(Get Answer)

history discussion question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn. Sigmund Freud claimed he had discovered the Unconscious, which refers to that mental activity of which we are unaware and are unable to access. The home of “repressed” meaning, unwanted or rejected thoughts and trauma. Freud uses the term the unconscious as if it had an identity separate from that of “the conscious.” In thinking about the self, what sort of difficulties and challenges might this dualistic characterization of the human mind entail? For example, if the unconscious is a realm or a place, then where is it located? If the unconscious is a separate self, how would it relate to our conscious self? Requirements: NA 102 Chapter 3By adopting the perspective of hylomorphism, Aquinas thus seeks to travel a mid-dle course between the extremes of materialism (which holds that all aspects of the universe are composed of matter and energy and can be fully described and explained by physical laws) and substance dualism (which posits a universe divided into material substances and mental substances). Of course, just as it is possible to believe in a non-religious form of dualism (as Plato did), it is also possible to adopt a nonreligious form of hylomorphism (as Aristotle did).3.4 DescartesÕs Modern Perspective on the SelfAlthough Socrates is often described as the Òfather of Western philosophy,Ó the French philosopher RenŽ Descartes is widely considered the Òfounder of modern philosophy.Ó As profoundly insightful as such thinkers as Socrates and Plato were regarding the na-ture of the self, their understanding was also influenced and constrained by the con-sciousness of their time periods. Descartes brought an entirely newÑand thoroughly modernÑperspective to philosophy in general and the self in particular. Earlier philoso-phers had focused on exploring the fundamental questions of human existence, such as: a What is the nature of reality? a What is the Ògood lifeÓ and how we ought to behave? a Does God exist? If so, what is GodÕs nature and relation to humankind? a What is the nature of the soul? a What is the ideal society?Although Descartes recognized these as significant questions, he was more con-cerned with understanding the thinking process we use to answer questions such as these. He agreed with the great thinkers before him that the human ability to reason constitutes the extraordinary instrument we have to achieve truth and knowledge. But instead of simply using reason to try to answer questions, Descartes wanted to penetrate the nature of our reasoning process and understand its relation to the human self. He was convinced that to develop the most informed and well-grounded beliefs about human existence, we need to be clear about the thinking instrument we are employing. For if our thinking instrument is flawed, then it is likely that our conclusions will be flawed as well.As an accomplished mathematician (he invented analytic geometry) and an aspiring scientist, Descartes was an integral part of the scientific revolution that was just beginning. (His major philosophical work, Meditations on First Philosophy, was published in 1641, the year before Galileo died and Isaac Newton was born.) The foundation of this scientific revolution was the belief that genuine knowledge needed to be based on independent ra-tional inquiry and real-world experimentation. It was no longer appropriate to accept with-out question the ÒknowledgeÓ handed down by authoritiesÑas was prevalent during the religion-dominated Middle Ages. Instead, Descartes and others were convinced that we need to use our own thinking abilities to investigate, analyze, experiment, and develop our own well-reasoned conclusions, supported with compelling proof. In a passage from his Discourse on Method, Descartes contrasts the process of learning to construct knowledge by thinking independently with simply absorbing information from authorities:For we shall not, e.g., turn out to be mathematicians though we know by heart all the proofs others have elaborated, unless we have an intellectual talent that fits us to resolve difficulties of any kind. Neither, though we may have mas-tered all the arguments of Plato and Aristotle, if yet we have not the capacity for passing solid judgment on these matters, shall we become Philosophers; we should have acquired the knowledge not of a science, but of history.RENƒ DESCARTES (1596-1650) French philosopher considered the founder of modern philosophy. A mathematician and scientist as well, Descartes was a leader in the seventeenth-century scientiÞc revolu-tion. In his major work, Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), he rigorously analyzed the established knowledge of the time. SAuSAgEMaN who are you? 103RenŽ Descartes, from Meditations on First Philosophy1. Several years have now elapsed since I first became aware that I had accepted, even from my youth, many false opinions for true, and that consequently what I afterward based on such principles was highly doubtful; and from that time I was convinced of the necessity of undertaking once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of commencing anew the work of building from the foundation, if I desired to establish a firm and abiding superstructure in the sciences. But as this enterprise appeared to me to be one of great magnitude, I waited until I had