To Kant the intuition and understanding are inseparable because when you just have understanding without intuition then it is just emptiness and the vice versa of that is blindness. This is because when one just has understandings, or concepts, one has nothing to remember that object by and therefore the experience would be fresh and new each time. Now, if one has only intuition but no understanding then there is no possible way to differentiate the sense data and there is also no organization of it in one’s mind. The imagination connects the intuition to the understanding. It does the sorting and organizing needed for Kant’s theory of experience to work. With all three of these one will be able to make sense and attach meaning to anything one comes in contact with.
Descartes would wholly disagree with Kant because he sets aside the sense perception because it can be deceiving in three ways: an evil genius is making you think this, the various states of consciousness, and the senses are not credible bases for certainty. Descartes relies on reason as the main formula for experience. He uses wax as an example to show that reason alone is how one experience’s objects. Seeing how the wax’s properties change, it was solid then turned to liquid, when put near fire. Descartes deduces from this that only he can exist and all objects rely on him to exist. He gains this when he decides that he can only comprehend the wax intellectually and that it can’t tell us whether the liquid the wax melted into and solid wax are one in the same. This proves to Descartes that the senses are not to be trusted and that they do not give enough information as the mind can provide.
THIS IS THE QUESTION:
Kant argues that the understanding and the intuition are necessary for experience. What does he mean by this? Why are both necessary? After explaining Kant's general position on experience, take either Descartes' or Hume's position, and show why they would argue Kant is mistaken about his metaphysical account of experience. Finally, how do you assess the tension between these two positions? Do you think one better answers what constitutes experience? If so, in what ways do you find his position compelling (i.e. what good arguments are given). If not, why not? If neither is satisfactory to you, give at least two reasons why and briefly propose your alternative metaphysical picture that will solve the epistemological reasons to support the conclusion you reach (i.e. make an argument for your position).
