Nov 30, 2012

SPACE AND TIME _ By Marsigit





SPACE AND TIME
By Marsigit, Yogyakarta State University
Email: marsigitina@yahoo.com


Subjective Conditions of Sensation

Ross, K.L., 2001, exposed that Kant proposes that space and time do not really exist outside of us but are "forms of intuition," i.e. conditions of perception, imposed by our own minds. This enables him to reconcile Newton and Leibniz: agreeing with Newton that space is absolute and real for objects in experience, i.e. for phenomenal objects open to science, but agreeing with Leibniz that space is really nothing in terms of objects as they exist apart from us, i.e. with things in themselves. The bulk of Kant's exposition on time and space in relation to sensory perception can be found in the opening pages of The Critique of Pure Reason (1781) (Gottfried, P., 1987). He said that in the first part of the Critique, the "Transcendental Aesthetic," for the most detailed treatment of time and space as the a priori condition for cognition; in this section Kant examines time and space as universal forms of intuition that help render sensory impressions intelligible to the human mind.

Gottfried, P., 1987 noted from Kant that although the forms of time and space are "subjective conditions of sensation" and depend for their appearance on perceptual activity, they are nonetheless characterized as being a priori: antecedent to the specific sensations for which they provide a conceptual frame.  He elaborated that Kant intended the Critique to furnish a "transcendental" analysis of the structure and operation of the mind as revealed in sensory and other judgmental activities; since he was exploring the subjective, but non empirical basis of perception, his "transcendental" analysis treated the mental apparatus underlying sensory consciousness. He then stated that space and time seemed to be part of it, and Kant offered several arguments for each one to prove that its cognitive role was both constant and universal.

Werke, [1]referred to Kant stated that time existed as a "subjective condition" of perception, "not for itself or as an objective quality in things"; to conceive of time as something objective would require its presence in things which were not objects of perception; however, since time and space were only knowable as the a priori forms of intuition, any other assumption about them, apart from this context, could not be substantiated. Further, Gottfried, P., (1987) explained, based on Kant’s views,  that “time” was also "the form of our inner sense, of our intuition of ourselves and of our own inner situation; belonging neither to any pattern nor place, it determined the relationship of perceptions within our inner situation. He excerpted Werke,, " Because this "inner intuition" as such assumed no shaper, it had to be imagined "by analogy… by positing succession through a line extending ad infinitum in which sensory impressions form a uni-dimensional sequence and by generalizing from the attributes of this line to those of time itself."; and it was concluded that time was to be seen "as the formal a priori condition for all appearance."; whereas space remained the "pure form of al outward intuition," time supplied the subject with an inward orientation essential for perceptual relations.

Shabel, L., 2003, further noted that Kant argues that the structure for the a posteriori representations we receive from sensation must itself be a priori; this leads him to the science of a priori sensibility, which suggests that our capacity to receive representations of objects includes a capacity to receive representations of the a priori form of objects. Accordingly, since space is one of two such a priori forms, a priori sensibility includes a capacity to receive pure representations of space. She elaborated that Kant's claim that our concept of space contains a pure intuition in itself... [and thus] can be constructed': the concept of space provides us with a `principle' for performing constructions in pure intuition, in particular, a priori constructions of basic spatial regions that exhibit particular basic spatial concepts.

Werke, 4:33 in Gottfried, P., (1987) stated that Kant denied to time, as well as to space, an "absolute reality," maintaining that outside of its cognitive function "time is nothing."; unlike Dinge an sich (things in themselves) that might exist independently of man's apparatus of perception, both time and space could be evoked only "in relation to appearance:" that is, only in relation to the world as it appeared to our senses. Further, he concluded that the "objective validity" of time and space was limited to the regularity of their relationship to sensation, yet within this limited framework their activity was constant and predictable. Therefore, he ultimately stated that  "The reality of space and time," wrote Kant, "leaves the certainty of sensory knowledge unchallenged; for we can be equally sure of it whether forms inhere in things in themselves or in the intuitions of those things; on the other hand, those who assert the absolute reality of space and time, whether they are posited as coexisting or inherent, are at variance with the principles of experience".

