Originally Posted by stephanie
One of the crucial issues is how we can know things -- or if we can. For Kant (and this is super simplistic), we can't know things in themselves, as our understanding of everything can't be separated from what our minds bring to it -- space and time contributed by our minds, for example, yet they are essential to how we see things. He argues (contrary to Hume) that these are not learned empirically, but are inherent to our minds. (Hume had said we can’t learn from reason, that all ideas are acquired from the senses, from experience, and that’s where I thought you were going.) Kant wanted to rescue us from this and the resulting conclusions, and in particular to establish a basis for laws of nature, for a priori truths, for universal claims.
Thanks, that helps. For me, if organisms can "know" something then that implies there's an evolutionary purpose for knowing. I see that evolutionary purpose as facilitating organisms with brains in their production of survival enhancing behavior.