Theme 1, Blog Post 1: Theory of Knowledge and Theory of Science
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 believe what Kant is trying to say is that the
assumption that “all our cognition must conform to objects” – put simply, that all knowledge
comes from/is dependent on sensory experience and observation (a
posteriori) of physical objects in the physical world (seeing them, touching
them, etc.) – is of no use when it comes to the metaphysical. Martin Heidegger defines metaphysics as “the science
of supersensible things which are not accessible to experience”, such as God
and the soul (1997:10). Since God is not accessible to the human senses like
sight and hearing, knowledge of God and whether he exists cannot be acquired through
sensory experience, but rather requires a priori (independent from experience)
reason.
2. 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"?
When Socrates argues that
people do not see or hear “with” their eyes and ears, but rather “through” them,
I think he means that the eyes and ears are merely organs of the body,
instruments that independently “deliver” form/colour and sound. These organs
cannot process sound or colour by themselves into knowledge; they are merely windows.
Moreover, during their discussion, Socrates and Theaetetus establish that senses can be
deceptive; that they can lead us into thinking we are awake when we are, in
fact, dreaming, and vice versa.
In that
sense, I think Plato (indirectly, through Socrates) and Kant argue against the theory
of empiricism, which holds that all knowledge comes from sensory experience,
observation and experimentation, or, as put in Encyclopædia Britannica (see "Empiricism"), "all concepts originate in experience; all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced..." They believe something more is necessary,
something that translates sensory data into knowledge (otherwise perception is
nothing more than perception).
According to Socrates, this necessary “processor” of sensory data is experience and education. Kant, on the other hand, as mentioned above, refers to it as “(a priori) reason” - an innate idea which does not conform to, and exists independently from, objects and our experience of them. Reason, allows us “to proceed from the knowledge of the sensible to that of the supersensible” (Kant quoted in Heidegger, 1997:11). Therefore, rationalism – the view that reason is "the chief source and test of knowledge” – might be more useful when trying to solve the problems of metaphysics (Encyclopædia Britannica, see “Rationalism”).
According to Socrates, this necessary “processor” of sensory data is experience and education. Kant, on the other hand, as mentioned above, refers to it as “(a priori) reason” - an innate idea which does not conform to, and exists independently from, objects and our experience of them. Reason, allows us “to proceed from the knowledge of the sensible to that of the supersensible” (Kant quoted in Heidegger, 1997:11). Therefore, rationalism – the view that reason is "the chief source and test of knowledge” – might be more useful when trying to solve the problems of metaphysics (Encyclopædia Britannica, see “Rationalism”).
First of all, the blog should better be structured so that it is easy to, in English, navigate to the correct blog post. At present there is no way except scrolling through all posts which will become tedious later on.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I think the questions were answered and sources hyperlinked within the text (which is enough, no need to list a bibliograpy after a post). Perhaps the post would have been improved with a short introduction.