Kant delivered his explanation to clarify distinction between appearance and illusion, a verworrene Vorstellung (confused representation) of reality (Gottfried, P., 1987)[2] as:
“When I say that in space and time intuition represents both external objects and the self-intuition of the mind, as it affects our senses and as it appears, that does not man that such objects are a mere illusion; for in appearance objects, along with the situations assigned to them, are always seen as truly given, providing that their situation depends upon the subject's mode of intuition: providing that the object as appearance is distinguished from an object in itself. Thus I need not say that body simply seems to be outside of me…. when I assert that the quality space and time… lies in my mode of intuition and not in objects in themselves”

Metaphysical Exposition of the Concept of Space

According to Kant, a pure concept of space warrants and constrains intuitions of finite regions of space; that is, an a priori conceptual representation of space provides a governing principle for all spatial construction, which is necessary for mathematical demonstration as Kant understood it (Shabel, L., 2003). She, then  remembered that from a partial account of the task of Kant's `Metaphysical Exposition of the Concept of Space', which is itself the first task of the Transcendental Aesthetic; and therefore, as already noted, the Aesthetic is meant to constitute, from Kant `a science of all principles of a priori sensibility', and begins with an investigation of space, which Kant rather unhelpfully identifies as one of `two pure forms of sensible intuition as principles of a priori cognition'.[3] On these suppositions, the concept of space would be indistinguishable from what Kant calls `the general concept of spaces in general', presumably that concept `which is common to a foot as well as an ell'. But Kant explicitly states that such a general concept itself rests on limitations of space  and cannot itself be the source of the boundlessness of space .

Thus, an exposition of such a `general concept of spaces in general' could not be expected to satisfy Kant's goals in the Transcendental Aesthetic (Shabel, L., 2003). She concerned with Kant's identification of a concept of space that is strictly identical neither to a general concept of spaces in general, nor to any particular intuition.[4]  Gottfried, P., 1987 also indicated that, as Kant submitted, space could not be an "empirical concept," since its representation was necessary, based on Werke, 58 claims,   "to relate impressions to something outside of me (to some point other than where I stand), and to perceive them not separately but actually in different places"; moreover, unlike a concept that simply restricted associations, space admitted of an unlimited possibility of application (an unendliche gegebene Grosse, of "infinite given magnitude).[5] 

According to Kant, concepts are not singular, nor can they contain infinitely many parts; thus, space is represented in intuition and it seems equally impossible to intuit a single infinitely large object. Therefore, according to Kant's, this would require that we be able to form an immediate (unmediated) representation of an infinite spatial magnitude, that we grasp its infinitude in a single `glance', as it were (Shabel, L., 2003). So, Kant uses the Metaphysical Exposition, at least in part, to describe the pure spatial intuition that underlies any and all geometric procedures, but he does not use properly geometric procedures to describe that intuition. While cognition of the `axioms' of geometry depends, in some sense, on our having a capacity for pure spatial intuition, that capacity cannot itself be described as a capacity for geometric reasoning. So, our capacity for pure spatial intuition, described in the Metaphysical Exposition, is pre-geometric in the sense that it is independent of and presupposed by Euclidean reasoning.

