How Aerial Travel and Cabin Pressure Adversely Affects the Human Body Essay Example for Free

How Aerial Travel and Cabin Pressure Adversely Affects the Human Body Essay The idea of humans traveling to the Moon or other areas out side of the Earths orbit is mostly scientific. However, when astronauts remain in space, having to re-balance the body to suit less or no gravity compared to the Earth could bring about many changes to the body. Scientists have found that the time required for recovery depends on the time spent in zero-gravity conditions. The longer one stays off of the Earths surface, the more damage can be caused. Strictly speaking, even a trip in an Airplane would require safety precautions to minimize damage to the body of this. For example, cabin pressure increased to maintain balance and prevent feeling different to a lower pressure. This essay will consist of two sections. The first will be of flight effects within the Earths hemisphere, and how to perhaps prevent damage to the body. The second, and longer section deals with space travel through Zero-gravity and effects of weightlessness on the body and the counter-measures to prevent damage to the body. Section 1, flight effects on the passengers, specifically dealing with cabin pressure: Airplanes fly at the cruising altitude of around 33000 feet, or approximately 10000 meters. Because the cruising altitude has a cabin pressure lower than air pressure on ground or even under sea-level, the oxygen availability is less and gases within the body expand. This causes the oxygen saturation level of the blood to reduce, which can lead to mild hypoxia, the reduced supply of oxygen to the tissues around the body. Due to the effects of hypoxia, alcohol consumption would affect the brain much more than it would on Earth. As the aircraft makes its decent back to Earth, air must be allowed to flow into the middle of the ear to equalize pressure differences. Passengers often can feel this change in air pressure. People with ear, nose and sinus infections are usually advised to avoid flying because of these changes in air pressure. Air travel in airplanes has less thank 20% humidity. This causes discomfort to the eyes, mouth and nose but does not risk the passengers health. This discomfort can be prevented by drinking liquids (water recommended) before and during the flight, and using skin moisturizers. Also passengers with short-sightedness or long-sightedness are advised to wear eye-glasses rather than contact lenses during flight as the contact lenses may dry out. In order to avoid de-hydration, passengers should drink non- alcoholic beverages. Section 2, how traveling through space affects humans Astronauts often experience Zero- Gravity during their travels through space. This zero gravity or micro gravity can bring about health concern to the body if astronauts remain in space for a long period of time. It would be much healthier for crews to live under artificial gravity. In order to prevent any biological changes in the body when experiencing zero gravity, scientists recommend a force of artificial gravity equal to a third of the Earths level of gravity. However, scientists still havent research affects of artificial gravity on humans but they know for a fact and there is an imbalance in the body due to the shifts of gravity levels. Artificial gravity prevents physiological changes from occurring. In zero-gravity, the body deteriorates. It takes less muscle to move around, so after a long period of time in space, muscles weaken so the body bends. Because there is no tension in space, muscles relax and after a while they atrophy as a result of disuse and eventually disappear. To prevent the fracture of bones, limbs and muscles, all space shuttles give the opportunity for astronauts to do rigorous exercise everyday to keep the muscles strong. Staying in Zero-gravity for months causes bones to lose mass and get thinner, as they are not carrying any weight. This means astronauts must go through rigorous trainings in the spacecraft everyday in order to keep muscle and bone strength. When a great deal of the crews precious time in space is spent exercising rather than doing science, money and potential knowledge are being squandered for the sake of health. It is a sacrifice, but a necessary one1 In space, receptors in the inner ear allow humans to sense direction. In space, ear receptors dont receive the same cues and the mind gets used to ignoring the inner ears feelings about balance. Hand-eye coordination, posture and balance are all affected by the disorientation of the mind. When astronauts return to earth, they are often overwhelmed by dizziness and have difficulty in maintaining balance. An example of the mind adapting to the new gravity less surroundings would be with Shannon Lucid, who was on board the Russian space Station MIR for six months. The astronaut said You just sort of get used to floating around but we also know that floating around is not all that astronauts do- they must resist the effects of micro gravity on the body. Also, no gravity means no resistance from growing, so some astronauts return to earth some 6 inches taller than when they left. It is only after a few months that they grow down/ shrink back to normal height. This is because of the unloading of spinal discs- because of lack of gravity, the discs in the spine are not holding up or don anything, so they