Kant: Metaphysical Exposition of Space Essay -- Space Kant Philosophy

Kant Metaphysical Exposition of SpaceExplain and asses what you think to be the best argument Kant gives as his Metaphysical Exposition of Space (B37-40) that space cannot be either and actual entity (Newtonian pattern) or whatever independent coition among literal things (Leibnizian concepti be on). In early(a) words, is he successful in arguing that space must be (at least) a form of intuition? Do any of his arguments further show that space must be ONLY a form of intuition and not ALSO something Newtonian or Leibnizian?In his Metaphysical Exposition of Space, Kant attempts to show that the experience of space is just a form of intuition. Kant defines space as that of which we sense out side of us, in resemblance to our mind, which is our inner sense. This outer sense of space, he claims, is known save to us because we have a intuitive sense of there being space in the first place. Kant asserts this argument in direct response to two other claims about the nature of space. T he Newtonian concept of space holds that space is an entity existing in its own right, with objects merely being in it. The Leibnizian concept of space however holds the opposite, space doesnt really exist and is just a relation created between existing objects. Kant believes both concepts are wrong and claims that to first know about objects in space, we must have some deeper knowledge of space to throw them in space. He further tries to claim that space is only a form of intuition and not just the foundation to support either of the other two concepts. Kant presents some strong points showing the faults in the other concepts and provides a reason alternative to what makes the nature of space. However his concept too, that space is known only by means of intuition, also isnt as strong as it should be. It appears that space may be known through intuition from an individual perspective, but on closer investigation, taking in all forms of life and evolution, where did this pre wired intuition of space have its start? Kants concept of space seems to be healthful grounded in some areas and not in others.Kants definition of space helps him prove that the concept of space is a form of intuition. Space, he holds, is everything that is sensed distant of us. The mind is the inner sense and everything else is in space. We then represent objects in that space, where they are interpreted as having s... ... our senses where telling us by putting them into the concept of space, why would we evolve senses at all? Surely we wouldnt have eyes and ears ect. If we evolved not needing or using them. So does every animal that has the said(prenominal) sensors as us have the same intuition of space as we do? This idea seems to be begging the question what came first the intuition of space, or the senses and the ability to perceive it? For one seems to be seems to be surely useless with out the other. Kants concept seems to work if we just look at a snap shot of the world funct ioning today, however it does not satisfy how the world got to be the way it is. Perhaps this is not goal he was lacking(p) to achieve, but for his concept to hold these questions of evolution need to be answered. Kants claims show the faults in past concepts, however his concepts is not total solid just either.Kant resolves some issues, but then raises some more. It seems now that we cant take for granted what we all assume that we learn about space through experience, and it seems too that space exists in its own right. Kant seems to make this clear, he does not however clearly prove that space is known by intuition alone.