Schematism

Kant claimed that there is only one way in which a mediating element can be discovered, that is, by examining the single element which is present in all appearances, but at the same time is capable of being conceptualized that is “time”. According to him, we must therefore discover various ways of thinking of time, and if we can discover the ways in which this must be done, we can say that they both conform to the conditions of thought and are present in all appearances. Kant calls these conceptualizations of time "schemata"; he then found four fundamental modes of thinking time, one corresponding to each of the basic divisions of categories that are time-series, time-content, time-order, and the scope of time.[6]

Kant claimed that as a one-dimensional object, time is essentially successive that is one moment follows another; and in order to think time as a succession,  we must generate the time-series that is we must think one moment as following another. Kant suggested that at each point of the series up to that point; therefore, we always think time as a magnitude. Accordingly, since the categories of quantity are those of unity, plurality and totality, we can say that they apply to appearances in that all appearances must be thought as existing within a specific time- span which can be thought as momentary that is as a series of time spans or as the completion of a series of time spans. On the other hand, Kant insisted that we can think of a given time as either empty or full; in order to represent objects in time we must resort to sensation, so that in thinking a time we must always ask whether that time is filled up. Thus the schema of quality is the filling of time; it would be natural to assume that the question whether-a time is full admits of a simple answer of yes or no. However, Kant claimed that reality and negation must be conceived as two extremes or limits, between which exist infinitely many degrees; he called these degrees as "intensive magnitudes"[7]

Kant also claimed that schemata for the categories of relation are treated separately because the relational categories treat them in respect to one another and that time considered of it-self is successive but not simultaneous, and space is simultaneous but not successive. Kant, therefore noted to think objects in a time-order: as enduring through a number of times that is that of the permanence of substance, as "abiding while all else changes"; as in one state of affairs which succeeds another that is we think the states of substances as occupying a succession of times, in accordance with a rule; and as co-existing that is the schema of reciprocity or mutual simultaneous interaction.[8]

Meanwhile, Kant insisted that time is supposed to relate objects, not to one another, but to the understanding that is, we can think an object in one of three ways: as occupying some time or other, without specifying what part of time that is the schema of possibility in which we can think an object as possible in so far as we can think it as occupying some time or other, whether or not it actually occupies it; as existing in some definite time that is the schema of actuality in which we think an object as actual when we claim that it exists in some specific part of time; and as existing at all times that is the schema of necessity in which an object is thought as being necessary if it is something which we must represent as occupying all times, in other words, that we could not think of a time which does not contain that object.[9]


Kant’s Antinomies of Space and Time

Kant's Antinomies are intended to show that contradictory metaphysical absolutes can be argued and justified with equal force, meaning that neither can actually be proven. It can be argued however, that Einstein answered Kant by proposing a non-Euclidean (Riemannian) universe that is finite but unbounded (i.e. without an edge).


KANT’S CONCEPTS OF SPACE AND TIME

Kant's Antinomy of Space and Time is the first of Kant’s four Antinomies.

Thesis
Antithesis
The world has a beginning in time, and is also limited as regards space.
The world has no beginning, and no limits in space; it is infinite as regards both time and space.
Proof
Proof
If we assume that the world has no beginning in time, then up to every given moment an eternity has elapsed, and there has passed away in that world an infinite series of successive states of things. Now the infinity of a series consists in the fact that it can never be completed through successive synthesis. It thus follows that it is impossible for an infinite world-series to have passed away, and that a beginning of the world is therefore a necessary condition of the world's existence. This was the first point that called for proof. As regards the second point, let us again assume the opposite, namely, that the world is an infinite given whole of co-existing things. Now the magnitude of a quantum which is not given in intuition [i.e. perception] as within certain limits, can be thought only through the synthesis of its parts, and the totality of such a quantum only through a synthesis that is brought to completion through repeated addition of unit to unit. In order, therefore, to think, as a whole, the world which fills all spaces, the successive synthesis of the parts of an infinite world must be viewed as completed, that is, an infinite time must be viewed as having elapsed in the enumeration of all co-existing things. This, however, is impossible. An infinite aggregate of actual things cannot therefore be viewed as a given whole, nor consequently as simultaneously given. The world is, therefore, as regards extension in space, not infinite, but is enclosed within limits. This was the second point in dispute.
For let us assume that it has a beginning. Since the beginning is an existence which is preceded by a time in which the thing is not, there must have been a preceding time in which the world was not, i.e. an empty time. Now no coming to be of a thing is possible in an empty time, because no part of such a time possesses, as compared with any other, a distinguishing condition of existence rather than of non-existence; and this applies whether the thing is supposed to arise of itself or through some other cause. In the world many series of things can, indeed, begin; but the world itself cannot have a beginning, and is therefore infinite in respect of past time. As regards the second point, let us start by assuming the opposite, namely, that the world in space is finite and limited, and consequently exists in an empty space which is unlimited. Things will therefore not only be related in space but also related to space. Now since the world is an absolute whole beyond which there is no object of intuition, and therefore no correlate with which the world stands in relation, the relation of the world to empty space would be a relation of it to no object. But such a relation, and consequently the limitation of the world by empty space, is nothing. The world cannot, therefore, be limited in space; that is, it is infinite in respect of extension.
These proofs really only use one argument, that an infinite series cannot be completed ("synthesized") either in thought, perception, or imagination. That was roughly Aristotle's argument against infinite space.
There are two arguments here: First, that there is no reason for the universe to come to be at one time rather than another, where all points in an empty time are alike. Second, that objects can only be spatially related to each other, not to empty space, which is not an object.
Source: Ross, K.L., 2001