tend to stretch rather than contract. Traveling through micro gravity causes bodily fluids to shift from the lower body to the cephalic area (head), and so peoples faces tend to swell and become rounder than they are on earth. When the brain senses a higher amount of blood than usual, it interprets the situation that there is now an overall increase in the total volume of fluids in the body. The brain responds by triggering the excretion of fluids, making astronauts prone to dehydration. Also, the fluid redistribution can shrink legs as the bones are weaker. These fluids pass through the kidneys, causing kidney filtration rate to increase, bone loss can cause Kidney stones. Fluids that leave the body include calcium loss and bone demineralization. The loss of blood plasma causes temporary Anemia upon the return to Earth. Some crew members get space anemia. Scientists are concerned about the affects of catching this disease on over all crew performance. Blood volume may decrease by 10 percent. The increase of fluids in the head causes the same feeling as when one has a cold and feels blocked in. in space astronauts begin to lose their sense of taste, causing the craving for strong flavorings in the food such as horseradish, mustard and taco sauce. Fluid loss, lack of exercise and diminished appetite cause weight loss as astronauts tend not to eat as much as they would on earth. Meals and exercise are planned to prevent excessive loss. Zero-gravity affects the cardio-vascular system. On earth we must cope with gravity, which sustains or slows down the blood-flow. In zero gravity, there is no gravity force, causing the heart to slow down due to the decreased demands of blood as it travels more freely. The immune system in the body is also affected by weightlessness. In space, one is exposed to illness as the immune response lowers and numbers of anti-bodies decrease after a long exposure to micro gravity. Approximately half of all astronauts are affected by this unpleasant syndrome which affects nausea, headache, lethargy and sweating (taken from NASA sources). Also, minor effects of weightlessness on the body include puffiness in the face, flatulence, weight loss, nasal congestion and often sleeping disturbances. Upon returning to earth, recovery time depends on the duration of stay in space. Muscles are weak and the body is not used to gravity forces, (causing them to feel dizzy) and so some astronauts are taken back in stretchers. This shows why astronauts need to be at the peak of fitness. If in the near future the human race would build space stations as tourist resorts, some would prefer hotels with zero-gravity and some would want partial gravity, which would bring about competition like hotels on earth, which would drive prices low. As gravity affects all biological, physical and chemical processes on earth, building an International Space Station gives new opportunity to study a world without gravity and its affect on animals and other living organisms. Observing the weightlessness effect on these living organisms could teach scientists about biological processes on earth, such as aging and osteoporosis. In the end, we can see that human travel through space is safer under artificial gravity when compared to astronauts being exposed to weightlessness, micro gravity or zero gravity (all three mean the same). Most of the problems mentioned such as fluid loss and muscle deterioration would not cause problems as long as the crew remained in a weightless environment. Remaining in a zero-gravity environment for over a long period of time could cause problems, however. In 1987, in the later stages of his 326-day mission, Russian Yuri Romanenko was fatigued both physically and mentally due to traveling through space. The majority of his day was spent sleeping regaining strength, in the meantime his bones were deteriorating. Some say if many like Romanenko stayed in space for much longer, he may not have survived re-entry to the Earth. Returning to Earth could cause problems as the body is much weaker due to demineralization and atrophy of the bones and shortage of red blood cells. Ones balan ce must now again be readjusted causing many astronauts to feel dizzy when back to a strong g force gravity on earth. Whether or not the large amount of time and money spent on keeping astronauts fit during space flight is worth the scientific findings is debatable. Physiological effects need to be prevented as much a possible. Again, this is usually prevented by rigorous exercise and micro gravity could still be a danger to the astronauts health. Many scientists believe that the benefits of transporting/sending out machines (robots) and humans to space, despite the health issues, are nothing compared to the huge benefit that society will receive. Humans will not be perfectly suited to living in a weightless environment, but that wont stop Astrobiologists and many other research firms like NASA from exploring space. The many benefits of space exploration such as technological knowledge and inspiration easily outweigh the negative aspects. Bibliography: Sources were from Newspapers, CDs, web sites and a large extract of a book in one of the web-pages. Most web sites accessed on the 11th December 2003 and 9th January 2004. 1) http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=adapt02 2) www.permanent.com/s-nograv.htm 3) http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php%3fpage=adapt02 4) www.spacefuture.com/habitat/zerog.shtml 5) http://mos.org/cst/article/77/6.html 6) http://school.discovery.com/schooladventures/spacestation/basics/why.html 7) www.relaxincomfort.com/zerogravity_benefits.html 8) http://experts.about.com/q/2540/2677459.htm 9) www.uclas.ac.uk/facs/science/physastr/courses/space/ssyear1/sc1201.htm 10) http://www.who.int/ith/chapter02_01.html 11) Definitions from Microsoft Encarta 2003 Premium Suite CD 12) http://library.thinkquest.org/2606/Environmental_problems/water_pollution_-_effects.html (used for first idea of project) 1 http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php%3fpage=adapt02

