However, these two metaphors did not produce a satisfactory theory. Firstly, these two metaphors were just metaphors and did not lay out a set of theories. They only made one metaphor, which is the first problem.
Secondly, his explanation of our mastery of form is also problematic.
Before I was born, I already had that thing in my mind. I just used the validity of earlier time to explain the form, and now the causal validity, because I already know it. I can use it to distinguish things in front of me, but you haven't explained clearly how ideas interact with us. You just said that I had it earlier, and now I can recognize it. But the problem is how there was such a good form in the ideal country earlier. It was not mentioned that the validity of other ideas was explained by the validity of the form of the good idea, because after all, using the good idea, many other ideas are not good ideas. It is difficult for us to understand a good idea. How can he explain all the ideas such as triangles, circles, evil ideas, or any relative ideas, because he can explain all the ideas in the world, and the problem is not clear.
There's no way to explain it either. Later, in Neoplatonism, Neoplatonists adopted the theory of overflow to solve the problem of dualism between ideas and humans. Liuyi said that in the beginning, there was Tao, and first there was Tai Yi. Taiyi is like water, like the water of the Yellow River rising from the sky. It is an absolute perfection that will constantly overflow. Tai Yi, or the capital one, what does overflow produce?
Nuse, It's the soul.
The soul flows out of reason again, and reason flows out further, giving rise to the soul, which further descends. Since all things originate from the same source, Neoplatonic Plotinus used this method to prove that since they originate from the same source, they don't matter, because you only propose how we interact with form, and that the problem of arising from the same source can be eliminated.
Of course, we may feel that the solution is too simple. Just by coming from the same source, we can be completely the same and understand each other. This is obviously not right. Obviously, there is no difficulty in changing the problem. It is impossible for a parent to have four or five children, and these four or five brothers and sisters can say that they think the same thing about each other.
Of course, it's also a metaphorical statement. Even if it's such an overflow statement and it doesn't solve the problem, how can I say it?
Just speaking of Kant, he really wants to solve the problems left over thousands of years from the root, which is a very important issue.
Firstly, most of us present here would probably know and agree on this point. The reason why we are able to understand things is twofold: firstly, the things are indeed there, and secondly, we have some conceptual knowledge about them. I think 98% of those present here, I think at least 90%, would agree with these two conditions. Without one, we cannot have knowledge. Without one, we cannot talk about human knowledge, but the problem remains unsolved.
Later on, Augustin solved stress by going beyond the original theory. However, in Plato's understanding of the problem, he adopted the ideal solution of using God to represent the idea of goodness. But the question is, why is the form of goodness more causally effective than other forms? Augustine said, 'If I change goodness to God, there won't be any problem.'.
Because of the effectiveness of causality, it is not a problem for God. According to Christian doctrine, God is omnipotent and omnipotent. Don't ask why. He can do anything. For Plato's theory, the problem of causality is problematic for him, but for my theory, there is no such problem, and what does he think is form?
Form is the concept in God's heart, why do we grasp work? Because we have received God's revelation, God's revelation is like Plato's good sun. He illuminates us all at once, he enlightens us, and we grasp these forms. Through him, we can understand the world.
In fact, why can we grasp the world through the forms we know? He said that forms reflect the principles of God's creation of the world, and God reveals these principles to us through his divine light. Once we grasp them, we can naturally understand the world. This is Augustine's solution.
Let's go back to Kant. Kant believed that within the framework of Plato's theory, difficulties cannot be solved. He divided philosophers before him into two types: dogmatists and skeptics. Dogmatists, such as Leibniz and Descartes, were called dogmatists. Dogmatism has three principles.
The first principle is realism. God's things are real, and human thought can discover the essence of objective reality. This is the first principle.
The second principle is the principle of transcendence. Hume believed that it is impossible for our true knowledge and human cognitive abilities to surpass experience and reach the realm of super experience. However, dogmatists believe that we can go beyond our own experience to reach the realm of transcendent experience, and that things themselves are known.