Note:



1.       See Gottfried, P., 1987, Kantian Time And Space Reconsidered
2.       As it was elaborate by Werke
3.       As it was cited by Shabel, l., 2003, Kant insisted that we will expound the concept of space first. I understand by exposition (expositio) the distinct (even if not complete) representation of that which belongs to a concept; but the exposition is metaphysical when it contains that which exhibits the concept as given a priori.
4.       Ibid, in the course of his first argument for the intuitive nature of our representation of space, Kant stated that one can only represent a single space, and if one speaks of many spaces, one understands by that only parts of one and the same unique space. And these parts cannot as it were precede the single all-encompassing space as its components (from which its composition would be possible), but rather are only thought in it. It is essentially single; the manifold in it, thus also the general concept of spaces in general, rests merely on limitations.
5.       Ibid, Kant’s argued that space is represented as an infinite given magnitude. but no concept, as such, can be thought as if it contained an infinite set of representations within itself. Nevertheless space is so thought (for all the parts of space, even to infinity, are simultaneous). If there were not boundlessness in the progress of intuition, no concept of relations could bring with it a principle of their infinity.
6.       See Mattey, G.J., 2004, Kant Lexicon, G. J. Mattey's Kant Home Page, http://www-philosophy.ucdavis.edu/kant/Kant.htm
7.       ibid
8.       ibid
9.       ibid

22 comments:

  1. Uswatun Hasanah
    17701251022
    S2 PEP B

    Kehidupan diselimuti oleh ruang dan waktu. Ruang dan waktu, keduanya saling membutuhkan dan melengkapi. Setiap waktu memiliki skemanya dan maksud-maksud tertentu. Sebagaimana konsep dari Kant bahwa dalam ruang dan waktu memiliki tesis dan anti tesisnya. Setiap ruang memiliki fungsinya masing-masing. Begitu pula waktu yang dapat digunakan sebagai wujud dari tambahan informasi terhadap suatu obyek. Sebenar-benar hidup adalah merentang pada ruang dan waktunya. Kemudian, hidup akan dapat saling berinteraksi jika pemaknaan terhadap ruang dan waktunya sudah sesuai.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nama: Hendrawansyah
    NIM: 17701251030
    S2 PEP 2017 Kelas B