Surgery :: essays research papers

Surgery   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  My stomach and throat seemed to be playing ping pong with my heart as I entered the hospital’s waiting room. All week I had been playing it cool telling everyone that the surgery was not that big of a deal, and that I was enthused about all the attention I would be receiving. But today reality had hit me. I had never been through anything like this before.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The waiting room was sparsely filled with families waiting for their loved ones. I tried to look at the various magazines, but nothing helped relieve the tight feeling in my stomach. Finally after what seemed like an eternity the nurse called my name. I slowly got up, and headed through the door with my family. I was thankful that they were there. Their presence made me feel more at ease.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I was asked to change into the attractive dress without a back, and then I was handed some funny looking socks. I looked like an eighty year old lady in a fifteen year-old’s body with my new outfit. Another nurse entered the room to take my vitals, and give me an IV, the needle that she pulled out of the plastic looked huge. I had had shots before, but an IV was a completely different deal. After the IV was secured, I was afraid to move my arm, in case the IV fell out, because I was not having the nurse stick me again. With my vitals recorded, and my first shot administered to relax me, I was feeling slightly better about the procedure. Just when I was convincing myself that this would not be so bad, a nurse with a sour disposition came to wheel me away. Then it hit me, my family could not follow me to this next part, I was on my own. I had hardly noticed their presence for the last half hour, but now I was suddenly aware of their pending absence. As they w heeled me down the hall away from my mom, dad and sister, I had the urge to jump out of the Gurney, and race back to them.

Kant, irrationalism and religion Essay

Abstract Kant is a philosopher, which dealt with human recognition. He has been considered as an irrationalist. Many philosophers think that he used the irrationalism to justify the trust in religion and to protect the religion from the science. In this paper I shall take a view to the philosophy of Kant on recongition and to the question if Kant is an irrationalist or not. Did he use the irrationalism to protect the religion from science? This paper shall show that Kant wasn’t an irrationalist, but he simply tried to determine the limitations of the recognition and to distinguish between what we recongize and what we simply believe. His philosophy of recognition didn’t aim at protecting the religion from the science. He tells us in some pasages of the book â€Å"The critique of pure reason† that when his theory would be accepted, the men wouldn’t concluded of what they couldn’t know really, and maybe the religion would have some benefits from it. But I think that he meant the trials to prove either the existence of God or the non-existence of God. Kanti, Irrationalism and Religion Kant was firstly influenced in his philosophy by Leibnitz and later by British empiricism. By Locke and Hume he came to the conclusion that recognition stems from the senses and he also received from Leibniz’s belief that although the mind does not have any idea born, she has the innate abilities that give shape to the experience brought to it by the senses. Fundamental problem that Kant raised was on how to reconcile the absolute security that gives us mathematics and physics with the fact that our knowledge comes from the senses? Kant’s goal was to build the foundations of a new rationality that would be incontestable. In efforts to achieve security he assumed that the mind has three skills: 1. Reflection 2. Will 3. Feelings and he devoted a critique to each of them. Kant’s critique created for both rationalists and empiricists a method of transcendent or critical method, by which he meant a study of its reason, an â€Å"investigation of pure reason† to see if its judgments have universality beyond human experience and again, are necessary and related to the human experience. The logic involved in these trials may be absolutely safe and can also be applied to the world of things. Kant believed that the thought, feeling and the will are forms of reason and he decided the transcendental principles of the reason in the realm of thought, the transcendental moral principles to the will and the transcendental principles of beauty in the realm of feeling. In this paper we will try to treat if Kant is an irrational that used irrationalism to justify the