attained an age so mature as to leave me no hope that at any stage of life more advanced I should be better able to execute my design. On this account, I have delayed so long that I should henceforth consider I was doing wrong were I still to consume in deliberation any of the time that now remains for action. Today, then, since I have opportunely freed my mind from all cares [and am happily disturbed by no passions], and since I am in the secure possession of leisure in a peaceable retirement, I will at length apply myself earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all my former opinions.2. But, to this end, it will not be necessary for me to show that the whole of these are falseÑa point, perhaps, which I shall never reach; but as even now my reason convinces me that I ought not the less carefully to withhold belief from what is not entirely certain and indubitable, than from what is manifestly false, it will be sufficient to justify the rejection of the whole if I shall find in each some ground for doubt. Nor for this purpose will it be necessary even to deal with each belief individually, which would be truly an endless labor; but, as the removal from below of the foundation necessarily involves the downfall of the whole edifice, I will at once approach the criticism of the principles on which all my former beliefs rested.But reasoning effectively does not mean simply thinking in our own personal, id-iosyncratic ways: That type of commonsense thinking is likely to be seriously flawed. Instead, effective use of Òthe natural light of reasonÓ entails applying scientific dis-cipline and analytic rigor to our explorations to ensure that the conclusions that we reach have genuine merit:So blind is the curiosity by which mortals are possessed, that they often conduct their minds along unexplored routes, having no reason to hope for success . . . it were far better never to think of investigating truth at all, than to do so without a method. For it is very certain that unregulated inquiries and confused reflections of this kind only confound the natural light and blind our mental powers. . . . In (method) alone lies the sum of all human endeavor, and he who would approach the investigation of truth must hold to this rule. For to be possessed of good men-tal powers is not sufficient; the principal matter is to apply them well. The greatest minds are capable of the greatest vices as well as of the greatest virtues, and those who proceed very slowly may, provided they always follow the straight road, re-ally advance much faster than those who, though they run, forsake it.One of the reasons Descartes is such an influential and enduring figure in phi-losophy is his willingness to test his reasoning powers to their limit and to record with absolute candor the results of his explorations. To this end, Descartes typically writes in the first person, inviting us to participate in his reasoning process and compare it with our own. HeÕs saying, in effect: ÒThis is what makes sense to meÑdo you agree?Ó In his best known work, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes shares with us his own philosophical journal, analogous to the philosopherÕs journal that you have been encouraged to keep as an integral part of this course. In an opening passage that vir-tually every young adult can appreciate, Descartes confesses that he has come to the SAuSAgEMaN 104 Chapter 3conclusion that virtually everything he has been taught from authorities and other adults is questionable and likely false. His radical solution? To establish a fresh start on gaining true, well-supported beliefs by sim-ply erasing his endorsement of anything he has previously been taught. What a bold and extraordinary project!Descartes is convinced that committing yourself to a wholesale and systematic doubting of all things you have been taught to simply accept without question is the only way to achieve clear and well-reasoned con-clusions. More important, it is the only way for you to develop beliefs that are truly yours and not someone elseÕs. He explains, ÒIf you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.Ó This sort of thoroughgoing doubt-ing of all that you have been taught requires great personal courage, for calling into question things like your religious beliefs, cultural values, and even beliefs about your self can be, in the short term, a very disrup-tive enterprise. It may mean shaking up your world, questioning the be-liefs of important people in your life, perhaps challenging your image of yourself. Yet there is a compelling logic to DescartesÕs pronouncement: For, if you are not willing to question all that you have been asked to ac-cept Òon faith,Ó then you will never have the opportunity to construct a rock-solid foundation for your beliefs about the world and your personal philosophy of life. WhatÕs more, you will never have the experience to develop the intellectual abilities and personal courage required to achieve your full potential in the future.This, then, is the beginning of DescartesÕs quest for true knowledge that leads to his famous first principle: Cogito, ergo sumÑÒI think, therefore I am.