- In the preface to the second edition of
"Critique of Pure Reason" (page B xvi) Kant says: "Thus far
it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects. On
that presupposition, however, all our attempts to establish something
about them a priori, by means of concepts through which our cognition
would be expanded, have come to nothing. Let us, therefore, try to find
out by experiment whether we shall not make better progress in the
problems of metaphysics if we assume that objects must conform to our
cognition." How are we to understand this?
In the article Kant is
presenting a way of perceiving the object that is to be examined. From what I
interpret he is discussing an alternative way of thinking when cognizing of
things a priori. In other words he is, with his article, saying that it is not easy
to try and define knowledge that is meant to be presented solely by rationalization
or by theoretical explanations. For example it can be problematic if a new
concept is introduced and then it becomes treated as the one and only truth
about an object (the object is what the concept concerns). To me his proposition is to see that
theorizing and developing concepts might lead to us having to push our limits
on how to perceive knowledge. In order to expand our knowledge it might be
necessary to adapt a concept to the knowledge we have from earlier and not to
adapt our knowledge of the world to the new concept. To summarize I think that
Kant wants to focus on point out the importance of having an open mind in order
to be able to expand knowledge.
- At the end of the discussion of the definition "Knowledge is perception", Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears. How are we to understand this? And in what way is it correct to say that Socrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?
Socrates is discussing how the human body, in a way,
can gather the information from the world around it. With the help of eyes and
ears we can gather information of colors and sounds. However it is not the eyes
and the ears themselves that process the information on their own. It is with
our minds that we have learned for example to perceive different signals from
our eyes as colors and it is with our mind we can register them. Empiricism can
be explained as learning by observing and experiencing. In other words
empiricism tells us that knowledge is reached via our experiences. Among
other parts in their discussions about knowledge Socrates summarize their
thoughts in the following way:
“SOCRATES: ...And now, what
are you saying?—Are there two sorts of opinion, one true and the other false;
and do you define knowledge to be the true?
THEAETETUS: Yes, according to
my present view.”
This I found similar to
empiricism and how empiricism can be explained. To be able to gather knowledge
one way is to observe continuously while experimenting. If the experiments and
observations lead to the same perceiving of the “opinion”, or theory, that is
being examined then that “opinion” may be perceived as the truth and in the end
as knowledge. Then again if future knowledge would come to contradict that “opinion”
then it may cease to be perceived as knowledge or the truth. I think Socrates
means that to learn from experience is to expand our knowledge.
Through Socrates and
Theaetetus discussion on seeing and hearing Socrates says:
“SOCRATES: And you would admit
that what you perceive through one faculty you cannot perceive through another;
the objects of hearing, for example, cannot be perceived through sight, or the
objects of sight through hearing?
THEAETETUS: Of course not.”
This part stood out to me because it reminded me of a TED Talk. A man who cannot see any
color talks in the video linked below about, and demonstrates, a device that can register
light and send him audible frequencies that represents the colors the device is
facing. This made it possible for him to use his hearing to perceive color.
First of all, I have to say that I like your blog-design, it's really nice!
SvaraRaderaNow to the text. I think it's good that you used references even though we didn't have to in this first seminar, and that you explained it well, since we who read your text might not have encountered it on beforehand.
It is a bit annoying that the "questions" are in such a small writing... But that's a parenthesis.
Kant's text isn't really an article, it's the preface to his book Critique of Pure Reason... I'm not sure if you've totally gripped what Kant's text is about (and neither have I, since it's really complex) but I think that you come closer to explaining your thoughts in the end of your answer, but I get the feeling that you never really answer the question at hand.
Regarding the Plato-text, you seem to have better understanding of what the text is about. I would've liked a conclusion at the end of your text, it just ends with the ted talks example, which is a shame, I think you could've gotten a nice ending by tying up your thoughts into a conclusion.
Your discussion of 'Theaetetus' is very detailed and you went beyond the point of just answering the question. I also like that you took quotes from the texts because they support your point of view. But I disagree with your statement that ‚Kant wants to focus on point out the importance of having an open mind‘. This is not exactly the point Kant wanted to express according to my understanding of his text. An open mind would still not change that ‚cognition must conform to object‘. What Kant means is that we are only able to gain deeper knowledge about objects by trying to form a concept of them a priori. By doing so we are able to investigate an object according to this concept and prove whether it was false or true.
SvaraRadera