religion. To clarify this we must first demonstrate his theory of knowledge and whether Kant was indeed irrational and then if he used this irrationalism to make room for faith in religion. Kant says that his goal of writing the â€Å"Critique of Pure Reason† was to put Metaphysics on the basis of sound and to transform it into a science. In the first entry of â€Å"Critique of Pure Reason† he writes: Our age is the age of criticism, to which everything must be subjected. The sacredness of religion, and the authority of legislation, are by many regarded as grounds of exemption from the examination of this tribunal. But, if they on they are exempted, they become the subjects of just suspicion, and cannot lay claim to sincere respect, which reason accords only to that which has stood the test of a free and public examination. † (Kant,2002 pg. 7,) Kant sought for the metaphysics to achieve the security of mathematics and logic. He was not a skeptic who saw the world as mere sensory appearance, but quite the contrary he was prompted to write this book as a response to the skepticism of David Hume. Kant aims to determine whether it can reach a metaphysical knowledge, and if so whether it can be arranged in a science and what its limits are. The main aim of th Pure Critique is to demonstrate how the answers to these questions can be achieved, provided that the subject is reviewed under a new angle. Kant’s own words regarding this are: â€Å"â€Å"This attempt to alter the procedure which has hitherto prevailed in metaphysics by completely revolutionizing it . . . forms indeed the main purpose of this critique. . . . It marks out the whole plan of the science, both as regards its limits and as regards its entire internal structure† (Kant,2002). â€Å"The critique of pure reason . . . will decide as to the possibility or impossibility of metaphysics in general, and determine its sources, its extent, and its limits—all in accordance with principles. . . . I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied† (Kant, 1998). Kant divided metaphysics into two parts: the first part deals with problems that are knowable by experience such as causality, while the second part deals with the whole in general and as such we do not refer to an object that we are able to perceive, because we cannot perceive the universe as a single thing. According to Kant we can have confidence only in the first part of metaphysics (general metaphysics) and it may have scientific certainty because its facilities are given in experience and is subject to verification. On contrary, the metaphysics of the second part (special metaphysics), which is so abstract that it overcomes any kind, cannot achieve scientific safety because its concepts are ‘blank’. In the first part, metaphysics deals with everything within the universe and that it is accessible to the senses, while the metaphysics in the second half deals with the universe as a whole and undetected by the senses. Of the first questions can get a correct answer while the latter not, even though these questions is well to be made. Kant was primarily interested in clarifying whether metaphysics is possible as a science or not. He was convinced that mathematics and natural sciences were true science. But is metaphysics a science? What Kant must do to achieve a scientific metaphysics was to identify the criteria for a science and then to produce metaphysical conclusions that met these criteria. Kant believed that the first criteria of a true science were that its conclusions were both necessary and universal, as much as judgments in mathematics, and geometry are. To have such universal judgments, it’s necessary to find out how they are produced, and to do this we need to see how mathematicians and scientists achieve this. When Kant asks how metaphysics is possible, he is asking how a science of everything that exists can reach the safety of pure mathematics and natural sciences. To understand this we must understand what the concept of science is and what its elements to Kant are. We must understand the use of this concept as the standard for determining whether metaphysics in both its parts is a real science. Kant conceives the science as a system of real judgments in a specific field of research. All judgments Kant divides into two types, empirical and a priori. An empirical judgment is the judgment coming from experience and can be verified by the observation itself. Kant calls all not empirical judgments as a priori. Example of an a priori judgment is: ‘All triangles have three angles â€Å". We verify this by observing not all triangles, but by analyzing what the subject to the judgment ‘triangle’ means. We find that the real concept of the ‘triangle’ is already incorporated to the concept of triangle, which is predication of our judgment. It would be contradictory to deny that the triangle has three angles. A trial verified in this way is called by Kant analytical; predicate simply explains the concept of the subject without adding anything new to him. All analytic judgments are a priori known without recourse to any particular type of experience. If all a priori judgments are analytic is another matter entirely. On the other hand we get judgment â€Å"the apple is red†. Analysis of the concept ‘apple’ is not leading us to the concept ‘red†. We need to see the apple to understand the subject. This is an empirical judgment and all