    Assalamualaikum wr wb

    Betapa sulitnya memahami bacaan ini.Itulah yang saya rasakan karena bahasa yang digunakan menggunakan bahasa tingkat tinggi.Sedikit yang saya dapat pahami terkait artikel ini bahwa keberadaan waktu sulit untuk dipahami dengan mengindrai.Waktu yang dipahami yang nampak merupakan sebuah intuisi kita yang terkesan dipaksakan untuk masuk ke dalam pikiran .Berdasarkan tesis dan antitesis yang disuguhkan dalam tabel.Menurut tesis, jika waktu berkahir dalam artian tidak ada permulaan waktu maka tentu tidak ada kehidupan di dunia ini .Seingat saya pernah dibahas terkait hal ini.Maka jika Tuhan ingin menghadirkan kiamat maka cukup hanya dengan mengambil waktu maka kehidupan di dunia ini menjadi tiada atau berakhir.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I Nyoman Indhi Wiradika
    17701251023
    PEP B

    Immanuel Kant memandang bahwa perspektif manusia terhadap ruang dan waktu bersifat a priori, bukan empiris. Lebih lanjut Kant berpendapat bahwa bentuk ruang dan waktu adalah kondisi sensasi subjektif dan bergantung pada penampilan mereka pada aktivitas perseptual. Seperti contoh ketika kita mengatakan bahwa berobat dengan jarum suntik itu sakit. Hal tersebut dapat terjadi karena predikat dihubungkan dengan pengalaman inderawi.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Widuri Asmaranti
    17709251035
    S2 Pend Matematika B 2017

    Assalammualikum,wr.wb
    Terimakasih Prof,
    Dalam kehidupan, selalu bergantung dengan ruang dan waktu. Segala sesuatu itu tergantung ruang dan waktunya. Contoh, apakah rajin itu penting? Jika kita rajin dalam kegiatan hal positif, misalnya rajin dalam kuliah, rajin dalam menolong orang tua ini di benarkan dan rajin disini akan menjadi penting. Tapi jika konteks rajin disini yaitu rajin mengambil barang orang lain, dalam artian rajin dalam mencuri maka rajin disini di salahkan, dan dalam konteks ini rajin bukan merupakan hal yang penting. Semua ini ada ruang yang membatasi. Inilah mengapa ruang dan waktu mempengaruhi segala hal dalam kehidupan.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mariana Ramelan
    17709251056
    S2 Pend. Matematika C 2017

    Ruang dan waktu. Dua kata tersebut ering sekali bapak sebut-sebut dalam perkuliahan filsafat. Semua yang ada didunia ini tergantung pada ruang dan waktu. Apa itu ruang dan waktu? Menurut Kant, Ruang dan waktu tidak benar-benar ada diluar kita tetapi ia adalah bentuk intuisi, yaitu suatu persepsi yang dipaksakan oleh pikiran kita sendiri

    ReplyDelete
  6. Arung Mega Ratna
    17709251049
    PPs PMC 2017


    Bentuk ruang dan waktu merupakan "kondisi subjektif dari sensasi" dan sifanya relatif tergantung pada aktivitas persepsi. Karena pada dasarnya sebuah konsep ruang ataupun waktu akan memberikan `prinsip' untuk melakukan konstruksi pada intuisi murni berupa konstruksi apriori dari daerah spasial atau waktu dasar yang menunjukkan konsep tata ruang dasar atau waktu tertentu.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Latifah Fitriasari
    17709251055
    PPs PM C


    Gagasan-gagasan tentang ruang dan waktu yang bersifat mutlak di atas ternyata menemui kesulitan karena timbulnya paradoks-paradoks maupun setelah ditemukannya hukum relatifitas oleh Einstein serta kesukaran dalam pengamatan. Dari ajaran Einstein, ruang dan waktu bersifat relatif. Ruang tergantung pada pengamatnya. Ruang merupakan semacam hubungan antara benda-benda yang diukur dengan cara-cara tertentu. Maka dari itu apabila pengukurannya dilakukan dengan cara yang berbeda, maka hasilnyapun akan berbeda. Waktu juga bersifat relatif karena hasil pengukuran terhadap hubungan-hubungan yang menyangkut waktu tergantung pada pengertian keserampakan (simultaneity); karena apabila sesuatu terjadi, misalnya ledakan, maka kuatnya bunyi ledakan akan berbeda di berbagai tempat.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rahma Dewi Indrayanti
    17709251038
    PPS Pendidikan Matematika Kelas B

