ComPare and Contrast Kants and Platos Ontology/ Epistomology

  • Thread starter Thread starter claymcdermott
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Plato believes that you can know something besides appearances, kant does not. I would like to hear a discussion between them about whether space and time are in the human mind instead of out there
 
Right, Kant thinks that because you cannot truly access the thing itself with your senses, that you cannot truly know it, while Plato believes that because of the mind you can.

But yeah, your last sentence is kinda why I started the thread. Any takers on what their positions would be based on stuff they have said
 
I think Kant’s idea of time and space wasn’t considered in Greece at that time
 
Right, I suppose I should rephrase, what would a modern day Platonist and a modern day Kantian say
 
I think Plato’s Divided Line, the Allegory of the Cave, and the Myth of Er sums up Plato’s beliefs about ontology and epistemology in broad strokes. He’s a rationalist. His main ontological theory is his Forms.

Kant is not a rationalist, but he bridges the rationalism and empiricism of the day. He admitted we’re rational creatures, but require our sense perceptions, as well. It’s been awhile since I’ve read Kant directly but if memory serves he didn’t have much use for metaphysics in general.

The main point of disagreement between Plato and Kant, I think, would be the rationalism/empiricism fight. Plato believes the best and true knowledge can’t come from perceptions.

Anyway, there’s some ramblings from memory. I might brush up and take another pass.
 
I think a big issue would stem from the rational empirical thing.

For Kant, space and time are imposed on the world by us because we have synthetic knowledge of what he considers to be a priori things about them.

plato would seem to me to get around this by saying that any a priori knowledge about the external world is something that should not shock us. We kinda know lots of stuff about the world a priori.

Thoughts?
 
Of course, would Plato therefore say that space and time were real, or had forms themselves
 
Kant believes that the foundation of arithmetic is our intuition of the passage of time, and the foundation of geometry is our intuition of space.

Kant criticisms Leibniz’ relational view of space. But he also criticizes Newton’s substantivalist view of space. Kant views space as an a priori intuition, not an empirical one.

Transcendentalism is hard to discuss :confused: Kant’s views are notoriously convoluted.
 
In factor analysis, the idea of multidimensional phenomena comes into play.

In our rational approach to mathematics, we say that the dimensions are length, height, depth, and time.

But in factor analysis, each factor is described as a dimension, and there may be many of them. We are in a sense inventing mental constructs for the purpose of grasping factors which come into play in analyzing a process.

This factor analysis technique is used to detect possible independent influences on a psychological profile. The technique is also used in the study of sociology. Identification of clusters in a continuum that defies separation into categories involves using factor analysis.

Whether there are actual independent factors which determine personality profiles often depends on identifying them. The first step is to determine how many there are. The next step is to define them.

When I was teaching, I graded on the curve, assigning letter grades, A, B, C, D & F. The boundary between each of these letter grades was determined arbitrarily, with no concrete way to distinguish one grade from another. There was no natural breakpoint but using any other technique was too cumbersome.
 
I never responded to some of these because school got crazy busy, but thanks everyone; you all had worthwhile contributions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top