empirical judgments Kant called synthetic, because they connect the subject with the predicate of the ways that are not analytical, the predicate adds a new recognition of the concept of the subject. All empirical judgments are synthetic; the survey supports the connection between subject and predicate. If all synthetic judgments are empirical-in other words if the observation is always the one that provides the link for the synthesis- is from Kant’s view of a very different matter. If metaphysics is a science consisting of judgments, these judgments are empirical or a priori? First they need to contain any existence as such, so they must be universal and necessary. For example, let’s look at a judgment of metaphysics in the first part: â€Å"everything has a cause†. We cannot allow any exception to this judgment. The opposite of it would be contradictory. Let’s see a judgment that belongs to the metaphysics of the second part: â€Å"the universe is eternal†. Even this judgment does not allow exceptions. This means that any empirical judgment is not metaphysical. They are a priori, but are they analytical? Let’s see once more the judgment â€Å"every event has a cause. † Predicate here is not included in the concept of the subject. Let’s see another judgment: ‘the universe is eternal. ‘ Even here the predicate is not included in the subject. So the typical judgments of metaphysics are synthetic and a priori. Even though they are necessary and universal, their predicates are not related to the subjects either by empirical observation or by logical connections. What makes them universal and necessary? What relationship may exist between subjects and predicate that comes neither from the experience nor is conceptual? How are synthetic judgments possible a priori? To explain the a priori synthetic judgments Kant introduces the notion of pure intuition and differentiates it from the thought. He declares that there are two basic skills of human consciousness, intuition, which is directly aware of a specific individual unit, and the thought which is indirectly aware of things through their abstract types. Each of these skills is to recognize conditions that are a priori limitations on what you can know and what cannot know from their use. A priori conditions of intuition are time and space. A priori conditions of thought are, first, a priori conditions of valid conclusions, and secondly, the conditions a priori to think about objects, forms of judgment and categories. Kant claimed that he had managed to put metaphysics of the first part in the way of science. As for Kant metaphysics is the study of everything in general, it is the study of everything that can be recognized. In this way, its findings will be a priori synthetic judgments applicable to anything that can be recognized. Kant called these researches for these a priori synthetic judgments â€Å"transcendental investigation ‘, while he is in search of conditions for recognition of all. To discover these terms means to discover to what extent is metaphysics possible as science. In the first part of metaphysics we seek transcendental conditions, universal and necessary knowledge of all things, and we are committed to stay within the limits of possible experience. The knowledge in this area consists of a final judgment S is P. We are dealing with things or objects and therefore judgments cannot be simply concepts and hence must be synthetic, adding to our knowledge. Our goal in the first part of metaphysics is to bring these items under the categories. But the categories are in themselves as empty files. They can be filled only if we look them by experience. How can one give to an abstract concept an experiencing filling? It is easy to illustrate with a first empirical content. Kant states: â€Å"The possibility of experience is . . . what gives objective reality to all our a priori cognitions. Experience, however, rests on the synthetic unity of appearances, that is, on a synthesis according to concepts of an object of appearances in general. Apart from such synthesis it would not be knowledge, but a rhapsody of perceptions which would not fit into context according to rules of a completely interconnected possible consciousness. . . . Experience, therefore, depends upon a priori principles of its form, that is, upon universal rules of unity in the synthesis of appearances. (Kant 1998). Have we arrived at the essence of metaphysics of the first part? Since the categories are a priori concepts that apply to each item, the corresponding rules for their application should be a priori rules with sensory content, unlike empirical content, a rule whose application is a retrospective sensory content. Kant is fulfilling his promise by providing us metaphysical principles which are synthetic a priori. Since all our perceptions are temporarily connected to each other, rules of application of the categories will be expressed in terms of different temporary connections that we know are a priori possible. Each of these predications, Kant calls the schema. The Schema of the category of reality is ‘being in a specified time. ‘ The Schema of substance category is ‘consistency of real in time. ‘ The result is vindication of metaphysics in its first part and the production of current metaphysical conclusions in this discipline. Kant believed that he had found the conditions that make possible empirical knowledge of things in