    Menurutnya Kant, dunia luar hanya memunculkan materi sensasi, namun perangkat mental kita sendiri menata materi ini sesuai ruang dan waktu, memasok konsep-konsep yang kita gunakan untuk memahami pengalaman. Argumen-argumen tentang waktu pada dasarnya sama, kecuali bahwa aritmatika menggantikan geometri dengan pernyataan abahwa penghitungan membutuhkan waktu.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Junianto
    PM C

    Saya mecoba memberikan tanggapan terkait konsep ruang dan waktu yang saya pahami dari artikel ini. Kant mengatakan bahwa ruang dan waktu tidak benar-benar berada di luar kita tetapi merupakan sebuah intuisi yaitu persepsi yang dipaksakan dalam pikiran kita sendiri. Dengan kata lain, ruang dan waktu bukanlah benda konkret yang bisa kita amati tetapi hanyalah konsep yang ada dalam pikiran kita. Sedangkan menurut Leibniz, ruang sama sekali tidak ada dalam objek. Hal ini disebabkan karena benda-benda terpisah dengan diri kita, padahal ruang dan waktu ada dalam pikiran kita.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Vidiya Rachmawati
    17709251019
    PM A

    1. Kant menyatakan bahwa hanya ada satu cara di mana elemen mediasi dapat ditemukan, yaitu, dengan memeriksa elemen tunggal yang hadir dalam semua penampilan, tapi pada saat yang sama mampu menjadikan konseptualisasi "waktu". Menurutnya, kita harus menemukan berbagai cara berpikir waktu, dan jika kita dapat menemukan cara-cara di mana ini harus dilakukan, kita dapat mengatakan bahwa mereka berdua sesuai dengan kondisi pikiran dan hadir di semua penampilan. Kant menyebut konseptualisasi waktu ini dengan "schemata"; ia kemudian menemukan empat mode dasar waktu berpikir, salah satu yang sesuai dengan masing-masing divisi dasar kategori yakni time-series, time-content, time-order, dan scope of time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Vidiya Rachmawati
    17709251019
    PM A

    2. Kant menegaskan bahwa waktu seharusnya berhubungan benda, tidak satu sama lain, tetapi untuk memahami bahwa, kita bisa berpikir obyek di salah satu dari tiga cara: sebagai menempati beberapa waktu atau lainnya, tanpa menentukan bagian mana dari waktu yang skema kemungkinan di mana kita bisa berpikir obyek sejauh mungkin kita bisa berpikir menempati beberapa waktu atau lainnya, apakah iya atau tidak benar-benar menempati hal itu; sebagai yang ada dalam beberapa waktu tertentu yang merupakan skema aktualitas di mana kita berpikir sebuah benda seperti yang sebenarnya ketika kita mengklaim bahwa itu ada di beberapa bagian tertentu dari waktu; dan sebagai yang ada setiap saat itu adalah skema kebutuhan di mana sebuah objek dianggap perlu jika itu adalah sesuatu yang harus mewakili sebagai hal yang menempati setiap saat, dengan kata lain, bahwa kita tidak bisa memikirkan waktu yang tidak mengandung objek tersebut.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nurika Miftahuljannah
    PPs Pendidikan Matematika Kelas C
    17709251060
    Assalamu'alaikum wr. wb.
    Berdasarkan tulisan Prof. diatas, Kant menyatakan bahwa hanya ada satu cara di mana elemen mediasi dapat ditemukan, yaitu dengan memeriksa elemen tunggal yang hadir dalam semua penampilan, tapi pada saat yang sama mampu menjadikan konseptualisasi "waktu". Dengan demikian, segala sesuatu yang terjadi tergantung ruang dan waktunya. Kant menyebut konseptualisasi waktu ini dengan "schemata"; ia kemudian menemukan empat mode dasar waktu berpikir.
    Wassalamu'alaikum wr. wb.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Firman Indra Pamungkas
    17709251048
    S2 Pendidikan Matematika 2017 Kelas C

