Theme 1, Blog Post 2: Theory of Knowledge and Theory of Science

Reading Plato and Kant was my first “close encounter” with philosophy and as such it was a very difficult one. Even after the lecture things were not as clear as I had hoped, so before the seminar I once again turned to Martin Heidegger’s Phenomenological Interpretation of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and also to Jonathan Bennett’s website earlymoderntexts.com. The readings for the second theme were very useful as well, because they helped me see the relevance of Kant’s work in a more “recent” (20^th century) context.  

In our seminar group we talked about whether we can know the world as it is in itself or “detach” ourselves from who we are as individuals – from our race, gender, nationality, sexuality, upbringing, previous experiences, etc – and look at the world as objectively as humanly possible. I expressed the opinion that pondering what the world is in itself is pondering what it would be like if there were no living things to experience it, in which case there would be no one asking these questions. In other words, it's pointless.

I think we can only try to imagine how we would perceive the world if we were of the opposite sex, of a different race, nationality or sexuality, if we were brought up differently – these aspects of our identity may vary and, thus, our perception might vary with them, but they would nonetheless influence how we experience the world. I agree with Kant's argument that there is no knowledge of the world that is independent of our experience of it. The world is, in fact, what we experience it and different people do so differently, which I think is good, because each of us adds to, or picks up from, it a different nuance, making it more diverse and colorful.

We also discussed how constantly scrutinizing our perception might make us feel about ourselves and the world; that constantly critiquing and doubting our senses might make us miserable and unconfident, but, at the same time, if we never reflect on ourselves and question our perception, we cannot evolve and grow as individuals. In relation to that I remember a quote by Ernest Hemingway: “Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.” In order to not be blissfully dumb or miserably intelligent, I think we should always maintain a healthy dose of skepticism and doubt, but nevertheless live in the here and now. 

Having previously studied Journalism, in my own time I also thought about Kant’s work in relation to the consumption of media content. When I did my Bachelor’s degree, we talked about how social media (among others) allows us to choose the journalistic content we consume (for instance, we choose to follow, say, the Guardian or the Sun on Facebook). By “liking” certain Facebook pages (and not others), we allow the platform to form a “portfolio” (adequate or not) of our interests. It then starts to bombard us with “recommendations” of pages we might want to follow. 

Eventually, we might find ourselves surrounded by information that corresponds with, encourages, confirms and hardens our political, social, cultural, etc., views and interests. We create our own little world in which what we think is right, true and sufficient, and become deaf and blind for different and/or opposing views and for all the diversity in the world. This is potentially dangerous and, I think, leads to spiritual, social, cultural and intellectual stagnation. We should actively maintain an open mind, get our information from a variety of sources, be accepting of others' opinions and, as mentioned above, maintain a healthy dose of skepticism.