general, and furthermore to show that metaphysics is possible as a science in the first part. But, what about the constituency for metaphysics in the second- in other words the study of all things considered collectively? This includes rational cosmology, the study of the universe as a whole, rational psychology, the study of the soul as something which refers to any possible knowledge, and rational theology study of the Creator and manager of everything. Kant argues that the attempt to demonstrate each of these issues is pointless. The major difficulty is that we cannot have an intuition of the universe as a whole, of the soul or God as a whole. Consequently, there is no possibility to connect the subject with the predicate in a synthetic judgment about these things, no way to verify or refute them. His conclusion is that although we may have certain knowledge in the first part of metaphysics we are excluded from the recognition in the second part of it. He reached this conclusion from a general argument, but he gives particular argument against the possibility of recognition in the second part of metaphysics. All of the alleged evidence for or against the thesis of the so-called science lead to logical absurdities. The whole universe, God, soul, his own free will and immortality can be thought of, but cannot be recognized, and the same can be said about things in themselves. All these things are noumena or simply understandable. Kant made the distinction between phenomenal and the noumenal reality. There is a difference between things we perceive and those that really do exist. The things we perceive he calls a phenomenon, while those that actually exist he calls noumena. Not only a phenomenon can be addressed to two different noumena (when two different things look the same) but also two different phenomena can be addressed to a single phenomenon (when the same thing looks different in different perspectives). Noumenon is a physical object and the phenomenon is how it looks. We cannot have any idea, what noumena are. We cannot know what is behind appearance, behind the information we receive from our senses. We cannot talk about what exists, if we don’t refer to phenomenal reality. We cannot know neither where nor noumena are, if they exist. We do not know for sure, if there is any different reality outside the reality we perceive. We cannot ever have real knowledge about noumenon in Kant’s opinion. Kant uses the word â€Å"knowledge† to refer more to what we know about the phenomenon than what we know about noumenon. This may seem like a contradiction: should not recognition be for real things, rather than simply for their appearance? But, the recognition for real things is impossible according to Kant, because we have no transcendental insight. We can think about real things, we can form beliefs about it, but we cannot have any knowledge about it because our knowledge of the world has only one source: the sensory data. (There are also other types of recognition but they do not apply to the world but only on the concepts and abstractions as mathematics. ). Since all our knowledge about the world is created by the sensory information and the sensory data are all phenomenal, then all our knowledge about the world is knowledge about the phenomena and not about noumena. I think Kant meant that although the phenomenon may be reason to talk about how something really is, only phenomena are not sufficient to show that something exists because the existence is the only feature noumena. To tell the truth one cannot have certain knowledge to show that something exists, we can only have faith that it exists. This means rocks and trees, as well as means God and the soul, but the difference is that for the trees and rocks it is not important if noumena actually exist. Even if a stone is nothing but a phenomenon, it kills again if someone hits with it, so I have to bow to avoid. Ultimately even my own head is also a phenomenon. No matter what is beyond what we know, because everything we have in the physical world are only phenomena, and this is what really counts. What can we know about things in themselves and other noumena as: God and soul? It is possible to know something about things in them, that they may not be space-time or be recognized by the application over to the categories. But this does not tell us how they are. Kant thought that we have a secure knowledge of things in themselves, that they exist, that they affect the way they affect the senses and contribute (help) content as opposed to the empirical form of recognition. We know that they exist by the fact that it would be absurd to talk about appearance if would not be out of something. We don’t know anything else about noumena. We do not know whether God exists or if everything is fixed or if we have free will, etc.. This does not mean that these concepts do not have a function. The concept of the universe as a whole, the concept of a legislator to the concept of rule and power over the universe, even though unverifiable, can serve as ideas of reasoning – as Kant calls them, that are regulatory to unify all knowledge into a system. Let us assume that we cannot know anything about noumena: is there any justification for believing that they exist or have this or that feature? By doing this question Kant did the distinction between belief and verification of a justification to accept it. The