1. 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?
I thought this to be very interesting reasoning. Kant means that usually our cognition (which can be described as result of perception, learning and reasoning) should adapt to objects. Hence, we cannot know about an object without studying or experimenting with it before hand thus creating experience of the object. For example, we cannot just be home and ponder about the lives of bees and come to a correct result without reading about them or going out, observing these bees and gaining experience of the bees lives.
However, Kant says that we should now do vice versa as an experiment and let the objects adapt to our cognition to see if we can learn more from this. Kant means that this way of thinking has proven fruitful in mathematics and natural science, and for an example writes about Copernicus who made good progress in explaining celestial motions by doing this. Kant means that by changing our ways of thinking we will learn more - I would compare this to the saying “think outside the box”.
2. a. 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?
Socrates brings up an example of the Trojan Horse, in which they are men unconnected to each other and not having one “ruling” mind.
However, our senses do not work this way. Our senses; ears, eyes, taste, touch, are tools in which we perceive senses through. But it is in the mind that they are connected, the mind is the common centre of perception. Our senses belong to a whole, which would be our entire body and soul.
I would explain this by saying that we hear through the ears, but it’s in the mind that we understand what we hear. Therefor we do not hear with the ears. It is just an instrument for hearing. Our senses of perceptions are neutral since they only are instruments. They do not have experience or feelings towards what they perceive. However the mind, or the soul as Socrates would say, is not neutral.
Something interesting is one of the definitions of perception from to Oxford Dictionaries is as following:
“The ability to see, hear or become aware of something through the senses”
Where it also has been chosen to use the word “through” instead of “with”. Which makes me wonder if it now is well-recognised and canonical to use “through the senses” when discussing perception?
Something interesting is one of the definitions of perception from to Oxford Dictionaries is as following:
“The ability to see, hear or become aware of something through the senses”
Where it also has been chosen to use the word “through” instead of “with”. Which makes me wonder if it now is well-recognised and canonical to use “through the senses” when discussing perception?
2. b. And in what way is it correct to say that Socrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?
According to Oxford Dictionaries empiricism is:
“The theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses”
“The theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses”
Socrates argument is directly connected since Socrates and Theaetetus eventually, by reasoning with each other, come to the conclusion that knowledge is not attained through only perception, since perception is given by birth to all men and animals, but knowledge is gained by reflecting and gaining experience of the impressions. However, perception could be seen as the simplest basic stepping stone for eventually acquire knowledge because without impressions or experiences to contemplate and discuss how can we arrive at some sort of conclusion of knowledge about an object?
References:
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar