For this first theme I have read the preface of the second edition of “Critique of Pure Reason” by Immanuel Kant and Plato’s Theaetetus.
Kant is writing about how a science needs to follow guidelines and rules so that it’s clear how to proceed and always come to a conclusion of some sort. Kant calls this the secure path of a science. When a science follows its secure path it never has to backtrack and follow a new path to advance. Kant uses mathematics as an example of something that follows a straight path with no deviations. