not to the exact experience, but rather the act of experiencing. He questions whether we are innately prone to see things in a certain way. Although he concedes that anything we know about the object we are seeing is posteriori (learned from experience) he goes one step further to assert that the actual act of seeing- how we see- is a form in itself. This conclusion brings him to his next step- the consistencies in what we see. Although such descriptive words such as color, shape or function can change from one person's experience to the next, every experience has both a space and a time. No matter who we are and what lives we lead everything must have a spatial and temporal origin. Furthermore, Kant also delves into Hume critique of the cause and effect relationship. Unlike Hume, Kant believes that everything must have a cause and an effect. The theory of cause and effect is our attempt to organize and make sense of what is given to us through sensibility (spatially and temporally). It is through this that Kant concludes that general metaphysics is possible. Here Kant encounters a problem in his theories on metaphysics and the repercussions on his thoughts about sensibility. Spatial and temporal indicators only present the world in terms of human understanding but Kant is aware that there is a world that exists outside of this. He applies matters of faith to believe in things as they are in themselves, but he cannot explain them fully through science. He admits that there is a world that exists independently of our experience, but we also have a need to process things spatially and temporally, so the two can not exist together. He identifies this with his theories of phenomena and noumena. Phenomena explains the way we see things; how the world appears to us, while noumena explains the more abstract theory of the world outside of our structures and functions. Finally, Kant reaches the conclusion that certain types of m...
