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 understand
it as, if you try something one way and it does not work, then you should try
it the other way around. In the text Kant speaks about mathemetics and
natural science. He says: The revolution that was brought through them was
remarkable, because they changed their way of thinking (thinking out of the
box). I think that, that is also what Kant means with his sentence ‘our
cognition must conform to objects’ and ‘objects must conform to our cognition’.
The first one was assumed to be true but it brought them nothing, so it might
be an idea to try the second way. I think that Kant means that making other assumption
can also lead to research that gives the answer you are looking for. Further in
the text he also gives an example of Copernicus who tried to explain ‘the
celestial motion’. When there was no progress with his first assumption, he turned
it the other way around so that he could get progress in his work.
Making
changes to a standard way of thinking might be the way to get the answers
needed and to obtain knowledge. For an example: when you decide to think
positive instead of negative, you’ll automatically make changes, these changes
are new to you- and that something new helps you obtain knowledge.
Or Kant can also mean that they have
made attempts to prove their first assumption, but they ended with nothing.
Scientifically seen you should not believe anything until it is proven. That is
why Kant says that they should try to find out via an experiment (which is
proof). The result of this experiment could be the proof that they need to get
progress in their work and to obtain knowledge. The information that they did
not get during their first attempt cannot be used anyway.
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"?
I think that
he means that the eye
and the ear are not separate senses that are not connected with each other.
Both senses are connected through our brain. The eyes and the ears are
instruments of the brain through which our eyes and ears can see and hear.
Via our
senses we get knowledge, this is done ‘through’ the eyes and ear because that is
the way we pick up incentives and experience them. I think that this is one of the reasons why
Socrates argues that we do not see and hear ‘with’ our eyes and ears, but
‘through’ our eyes and ears to point out that there is a connection. Another
explanation is that seeing and hearing is also an experience, an experience that
you get ‘through’ your senses and not ‘with’ them.
In my
opinion Socrates argument can be directed towards empiricism, because this theory
is based on the experience of the senses as well. Empiricism sees our senses as
the most important way to get knowledge. And in the argument of Socrates the
senses are also seen as important. But only this argument of Socrates is
directed towards empiricism. As far as I understand, Socrates does not see
experiences of the senses, as the most important way to obtain knowledge his
definition of knowledge is wider.
The topic
of this dialogue is ‘what is knowledge’ during the conversation you read that
they do not come up with one definition of ‘knowledge’. “SOCRATES: And so,
when the question is asked, What is knowledge? this fair argument will answer
'Right opinion with knowledge,'—knowledge, that is, of difference, for this, as
the said argument maintains, is adding the definition”. The argument of Socrates about seeing through the
eyes and ears is part of ‘the knowledge that is of difference’ that they are
talking about.
As far as I
understand Kant and Socrates are both talking about knowledge, but from a
different perspective. I think that their arguments are contrary, but are both
relevant to the concept of knowledge.
Grammar check would improve the text, e.g. "experiment" seem like an evident typo. On other occasions I think vocabulary and/or grammar should be improved such as repetition in the sentence "Another explanation is that seeing and hearing is also an experience an experience that you get ‘through’ your senses and not ‘with’ them."
ReplyDeleteFurther, some terms in the text makes the author come off as insecure and not knowing their topic. For example "As far as I understand" I would recommend to think about this in future texts - show more confidence in your writing. My main recommendation for improvement is the writing style; although vocabulary could be expanded, content wise the author captures some of the topics in a simple way. I am however missing sources, both to the main text and to other definitions that would be relevant and enrich the text.
Additional note: "experiment" was no typo, it was just my senses that perceived a typo that did not exist.
DeleteI found the authors example of "before social media, body image was not that much of a big deal, as it is now", that might be true, as today it's a very big focus on image and how you look. But doesn't mean body image has not always been important, there have always been "ideals" and preferred ways to look, but thanks to the advances in technology and social media, we are constantly being faced with these images and a reminder of what you "should look like". Photoshop was another good point, the "ideal" today isn't even "real", as it's digitally altered, and with filters and editing apps today it's so easy to change into what you want to look like.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting angle was about how norms and values might look very different in different parts of the world, and who is to say what is "right"? We've decided on human rights based on what we feel is right and humane, but people who disagree, feel just as strongly that we are wrong. Who is to say that my values and opinions are more right than someone else's? It's an interesting angle and one that can be discussed in length, and as the author writes "being open-minded helps to understand why the other person is thinking different", something I think is very important.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like you put a lot of work into this week’s theme however I don’t share the view that Socrates (Plato) and Kant’s arguments are contrary, even though their arguments have differences. I believe Kant moved towards the same direction as Plato’s conception of mind, as the source of understanding and knowledge. I believe Plato clarify a radical distinction between the sensible and the intelligible, the intelligible was the realm of reality. Kant on the other hand arguing that the knowledge we obtain of the world is knowledge of the world as it appears to us, our reason. This is a difference in their theories but it’s not contrary.
ReplyDeleteHowever I think the author made good reflections of Kant and Plato and it seems like the person has been active in the class and at the seminar.