I answer that, in philosophy there are two main positions regarding the principle of all science. These positions are called rationalism and empiricism. Rationalists believe that all knowledge is “innate”, or is there when one is born, and is learned by intuition. On the other hand, empiricists believe that all knowledge is through direct experience. In this booklet I will explain each position, its strengths and weaknesses, and how Kant discovered that there is an alternative to these positions. I defend this purpose in this essay, which can be a knowledge of both places.
According to the rationalists (such as Descartes) all knowledge must proceed from the mind. Rationalism revolves around absolute universal truths (such as logic and mathematics), which is one of the strengths of this position. The weakness lies in the fact that it is difficult to apply rationalism to individuals (which are everywhere in our lives) because such is its abstract nature.
According to Empiricists, such as John Locke, all knowledge arises from direct sense experience. Locke’s concept of knowledge comes from the fact that the mind is a “blank slate or rose slate” at birth, and our experiences are written on the slate. Therefore there are no innate experiences. The strength of the empirical site is mainly to explain the details that we encounter every day. The weakness of this position is that it cannot have direct experiences of general concepts, since we only experience particulars.
Realizing that rationalism and empiricism have opposing strengths and weaknesses, Kant tried to bring together the best of both positions. When he does this, he arrives at a whole new position, which I will explain shortly.
Kant posited 3 types of knowledge. He called the first type of knowledge “a priori,” that is, before experience. This knowledge corresponds to the knowledge of the rationalist, because he has knowledge without experience. Prior knowledge is also necessary and universal, meaning that it is true everywhere. Examples of prior knowledge are concepts such as space, time, and matter. Analytic sentences (in which the predicate is used in the definition of the subject) also fall under this category, because they are always true. However, Kant says that they are “moderately true” because analytic statements tell us what we already know. For example: “The four sides of a square” is analytic, because it is true; but the fact that a square has four sides is evident because it is included in the definition of a square, so it is light.
The second type of knowledge Kant called “a posteriori”, which means after experience. A posteriori knowledge corresponds to empirical philosophy, because this knowledge is about contingent direct experience, which cannot be certain. Later knowledge is associated with synthetic propositions (where the predicate adds something to the subject), which presents new information, but is not necessary. An example of the latter sentence is “the sweater is green.” Green sweaters are not born, so a sweater of another color is still a sweater. In other words, a green character is not necessary to have a sweater.
Kant thought that if someone could come up with a statement that was both necessary and synthetic, it would not be trivial, yet still provide new information. By thus combining the virtues of the former knowledge and the latter knowledge (omitting the weaknesses), Kant arrived at “synthetic a priori constitutions”.
Kant used a mathematical model to elaborate the synthetic statements above. The statement 7 + 5 = 12 is a simple mathematical problem that misleads people into believing that it is an analytic statement because it deals with mathematics (which is a rational, universal concept). He might assume that he knows the answer intuitively, that he thought of answer 12, immediately. But the number 12 is not within 7 or 5 only. But we must know about the understanding of addition to the total of twelve. Therefore it is not analytic. It is easier to see by adding many more numbers, such as 8557 and 23372067. If these were analytic, I would intuitively know the answer as easily as I came up with the answer of 12 in the last problem. But since the answer is not contained in summed numbers, this concept is synthetic and also provides new information.
Finally, Kant recognized the strengths and weaknesses associated with each type of knowledge and came up with a new type of knowledge that could overcome these weaknesses. That is, science does not have to choose either side.