The third theory. Why can we go beyond experience, because we have reason.
In fact, Kant's dogmatists mainly refer to our rationalists and skeptics in Western philosophy.
Another group of people, he gave an example, you have to say like Descartes. He believes in God, who guarantees the authenticity of our innate judgments, because God exists and is all good. He does not deceive people. As an inner thinker, I use the clear and explicit form of thought in my mind for our thoughts, for the reality outside of our thoughts. However, the problem is that if the reality itself is wrong, if our minds cannot discover the essence of objective reality, why should we expect to be used for reality? Reality is reliable, and how can we say that He has it? Is Kant's concept of the thing in itself real.
If it is wrong, if realism is wrong, if reality is wrong, then transcendence is also problematic. This is a problem of realism, and another group of people who are skeptical undoubtedly refer to Hume and the three principles. The first principle of skepticism, tit for tat, and reductionism is that there is no objective reality. Our knowledge about objects is actually about the support of our senses. What we recognize is not the thing itself, but only the perception of some of our senses. Our knowledge is not about the objective world, but only about our sensory perception.
This is the first point, the first principle of skeptics. The second principle is internalization. Internality, we can only recognize what we feel and experience, and cannot go beyond experience, which is called the consciousness of internalization. We cannot have external knowledge, we can only have experience and internal knowledge.
The third one is empiricism. Empiricism also faces difficulties. If dogmatism makes our knowledge too arbitrary, there is an objective world that we can understand. The question of skepticism and the existence of objective knowledge are both problematic.
What is Kant's position on critical philosophy?
We cannot even simply say that Kant took a middle ground between these two positions. He took both sides, criticized both sides, affirmed both sides, and denied both sides. This is a hallmark of great philosophers.
He will always be what Hegel meant by the concept of sublation, capable of affirming many reasonable things, but at the same time, he will also have a negation of their fundamental principles.
Kant's skepticism is that we can only know what we experience, and what is beyond experience is unknowable. This is where Kant supports skepticism, while Kant supports the notion that reason is the basis of our true knowledge. Our knowledge is actually our construction, and it is where he agrees to accept rationalism.
Kant transcended the difference between realism and subjectivism, believing that in a certain sense, each of them can be incorrect. His theory distinguishes between phenomena and ontologies, and how Kant synthesizes dogmatism and skepticism through his dualism?
This idea needs to be thought out clearly. Kant and his predecessors are some of the fundamental relationships of modern philosophy, which are critically inherited and developed. Speak clearly, think clearly. What does this mean?
Comprehensively squeezing together without principles. Dogmatism, in affirming the possibility of knowledge of an object, even affirming its innate knowledge, is undoubtedly considered correct by Kant.
Where is the correct place for skepticism?
He is correct in limiting knowledge to the domain of experience, and knowledge cannot go beyond the domain of experience. Both have their own correct aspects, but what is the common mistake between the two?
Misunderstanding the positioning of experiential objects, thinking that they themselves are what they display to us, without seeing our subjective construction factors mixed in with experience, is a common problem of skepticism and dogmatism.
Kant actually looked at experience in this way. On the surface, these seem to be two completely different positions, but they wrote that their common mistake is based on the premise that there is a sentence about naked experience. Experience exists, and there is no subjective construction factor mixed into it. This is what Kant is not satisfied with. He believes that these are their two common mistakes here. Common mistake is the so-called belief that there is no naked experience.
Kant believed that the phenomenal world is both sensory and knowable, while the ontological world is neither. He is neither sensory nor unknowable, which is Kant's viewpoint. Therefore, skepticism is wrong for phenomena because skeptics believe that we cannot have knowledge about objects, while Kant said that there is knowledge. Skeptics are wrong in this regard, but our knowledge is knowledge of phenomena, not ontology. Skepticism thus denies all knowledge, which is wrong. However, we can have innate knowledge about empirical objects. What is innate knowledge, we will talk about later.
