I've been studying Locke recently and I'm having trouble understanding how his epistemic position differs from Kant's, and by implication, why did Kant see his epistemology as being so revolutionary given that it is not too different from Locke's. Both of them seem to assert the following:

• Objects exist in the world independently of the perceiver.

• We can never know the true nature of the objects, only the effect they have on ours senses.

• Our mind plays an important role in the way our sense is organized.

My questions

1. What is it that I am missing here that makes Locke's realism and Kant's realism so different?

2. Why did Kant see himself as having revolutionized epistemology, given Locke's results?

3. My understanding was that Kant was mainly refuting Hume, why wasn't he concerned with Locke's results?

I've been studying Locke recently and I'm having trouble understanding how his epistemic position differs from Kant's, and by implication, why did Kant see his epistemology as being so revolutionary given that it is not too different from Locke's. Both of them seem to assert the following:

• Objects exist in the world independently of the perceiver.

• We can never know the true nature of the objects, only the effect they have on ours senses.

• Our mind plays an important role in the way our sense data is organized.

My questions

1. What is it that I am missing here that makes Locke's realism and Kant's realism so different?

2. Why did Kant see himself as having revolutionized epistemology, given Locke's results?

3. My understanding was that Kant was mainly refuting Hume, why wasn't he concerned with Locke's results?