus’s report at the police station is â€Å"filed and forgotten,† one element denying the purpose of the other. In addition to this, modern practices appear to contrast those of Icarus’s original setting; in ancient Greece, tales were not written but sang, and they certainly weren’t forgotten. Thus, though lacking mention to the protagonist, the first stanza subtly implies immediate differences between Icarus’s traditional home and his new one. The second stanza begins with yet another juxtaposition of the original and the modified; while the foolish Icarus would have been deemed â€Å"disobedient† in his times, he becomes â€Å"nice Mr. Hicks† in modernity. As the speaker begins to describe Icarus directly, another allusion to modern tenets is made; Icarus’s suit â€Å"concealed arms,† which we soon find out though that they are not the â€Å"arms† used in gang wars but those with which he attempted flight. Icarus’s neighbors cannot perceive his sadness at the failure of his deed, though, and the gentle time (and air) traveler does not wish to upset them by revealing the truths. In this case, a metonymic â€Å"front yards† is used by the speaker to symbolize the suburban lifestyle and â€Å"moralistic† attitude of the people surrounding Icarus. In creating the final analogies and contrasts between the past and present Icaruses, the speaker draws into the tragic hero side of the protagonist and uses it in a rhetorical question at the end of the second stanza. Unfortunately for Icarus, it seems, he did not fall to his death but to the â€Å"middling stature of the merely talented†; he cannot find serenity in an environment where personal judgment (Icarus’s neighbors) cannot reconcile with the group activities (participating in committees and riding commuter trains). Using anaphora, the first two lines of the third stanza convey Icarus’s longing for tragic departure, juxtaposing nightly reflection and daily attempts at flight. Lacking the success he had in the past, even though it had cost him, Icarus comes to the conclusion that his role would have been much more satisfactory had he drowned. Field employs techniques of content (contrast and irony) and of how the content is shaped (anaphora and figurative language). In doing so, he conveys both poetically personal reflections and an effective change of Icarus’s setting, shaping this work as an even more tragic story for the protagonist than his death in had been.

Criticism on Their eyes were watching god essays

Criticism on Their eyes were watching god essays The image of pear tree, the road, and horizon all symbolize Janies individual quest for self identity. Janie tries to look for her identity in a society both as a woman and a black person but both are neither appreciated in the white male-dominated world. The narration which Janie uses makes her strong and serves as her power for attaining and protecting the basis of African-American culture. As a woman, Janie claims her self and asserts her will to live her own life. She makes her own voice and that means she attempts the possibilities of new Black voices and new stories that reflect new realities. Janies search for inner self may well be parallel to African-Americans search for their own culture by protecting their oral traditions. It is significant that there is a lack of generation between Janie and her grandmother. Janie is brought up by her grandmother, not by her mother. The gap between two generations is so strong. Her inner voice raises first as she replaces her search for identity by the pear tree image that signifies a happy and romantic marriage. Then, her search for self identity shapes in her mind through her romantic beliefs. As Nannys death freed Janie from her snare, so Jodys death frees her from the second entrapment that makes her deal with her quest. Therefore, she becomes an active figure in planning her own life. One of the critics Missy Dehn Kubitschek asserts detailing her quest for self-discovery and self-definition, it celebrates her as an artist who enriches Eatonville by communicating her understanding The novel depicts an individual seeking an authentic place in a community. This shows, the sense of belonging to a community provides the sense of cultural and self-identity. When Janie is back in Eatonville after Tea Cakes death, s ...

How to Style Numbers

How to Style Numbers How to Style Numbers How to Style Numbers By Mark Nichol When you write a number that will appear in print or online, do you use figures, or spell it out? If you want to follow an authoritative source to produce professional-looking content, the answer is both more complicated and simpler than you think (we already covered part of this topic with the article 10 Rules for Writing Numbers and Numerals). The bible of the mainstream book-publishing industry, The Chicago Manual of Style, devotes 18 pages to the topic, while The AP Stylebook, the authority of record for newspapers, is appropriately more concise. (Various magazines generally use one style or the other, but Web sites tend toward AP style.) Other style manuals abound, but unless you’re writing for scholarly journals, you can count, so to speak, on Chicago or AP. The more formal the writing, the more likely you’ll follow Chicago style, which originally evolved from guidelines developed for the University of Chicago Press but has since been adopted by most book publishers as the authority for grammar, usage, punctuation, and, yes, numbers. The basic Chicago rule is to spell out numbers from one to one hundred but use numerals for 101 and up. But if you refer to two amounts in the same category, default to numerals. (â€Å"I found 137 mistakes, compared with only 89 last time.†) Major exceptions to the basic rule include a number as the first word in a sentence, larger round numbers (â€Å"five hundred†) and orders of magnitude (â€Å"millions,† â€Å"billions,† etc.). The point is to maintain consistency as much as possible. Technical, statistically dense text, meanwhile, is better served by numerals, so in that case use digits for physical dimensions, degrees (both of temperature and angle), scores and percentages, money, time, and other references to quantity. Newspaper style and less formal writing (and much of online content) hews closer to AP style, which derived from the rules for Associated Press newspaper articles: Spell out numbers only to ten, use numbers for 11 and up, and don’t be concerned about matching style when you refer to quantities on both sides of the tipping point. (â€Å"In a classroom poll conducted recently, only seven of 29 students agreed with that statement.†) And what about those pesky hyphens? Don’t hyphenate a physical dimension to the unit name unless those two terms modify a noun (â€Å"10 feet,† but â€Å"10-foot pole†). Hyphenate double-digit numbers by themselves and within larger numbers if they aren’t multiples of ten (â€Å"sixty-four,† â€Å"one hundred twenty-eight†), but don’t hyphenate all the elements of a large number like a chain. Simple and mixed fractions should be styled, depending on your preferred policy, either like â€Å"1/2† and â€Å"1 3/4,† or like â€Å"one-half† or â€Å"one and three-fourths.† Don’t bother setting case fractions (in which the numbers are reduced in size and placed on either side of a diagonal line); if you’re writing for a publication, the fraction will be formatted during the production stage according to its style. To establish a style for your Web site or blog, keep in mind that gurus of online content advise using numerals, which are easier to scan (and most site visitors scan before they read, if they read at all), but note that the AP rule about using numerals for numbers you can count on your fingers still applies: â€Å"1 day, I’ll see with my own 2 eyes that you can beat 3 people in a row in 4-square† is going a bit far. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Style category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:When to Capitalize Animal and Plant Names5 Lessons for Mixing Past and Present TenseWords That Begin with Q

Week 6 Discussion Personal Statement Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Week 6 Discussion - Personal Statement Example Jobs was of the view that the greater the effort and the longer the time you put out into developing something, the greater will the productivity be. In a 1996 PBS Documentary, Triumph of the Nerds, Jobs said, â€Å"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas† (Isaac, para.7). Hence, through his utilization of great ideas, he brought a revolution in the world of technology. â€Å"Start it and stick with it; change the world,† was Steve Job’s message to the world (Isaac, para.1). His most important trait was commitment to his work. He stuck with his ambition; and, due to his great efforts, now every single person has a mini-computer in his pocket in the shape of smart phone. Hence, it can be said that Steve Jobs was the most successful leader in the tech world, who invented a myriad of great devices and gadgetry through commitment and determination. He revolutionized the concept of leadership, and introduced such exquisite devices that the world will thank him for