When reading and discussion previous figures (such as Descartes, Locke, and Hume) we've articulated a distinction between "rationalism" (the position that there are some important forms of knowledge that can be acquired through reason alone) and "empiricism" (the position that all knowledge originates from sensory experience).  

Kant describes himself as an "empirical realist & transcendental idealist."  What does this mean, and where does it fit in this "rationalism"/"empiricism" debate? Should we classify Kant as a rationalist, an empiricist, or something else altogether?

Reflection Response Draft #3

     It is my opinion that when Immanuel Kant gave himself the dual roles of “empirical realist and transcendental idealist”, he was hoping to bridge a gap he felt had been left by his predecessors. Rather than taking a hard stance for either rationalism or empiricism, he was suggesting that both had philosophical merit. Kant made his views and his objectives quite clear from the outset, in his

Preamble/1: The sources of metaphysics:

“The very concept of metaphysics ensures that the sources of metaphysics can’t be empirical. If something could be

known through the senses, that would automatically show that it doesn’t belong to metaphysics... outer experience is the

source of physics properly so-called, and inner experience is the basis for empirical psychology; and metaphysical

knowledge can’t come from either of these. It is thus knowledge a priori—knowledge based on pure understanding and

pure reason”.

     So it follows that Kant is not denying empiricism/sensory input as a means of knowledge; rather he is asserting that, in order to meet the lofty goal of establishing metaphysics as a proper science, another transcendent type of knowledge must also be defined. Although Kant himself seemed to regret the confusion surrounding the term, he coined this new approach transcendental idealism (and then suggested “critical” idealism as a better alternative). In philosophy- language, and the precise definition of terms, is one of the most critical elements. I get the impression that Kant would be best understood in his native German, where compound words are common. Sometimes certain words enjoy a synergy when paired together.

     Our senses are bombarded by stimuli, from the time we're first in the womb and throughout our conscious lives. Obviously we learn from this sensory input- to avoid experiences that are painful, to find nourishment when hungry, to navigate our way through obstacles, etc. Empirical knowledge is a given; even lower animals have a database of how to interact with their environment. What Kant was pursuing was the answer to the question, “what is it inside of us that processes all this information?”

     There has to be something innate within, that intuits time, space, quantity, quality... a priori knowledge. Rejecting the convenient, blanket answer that “God” supplies this instinctual ability, Kant sought a more humanist reckoning. I used the term in my discussion post with positive response, so I will close by repeating myself in stating that Immanuel Kant was a synthesist. Recognizing the truths within two seemingly opposing schools of thought, he fused them together in the hope of establishing a more unified realm- a “theory of everything” for metaphysics.