Ó We will be exploring his epistemological odyssey in some detail in the sections on Knowledge and Truth. For now, weÕre going to focus on DescartesÕs analysis of the self, the theme of this chapter.Cogito, ergo sum is the first principle of DescartesÕs theory of knowledge because he is confident that no rational person will doubt his or her own existence as a conscious, thinking entityÑwhile we are aware of thinking about our self. Even if we are dreaming or hallucinating, even if our consciousness is being manipulated by some external entity, it is still my self-aware self that is dreaming, hallucinating, or being manipulated. Thus, in addition to being the first principle of his epistemology, cogito ergo, sum is also the keystone of DescartesÕs concept of self. The essence of existing as a human identity is the possibility of being aware of our selves: Being self-conscious in this way is integral to having a personal identity. Conversely, it would be impossible to be self-conscious if we didnÕt have a personal identity of which to be conscious. In other words, having a self-identity and being self-conscious are mutually dependent on one another. HereÕs how Descartes explains this phenomenon in his Meditation II.QUESTIONING COMMON ASSUMPTIONS. Do you agree with Descartes that Òif you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things?ÓRenŽ Descartes, from Meditations on First PhilosophyThinking is another attribute of the soul; and here I discover what properly belongs to myself. This alone is inseparable from me. I amÑI exist: this is certain; but how often? As often as I think; for perhaps it would even happen, if I should wholly cease to think, that I should at the same time altogether cease to be. I now admit nothing that is not necessarily true. I am therefore, precisely speaking, only a thinking thing, that is, a mind, understand-ing, or reason, terms whose signification was before unknown to me. I am, however, a real thing, and really existent; but what thing? The answer was, a thinking thing. . . .But what, then, am I? A thinking thing, it has been said. But what is a thinking thing? It is a thing that doubts, understands [conceives], affirms, denies, wills, refuses; that imag-ines also, and perceives.“Cogito ergo sum” i think, therefore i am. reNÉ desCArtes SAuSAgEMaN who are you? 105For Descartes, then, this is the essence of your selfÑyou are a Òthinking thing,Ó a dynamic identity that engages in all of those mental operations we associate with be-ing a human self. For example: a You understand situations in which you find yourself. a You doubt the accuracy of ideas presented to you. a You affirm the truth of a statement made about you. a You deny an accusation that someone has made. a You will yourself to complete a task you have begun. a You refuse to follow a command that you consider to be unethical. a You imagine a fulfilling career for yourself. a You feel passionate emotions toward another person.But in addition to engaging in all of these mental operationsÑand many other besidesÑyour self-identity is dependent on the fact that you are capable of being aware you are engaging in these mental operations while you are engaged in them. If you were con-sistently not conscious of your mental operations, consistently unaware of your think-ing, reasoning, and perceiving processes, then it would not be possible for you to have a self-identity, a unique essence, a you.Thinking PhilosophicallyAre You a Seeker After Truth? a Explain your reaction to DescartesÕs challenge, ÒIf you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.Ó Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? If so, how? a Describe some important areas of your life in which you would consider yourself to be a Òreal seeker after truth.Ó Identify several examples of beliefs you had been taught or raised with which you questioned for the purpose of developing your own independent conclusions. a Describe some important areas of your life in which, in your opinion, you fell short of being a Òreal seeker after truth.Ó Identify several examples of beliefs you have been raised with that you have been reluctant to question. What factors have made it difficult for you to doubt these beliefs? Do you think you will critically analyze them at some point in the future?But what about your body? After all, a great deal of our self-concept and self-identity is tied up with our physical existence: our physical qualities, appearance, gender, race, age, height, weight, hair style, and so on. Despite this, Descartes be-lieves that your physical body is secondary to your personal identity. One reason for this is that he believes you can conceive of yourself existing independently of your body.RenŽ Descartes, from Meditations on First PhilosophyThe question now arises, am I anything else besides? I will stimulate my imagination with a view to discover whether I am not still something more than a thinking being. Now it is plain I am not the assemblage of members called the human body; I am not a thin and penetrating air diffused through all these members, or wind, or flame, or vapor, or breath, SAuSAgEMaN 106 Chapter 3Nevertheless, even though your body is not as central to your self as is your ca-pacity to think and reflect, it clearly plays a role in your self-identity. In fact, Descartes contends, if you reflect thoughtfully, you can see that you have clear ideas of both your self as a thinking entity and your self as a physical body. And these two dimensions of your self are quite distinct.or any of all the things I can imagine; for I supposed that all these were not, and, without