While Hume was more concerned with human nature and reason, Locke focused on the results, or knowledge, that science was uncovering at the time. Locke believed that science already had a solid foundation by which to build on, while Hume questioned this underlying structure and sought to find out exactly what this knowledge was. Further, Hume did not agree with Locke’s view of an innate ability to reason; Hume took the ‘blank slate at birth’ contention to its extreme arguing that even the ability to reason is acquired through experience. Finally, Locke’s argument for the existence of God is markedly different than that of Hume’s. Locke contends that because he (Locke) exists, and he could not have come into existence out of nothing, then something must have produced him. This something, Locke claims, can be one of three things: eternal, self-caused, or random; Locke settles on an eternal being, or God, after arguing that the last two are irrational. Contrastingly, Hume stays grounded in his empiricism, arguing that the knowledge of what created him can only come from experience rather than inference, and since this experience is lacking, God’s existence is insolvable.
GROUP 4
16. Explain why the possibility of synthetic a priori judgements is so important for Kant.
According to Kant, there are many different types of judgements,
…show more content…
What are the “a priori forms of our intuitions”? What is their role in the possibility of knowledge?
According to Kant, space and time are a priori forms of our intuition, or, in other words, they are the purest forms of human understanding, prior to experience. These forms are what makes our experience possible, therefore, according to Kant, it is only through the presupposition of these pure intuitions that knowledge can be possible since all human experience must yield to three-dimensional space and as well as the one-way direction of time.
18. Why does Kant say that we must be able to think, if not to know, things in