verification provides a full justification for accepting a belief and a refutation provides a justification to reject it. As long as we can prove or retort, the theoretical knowledge prevails and we are justified in accepting its results. But Kant thought he had shown that there are some things that cannot ever be prove or rejected. Then a question is arisen: is there any justification for believing than knowing? Kant said that once to the theoretical reason is given to what is up, the priority of practice asserts its interests. Where theoretical reason is concerned with what is, practical reason is concerned about what should be. The theoretical reason could not give us knowledge about subjects that go beyond the experience, therefore we should deny all its claims in this area and give these practical reason issues to the people. Kant says, â€Å"I must, therefore, abolish knowledge, to make room for belief† (Kant, 1998). Deny the knowledge and no reason, for practical reason is part of the reason, and because it limits the confidence in the minimum of required arguments, in Kant’s view, it is done to protect the morale -existence of God, freedom and immortality. Kant condemns the faith based on religious feelings. If we understand Kant upon his words, it will be said that he was defending the Enlightenment, the reason and the warning of disaster to come, if these will be abandoned in the name of â€Å"feeling†. Kant doesn’t deny the recognition, it is not a irrationalist. Kant raises a theory of knowledge, which wants to create a scientific metaphysic, rather than makes room to believe in God (religion); he tells us what we can know and what is beyond the scope of human knowledge. Kant had understood that his method would help religion. He writes that once one accept his theory, people will not disclose to unjustified conclusions on things that they cannot recognize and that religion would benefit from this, but I think he meant this as attempts to validate the idea that God exists or to prove that God does not exist. What Kant tells us is: we cannot ever know for sure that God and soul exist because we cannot have accurate knowledge of the noumenal existence. This is not an expression of irrationality, but quite the contrary, is an attempt to use rational thinking in order to distinguish it from what we know and what we simply believe. References Kant, I. (2002). Kritika e mendjes se kulluar. ( Ekrem Murtezai, Trans. ) Prishtine. (Original work published 1787) Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason. (J. M. D Meiklejohn, Trans). Electronic texts collection. (Original work published 1787) Kant, I. (2002). Kritika e gjykimit. ( Dritan Thomollari, trans. ). Plejad. Bonardel, F. (2007). L’irrazionale. (Lucias della Pieta, Trans. ) Mimesis edizioni. Sgarbi, M. (2010). La logica dell’irrazionale. Studio sul significato e sui problemi della Kritik der Urteilskraft. Mimesis Edizioni(Milano-Udine)

German Verbs Haben (to Have) and Sein (to Be)

The two most important German verbs are  haben  (to have) and  sein  (to be). As in most languages, the verb to be is one of the oldest verbs in German, and therefore one of the most irregular. The verb to have is only slightly less irregular, but no less vital to surviving speaking German. The Rules of Haben in German Well start with  haben. Look at the following table for the conjugation of  haben  in the present tense, along with sample sentences. Notice the strong resemblance to English for many forms of this verb, with most forms only one letter off from the English ( habe/have, hat/has). In the case of the familiar you (du), the German verb is identical to Old English: thou hast is du hast. Haben  is also used in some German expressions that are translated with to be in English. For example:   Ich habe Hunger.  (Im hungry.) Haben  -  To  Have Deutsch English Sample Sentences Singular ich habe I have Ich habe einen roten Wagen. (I have a red car.) du hast you (fam.) have Du hast mein Buch. (You have my book.) er hat he has Er hat ein blaues Auge. (He has a black eye.) sie hat she has Sie hat blaue Augen. (She has blue eyes.) es hat it has Es hat keine Fehler. (It has no flaws.) ​ Plural wir haben we have Wir haben keine Zeit. (We have no time.) ihr habt you (guys) have Habt ihr euer Geld? (Do yall have your money?) sie haben they have Sie haben kein Geld. (They have no money.) Sie haben you have Haben Sie das Geld? (You, sir, have no money.) Note: Sie, formal you, is both singular and plural. To Be or Not to Be  (Sein Oder Nicht Sein) Look at the following table for the conjugation of  sein  (to be) in the present tense. Notice how similar the German and English forms are in the third person (ist/is). Sein  -  To  Be Deutsch English Sample Sentences Singular ich bin I am Ich bin es. (Its me.) du bist you (fam.) are Du bist mein Schatz. (You are my darling.) er ist he is Er ist ein netter Kerl. (He is a nice guy.) sie ist she is Ist sie da? (Is she here?) es ist it is Es ist mein Buch. (It is my book.) Plural wir sind we are Wir sind das Volk. (We are the people/nation.) Note: This was the slogan of 1989 East German protests in Leipzig. ihr seid you (guys) are Seid ihr unsere Freunde? (Are you guys our friends?) sie sind they are Sie sind unsere Freunde. (They are our friends.) Sie sind you are Sind Sie Herr Meier? (Are you, sir, Mr. Meier?) Note: Sie, formal you, is both singular and plural.