    Assalamualaikum Warohmatullah Wabarokatuh
    Menurut Kant, ruang dan waktu tidak benar-benar ada diluar diri kita, tetapi ruang dan waktu adalah bentuk intuitif. Ruang dan waktu adalah bentuk umum dari intuisi yang membantu membalas rangsangan ke pikiran manusia. Kant setuju dengan pendapat Newton bahwa ruang bersifat absolut dan nyata bagi objek dalam pengalaman, namun Kant juga setuju dengan pendapat Leibniz bahwa ruang tidak ada apa-apanya dalam kaitannya dengan objek ketika objek tersebut terpisah dari kita. Waktu ada sebagai kondisi subjektif dari persepsi, bukan untuk dirinya atau sebagai objek kualitas sesuatu

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nama: Dian Andarwati
    NIM: 17709251063
    Kelas: Pendidikan Matematika (S2) Kelas C

    Assalamu’alaikum. Bagi Kant, ruang dan waktu lebih merupakan bentuk-bentuk a priori, Pengetahuan pada tingkat pengindraan (intuisi murni) membawa dalam dirinya semacam kegentingan (exigencies), bahwa setiap pengindraan (sensation) harus dilokasikan dalam ruang, entah itu di atas, di bawah, di sebelah kiri atau kanan, dan dalam waktu, yakni sebelumnya, sesudahnya, atau yang bersamaan dengan pengindraan lainnya. Demikianlah, ruang dan waktu adalah kondisi-kondisi, bukanlah eksistensi dari sesuatu tetapi posibilitas dari keberadaannya yang termanifestasi di dalam diri kita. Singkatnya, ruang dan waktu adalah bentuk-bentuk subjektif.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Muh Wildanul Firdaus
    17709251047
    Pendidikan matematika S2 kls C

    Ruang dan waktu menurut Kant berada di luar intuisi yaitu berupa kondisi persepsi yang dipaksa oleh pikiran. Estetika transendental digunakan dalam ruang dan waktu sebagai kondisi apriori untuk kognisi, intuisi di sini berupa intuisi universal yang dapat dipahami oleh pikiran manusia. Ruang dan waktu hanya bisa dikenali sebagai bentuk intuisi apriori. Waktu tidak memiliki pola dan tempat dapat dikatakan bahwa waktu sebagai kondisi formal a priori untuk semua kondisi dan situasi yang ada. Sedangkan ruang tetap merupakan bentuk intuisi murni.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Charina Ulfa
    17709251039
    PPs Pendidikan Matematika B 2017
    Bismillah...

    Ruang dan waktu selalu menjadi hal yang penting untuk dipertimbangkan dalam filsafat. Karenanya musuh filsafat itu sendiri adalah tidak sesuai dengan ruang dan waktu. Segala sesuatu yang ada dan yang mungkin ada akan bernilai positif jika selalu bersesuaian dengan ruang dan waktu.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Auliaul Fitrah Samsuddin
    17709251013
    PPs P.Mat A 2017
    Terima kasih atas postingannya, Prof. Kant tidak mengakui adanya kebenaran absolut bagi ruang dan waktu. Ruang dan waktu hanya dapat dibangkitkan dalam hubungannya dengan kemunculannya, maksudnya yang dapat ditangkap oleh indera manusia. Antinomi Kant mengenai ruang dan waktu adalah sebagai berikut. Tesis : Dunia memiliki awal waktu dan juga dibatasi oleh waktu. Sedangkan antitesisnya adalah dunia tidak memiliki awal, tidak ada batasan ruang, artinya dunia itu infinit/tanpa batas dalam hal ruang dan waktu.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Gina Sasmita Pratama
    17709251003
    S2 P.Mat A 2017

