Kant vs Descartes

Thing in ItselfRene Descartes method of doubt provides the argument for the worldly concern of the estimation, which is, perhaps, the cornerst one and only(a) of his philosophy. Immanuel Kant, on the another(prenominal) hand, treats former or rationality as a crucial incidentor in his philosophical accounts. With regard to Descartes, the purpose of the affair in itself gouge be analyzed in footing of his method of high-flown doubt, such that he cannot doubt that he exists. As for Kant, the fancy of the thing in itself can best be soundless in foothold of his treatment on the distinction between the noumenal or rational world and the spatiotemporal world.Descartes method of doubt tells us that the notwithstanding thing that an individual can be sure of is his origination, such that the position that one can begin to doubt ones existence is proof that there must be that something which doubts. Given that there is a looming doubt, it cannot be questioned that there is ind eed something that doubts, and that doubting thing is a thinking thing. At the least, the attribute of being able to doubt makes Descartes to suppose that he exists for if he did not then he would not discombobulate doubted his existence in the first place (Garber, p. 226).As a result, Descartes puts primary strain to the mind such that our centripetal(a) perceptions cannot wholly provide us with authentic knowledge. For instance, Descartes provides his classic showcase of the wax. A wax has a certain size, shape, grain and odor among many others. After the wax is melted, Descartes tells us that many of the natural properties of the wax as observed by our sensory perceptions have changed. Thus, our senses cannot make pass us the assurance of the essence of the wax, or of things in general. It is at that drive that Descartes believes that the deductive mind should be the basis for our inquiries on the essence of objects.Hence, it can be verbalise that the concept of the t hing in itself in terms of Descartes philosophy stands as something which occupys that there is a material, external world away of the mind. Things by themselves, then, would be as they are whether or not the mind is able to grasp these external entities. Descartes is besides known for his belief in the mind and body dualism, such that the mind is a separate entity from the unanimous or physical body. In its entirety, it can be tell that Descartes is espousing the estimate that the thing in itself is one which is in the external world, although it can also be the thinking thing, or the mind. As for the objects external from the mind, these objects are things in themselves for the reason that the mind is able to strike knowledge through them, specifically through a deductive inquiry into their nature and essence.Immanuel Kant, on the other hand, espouses the idea of thing-in-itself as synonymous with the thing in itself, which is that the noumenal nation is the realm which is not accessible precisely because of the limits of the rationality. From here, it can be said that Kant acknowledges that there are indeed things in themselves only that human reason is unable to completely grasp these things in themselves in the noumenal realm. Kants noumenon is to be distinguished with his concept of the phenomenon. On one hand, the phenomenon is that which is grasped by our sensory perceptions or that which is sensed. On the other hand, the noumenon is the real(a) object which gives the perceived phenomenon (Clarke, p. 55).In order to make the distinction clearer, one can resort to the example of, say, the object draw. In terms of Kants philosophy, the actual pencil is the actual object and the essence of the actual pencil cannot be grasped up to now through our reason and sensory perceptions. On the contrary, what we can only be able to grasp is the phenomenon that emanates from the actual pencil. That is, our senses are only able to acquire the various at tributes of the actual pencil such as size, color, shape and metric grain among many others. We are never able to grasp the essence of the actual pencil, only the properties or the phenomenon that come from it.The contrast between Kant and Descartes treatment of the thing in itself resides on their basis for which upon the thing in itself can be accessed. Apparently, both Kant and Descartes give a substantial consideration for the mind or reason in trying to understand the material world and the alight of the objects as things in themselves. Thus, once the mind or reason is divest of its role in discerning the objects around it, or if the mind or reason is removed from the task of contemplating the thing in itself, there is unattackable reason to believe, as far as Kant and Descartes are concerned, that any perspiration to philosophize about these things would be futile.More importantly, the distinction between Kant and Descartes resides on the fact that Kant is inclined to bel ieve that we cannot enti deposit comprehend the essence of any thing in itself and that only the phenomenon can be accessed by reason and our sensory perceptions. On the other hand, Descartes does not explicitly make a claim denying the reason of the ability to comprehend the essence of objects. On the contrary, Descartes tells us that we should rely on the deductive process through the minds in our quest for soul the world of objects and less on the sensory perceptions for they may simply give us a limited account of the world.In conclusion, it can be said that the distinction between Kant and Descartes in terms of their take on the concept of the thing in itself differs solely on whether or not the noumenon or the actual objects are accessible. Both Kant and Descartes agree on the substantial function and purpose of reason in discerning the world or at least the thinking thing in the words of Descartes. Without the mind, one can hardly arrive at a substantial prospect on the wor ld, or that there can be no hyperbolic doubting to begin with. The use of the mind is significant in both the philosophies of Kant and Descartes, especially in their analysis of the concept of the thing in itself.Works CitedGarber, Daniel. Descartes and rule in 1637. PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of knowledge Association 2 (1988) 226.Clarke, Michael. Kants Rhetoric of Enlightenmentkants Rhetoric of Enlightenment. The Review of Politics 59.1 (1997) 55.