changing the supposition, I find that I still feel assured of my existence. But it is true, perhaps, that those very things which I suppose to be non-existent, because they are unknown to me, are not in truth different from myself whom I know. This is a point I cannot determine, and do not now enter into any dispute regarding it. I can only judge of things that are known to me: I am conscious that I exist, and I who know that I exist inquire into what I am. It is, however, perfectly certain that the knowledge of my existence, thus pre-cisely taken, is not dependent on things, the existence of which is as yet unknown to me: and consequently it is not dependent on any of the things I can feign in imagination.RenŽ Descartes, from Meditations on First PhilosophyAnd, firstly, because I know that all which I clearly and distinctly conceive can be pro-duced by God exactly as I conceive it, it is sufficient that I am able clearly and distinctly to conceive one thing apart from another, in order to be certain that the one is different from the other, seeing they may at least be made to exist separately, by the omnipotence of God; and it matters not by what power this separation is made, in order to be compelled to judge them different; and, therefore, merely because I know with certitude that I exist, and because, in the meantime, I do not observe that anything else necessarily belongs to my nature or essence beyond my being a thinking thing, I rightly conclude that my essence consists only in my being a thinking thing [or a substance whose whole essence or nature is merely thinking]. And although I may, or rather, as I will shortly say, although I certainly do possess a body with which I am very closely conjoined; nevertheless, because, on the one hand, I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in as far as I am only a thinking and unextended thing, and as, on the other hand, I possess a distinct idea of body, in as far as it is only an extended and unthinking thing, it is certain that I, [that is, my mind, by which I am what I am], is entirely and truly distinct from my body, and may exist without it.It is at this point that we can see the pervasive influence of the metaphysical framework created by Socrates and Plato and perpetuated through the centuries by such thinkers as Plotinus and Saint Augustine. Following directly in their footsteps, Descartes declares that the essential selfÑthe self as thinking entityÑis radically differ-ent than the self as physical body. The thinking selfÑor soulÑis a nonmaterial, immortal, conscious being, independent of the physical laws of the universe. The physical body is a material, mortal, nonthinking entity, fully governed by the physical laws of nature. WhatÕs more, your soul and your body are independent of one another, and each can exist and function without the other. How is that possible? For example, in the case of physical death, Descartes believes (as did Plato) that your soul continues to ex-ist, seeking union with the spiritual realm and GodÕs infinite and eternal mind. On the other hand, in cases in which people are sleeping or comatose, their bodies con-tinue to function even though their minds are not thinking, much like the mechanisms of a clock. SAuSAgEMaN who are you? 107Thus Descartes ends up with PlatoÕs metaphysic, a dualistic view of reality, bifur-cated into a a spiritual, nonmaterial, immortal realm that includes conscious, thinking beings, and a a physical, material, finite realm that includes human bodies and the rest of the physical universe.In the case of the human self, the soul (or mind) and the physical body could not be more different. For example, you can easily imagine the body being divided into various parts, whereas it is impossible to imagine your soul as anything other than an indivisible unity (precisely the point that Socrates makes when heÕs arguing for the immortality of the soul):RenŽ Descartes, from Meditations on First PhilosophyAnd as a clock, composed of wheels and counter weights, observes not the less accu-rately all the laws of nature when it is ill made, and points out the hours incorrectly, than when it satisfies the desire of the maker in every respect; so likewise if the body of man be considered as a kind of machine, so made up and composed of bones, nerves, muscles, veins, blood, and skin, that although there were in it no mind, it would still exhibit the same motions which it at present manifests involuntarily, and therefore without the aid of the mind, and simply by the dispositions of its organs. . . .RenŽ Descartes, from Meditations on First PhilosophyTo commence this examination accordingly, I here remark, in the first place, that there is a vast difference between mind and body, in respect that body, from its nature, is always divisible, and that mind is entirely indivisible. For in truth, when I consider the mind, that is, when I consider myself in so far only as I am a thinking thing, I can distinguish in my-self no parts, but I very clearly discern that I am somewhat absolutely one and entire; and although the whole mind seems to be united to the whole body, yet, when a foot, an arm, or any other part is cut off, I am conscious that nothing has been taken from my mind; nor can the faculties of willing, perceiving, conceiving, etc., properly be called its parts, for it is the same mind that is exercised [all entire] in