Hmmmm...Kant and nonsense

Okay, so last time there’s a little bit about Berkeley’s idealism which simply put means all our reality is a condition of the mind; all reality is that we know is in the mind. Of course one may ask how this can be when I can touch, hear, breathe, see and think about stuffs. When I hit my head with a hammer or an ax, I get hurt and I bleed. How can all these things, our reality be in the mind when I experience things as real and as “I am in it” and I am participating in it? How can all this be in mind? Does this mean our reality is a bundle of sensation and memory, an illusion? Berkeley thought so.

So, outside the mind there is no material reality; everything is real because we perceive it and our reality is an emanation of a great all perceiving mind which Berkeley called God.  

Now Kant had a different idea for he did not think that reality is all in the mind: Kant did not doubt the existence of matter. There is a matter but a part of it is created by our perception; the mind contributes to the construction of our reality. So, there is rock, moon, sun, car, computers etc. all these things are real but part of their reality is because they are transformed into our minds into ideas. There is matter but it is our mind through our perception that gives them reality at least in the way that we know or perceive them. We know what we perceive and the manner by which we perceive them as human beings—which we cannot say for other beings because they may have other ways of perceiving things; they may have different perception of dimensions like they may perceive in two dimension, or four dimensions, or they may perceive light in the different spectrum, or they may use echo which would give them a picture of reality very different from ours.

So, what we experience is not the whole for in our way perceiving some things are lost; the whole is not fully apprehended because of the limitations imposed by our organs of perception.So, if I am perceiving an object, lets us say my guitar; I am seeing the guitar as I perceive it. And all of us, humans, because our mind are programmed to see things the way they are, we all see my guitar the way we know what a guitar is. But in perceiving or seeing the guitar, we only see what we are capable of seeing but there are some aspects of my guitar that we will never be able to perceive and know: things are not what they are before we perceive for it is our perceiving that gives them the what-they-are-ness (or the phenomenon) that we experience.

Well, anyway...

 Since science can only explore or see things through our perceptions it cannot go deeper beyond the surface or things: it cannot prove into the things-in-itself because no matter how sophisticated our scientific instruments and apparatus, they are still limited by our perception and the way our minds process this information and according Kant, and other philosophers too, this deeper-into-things is where philosophy comes in to explore and to delve into.

How about theology? Religion cannot be proved by theoretical reason by using finite categories; and, If I may say so, language is finite and arbitrary and if come things are lost through our perceptions how much more with symbols especially written language. We cannot apply finite categories into the world of  the unknowable.

Anyway...just thinking.