    Kant mengatakan bahwa ruang dan waktu sebenarnya tidak benar-benar ada di luar kita, ruang dan waktu hanya ada di dalam fikiran, tetapi keberadaannya sangat mempengaruhi kehidupan. Seperti yang dikatakan Newton bahwa ruang itu mutlak dan nyata bagi objek yang dialaminya. Artinya, ruang dan waktu sebenanrnya sangat mempengaruhi objek atau subjek kehidupan di dunia nyata. Dengan kata lain, yang ada dan mungkin ada terikat dengan ruang dan waktu. Misalnya, seorang Ayah akan bersikap lemah lembut jika ruang dan waktunya sedang bersama anak-anaknya, tetapi akan bersikap tegas jika ruang dan waktunya sedang bertugas atau bekerja.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Isoka Amanah Kurnia
    17709251051
    PPs Pendidikan Matematika 2017 Kelas C

    Pendapat Kant mengenai ruang dan waktu tergambar dari tesis dan antitesis yang dibuatnya. Menurut Kant dalam antinomynya dunia memiliki awal mula waktu pembentukan dan memiliki ruang yang terbatas. Tidak sebatas itu, dalam antitesisnya Kant menyatakan dunia tidak memiliki awal, dan tidak ada batasan dalam ruang dimana dunia tidak terbatas dalam hal ruang dan waktu. Kedua tesis dan anti tesis ini memiliki pembuktiannya masing-masing.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anisa Safitri
    17701251038
    PEP B

    Ruang dan waktu akan selalu berubah. Dimensi tersebut selalu bergerak dinamis dan raltif. Ruang dan waktu menunjukkan suatu keberadaan objek dalam suatu keadaan karena ruang dan waktu selalu ada dalam keadaan tertentu. tidak dapat waktu dan ruang yang tidak dapat digunakan oleh objek, karena objek dan waktu adalah halyang selalu berpasangan untuk menentukan suatu keadaan hidup. Sehingga apabila pengukuran dilakukan dengan cara yang berbeda, maka berbeda pula hasilnya tergantung kapan dan siapa yang mengukurnya. Selain itu, Kant juga menjelaskan bahwa konsep ruang dan waktu berkaitan erat dengan intuisi,berdasarkan yang ada adalam pikiran manusia berkaitan dengan sintetik a priori dan a posteriori. empat mode dasar waktu berpikir, salah satu yang sesuai dengan masing-masing divisi dasar kategori yakni time-series, time-content, time-order, dan scope of time. Dengan menjelaskan konseptualisasi dari suatu waktu untuk menetukan suatu objek dan keberadaannya.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Irham Baskoro
    17709251004
    S2|Pendidikan Matematika A 2017|UNY

    Menurut Kant ruang dan waktu bukanlah dua hal yang terletak di luar kita. Tetapi ruang dan waktu lebih kepada bentuk dari intuisi. Intusi ruang dan waktu akan memberikan kesan sensoris yang dapat dipahami oleh pikiran manusia. Manusia menggunakan intuisinya lebih kepada agar hidupnya selaras antara ruang dan waktunya.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Muhammad Kamaluddin
    P. Mat B PPs 2017
    17709251027

    Ruang daln waktu bukanlah benda konkret sebagai sebuah realitas yang berada di luar diri manusia. Kant beranggapan bahwa ruang dan waktu adalah sebuah bentuk intuisi yang letaknya di dalam pikiran manusia. Dalam tulisannya, Immanuel Kant berpandangan bahwa representasi manusia atas ruang dan waktu bersifat a priori, bukan empiris. Hal ini dapat dimaknai bahwa ruang dan waktu dibangun di dalam pikiran, bukan dari suatu pengalaman yang bersifat empiris. Oleh sebab itu ruang dan waktu lebih bersifat intuisi dibandingkan dengan konsep.

    ReplyDelete