willing, in perceiving, and in conceiving, etc. But quite the opposite holds in corporeal or extended things; for I cannot imagine any one of them [how small soever it may be], which I cannot easily sunder in thought, and which, therefore, I do not know to be divisible. This would be sufficient to teach me that the mind or soul of man is entirely different from the body, if I had not already been apprised of it on other grounds.This dualistic view of the self is particularly useful for Descartes, who was faced with a serious conflict in his personal and professional life. As previously noted, Descartes was first and foremost a scientist in his professional life, committed to establishing true knowledge through rigorous reasoning, experimentation, and analysis. Many scientists of the timeÑphysicists, astronomers, biologistsÑwere inclined to view the human self in terms of the physical body, governed by the same laws of physics that defined the operation of the rest of the physical universe. However, if the self is seen exclusively in terms of the physical body, the self is terminated when the body dies.As a devout Catholic who believed in God, immortal souls, and eternal life, this view of the world was completely unacceptable to Descartes. However, by advocating a dualistic metaphysic, Descartes was able to maintain both his scientific integrity and his religious convictions. The physical self is a part of nature, governed by the physical SAuSAgEMaN 108 Chapter 3laws of the universe, and available to scientific analysis and experimentation. At the same time, the conscious self (mind, soul) is a part of the spiritual realm, independent of the physical laws of the universe, governed only by the laws of reason and GodÕs will.Although a bifurcated view of the universe solves some immediate problems for Descartes, it creates other philosophical difficulties, most notably the vexing question, ÒWhat is the relationship between the mind and the body?Ó In our everyday experience, our minds and bodies appear to be very closely related to one another. Our thinking and emotions have a profound effect on many aspects of our physical bodies, and physical events with our bodies have a significant impact on our mental lives. For the most part, we experience our minds and bodies as a unified entity, very different from the two dif-ferent and completely independent substances that Descartes proposes. As the writer and humorist Mark Twain noted, ÒHow come the mind gets drunk when the body does the drinking?Ó Even Descartes recognized the need to acknowledge the close, intimate relationship between mind and body, as the following passage reveals:RenŽ Descartes, from Meditations on First PhilosophyNature likewise teaches me by these sensations of pain, hunger, thirst, etc., that I am not only lodged in my body as a pilot in a vessel, but that I am besides so intimately conjoined, and as it were intermixed with it, that my mind and body compose a certain unity. For if this were not the case, I should not feel pain when my body is hurt, seeing I am merely a thinking thing, but should perceive the wound by the understanding alone, just as a pilot perceives by sight when any part of his vessel is damaged; and when my body has need of food or drink, I should have a clear knowledge of this, and not be made aware of it by the confused sensations of hunger and thirst: for, in truth, all these sensations of hunger, thirst, pain, etc., are nothing more than certain confused modes of thinking, arising from the union and apparent fusion of mind and body.Descartes believed that the ÒinterminglingÓ point of contact was through the pi-neal gland, a small gland located at the base of the skull. It was here that he believed that the thinking self connected to the physical brain. Why the pineal gland? Descartes found its physical location appropriate, and it had no known biological function in DescartesÕs time. Ever the scientist, Descartes dissected a variety of animals to learn more about this mysterious gland.Recognizing the problem of the mind-body relationship in a dualistic system and solving the problem in a satisfactory way are two very different things. Most philoso-phers agree that DescartesÕs efforts to provide an integrated model of his concepts of the mind and body were not successful, and itÕs a problem that has challenged think-ers in every discipline ever since. We will continue our exploration of the mind-body ÒproblemÓ later in this chapter.How did DescartesÕs views regarding the self relate to his personal life? In a fasci-nating way: Descartes was plagued by frail health, a condition that caused him through-out his life to sleep late into the morning. A financial inheritance from his parents meant he didnÕt have to work. Instead, he devoted his life to study and experimentation, spending much of his time alone, and moving from place to place on a regular basis (he lived in twenty different houses in one twenty-year period). Descartes preferred the company of himself because it provided him the opportunity to fully devote himself to his scientific, mathematical, and philosophical activities, without the distraction of social relationships (although he did find time to father an illegitimate child with a ser-vant). Ironically, it was an error in judgment that hastened the death of his body. Against his better judgment, he accepted the invitation of Queen Christina of Sweden to come to Stockholm and tutor her. Unfortunately, the queen turned out to be an early riser, de-priving Descartes of his beloved sleep. That, combined with the cold and damp climate SAuSAgEMaN who are you? 109of Stockholm, led to pneumonia and his premature death at the age of fifty-three, pro-viding him with a firsthand opportunity to test his theory of an immortal soul.3.5 The Self Is Consciousness: LockeThe English philosopherÑand physicianÑJohn Locke continued exploring the themes Descartes had initiated, both in terms of the nature of knowledge (epistemology) and the nature of the self. He shared with Descartes a scientistÕs perspective, seeking to develop knowledge based on clear thinking, rigorous analysis, and real-world ob-servation and experimentation. However, Locke brought a very different approach to this epistemological enterprise. Descartes believed that we could use the power of reason to achieve absolutely certain knowledge of the world and then use this ratio-nally based knowledge to understand our world of experience. His extensive work in mathematics served as a model, convincing him that there were absolute truths and knowledge waiting to be discovered by reasoned, disciplined reflection.LockeÕs work as a physician, rather than a mathematician, provided him with a very different perspective. The physicianÕs challenge is to gather information regard-ing the symptoms a patient is experiencing, and then relate these symptoms to his or her (the physicianÕs) accumulated knowledge of disease. Although a successful doctor uses sophisticated reasoning abilities in identifying patterns and making infer-ences, his or her conclusions are grounded in experience. Knowledge, in other words, is based on the careful observation of sense experience and/or memories of previous experiences. Reason plays a subsequent role in helping to figure out the significance of our sense experience and to reach intelligent conclusions.To sum up: For Descartes, our reasoning ability provides the origin of knowledge and final court of judgment in evaluating the accuracy and value of the ideas produced. For Locke, all knowledge originates in our direct sense experience, which acts as the final court of judgment in evaluating the accuracy and value of ideas. As a result, Descartes is considered an archetypal proponent of the rationalist view of knowledge, whereas Locke is considered an archetypal advocate of the empiricist view of knowledge.These are themes that we will be exploring in depth in future chapters. For now, we will focus on the way in which these contrasting approaches to the world influence their views on the nature of the self.True to his philosophical commitment to grounding his ideas in sense experience, Locke, in his essay entitled ÒOn Personal IdentityÓ (from his most famous work, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding) engages in a reflective analysis of how we ex-perience our self in our everyday lives.JOHN LOCKE (1632Ð1704). British philosopher and physician who laid the groundwork for an empiricist ap-proach to philosophical questions. LockeÕs revolutionary theory that the mind is a tabula rasa, a blank slate on which experience writes, is detailed in his Essay Concerning Human Under-standing (1690).rationalistThe view that reason is the pri-mary source of all knowledge and that only our reasoning abilities can enable us to understand sense experience and reach accurate conclusions.empiricistThe view that sense experi-ence is the primary source of all knowledge and that only a careful attention to sense experience can enable us to understand the world and achieve accurate conclusions.Reading CriticallyAnalyzing Descartes on the Mind-Body Problem a Describe one way your mind significantly affects your body: for example, when you are anxious, elated, depressed, in love (or lust), and so on. a Describe some of the ways your body significantly affects your mind: for example, when you are feeling sick, deprived of sleep, taking medications, or finding yourself in a physically dangerous or threatening situation. a Create your own metaphysical framework for the self by describing a your self as thinking subject. a your self as physical body. a your analysis of how these two aspects of your self relate to one another. a Reconsider your views on human soulsÑwhat do you believe happens to the self after the death of the body? Why do you believe it? What would Descartes think of your views and your justification for them? SAuSAgEMaN 122 Chapter 3research in the sciences and social sciences. For example, the renowned developmen-tal psychologist Jean Piaget (1896Ð1980) conducted painstaking empirical research on the way the human mind develops, an interactive process involving both sensory ex-perience and innate cognitive structures. His seminal book Construction of Reality in the Child (1950) (published almost 150 years after KantÕs death) could very easily have been written by Kant had he been a modern developmental psychologist. Similarly, work in language development by linguists such as Noam Chomsky (b. 1928) have also supported the Kantian idea that human experienceÑsuch as language abilitiesÑare the product of both exposure to a specific language and innate, a priori intellectual rules or categories that are ÒhardwiredÓ into each human being.KantÕs dominant influence on Western ph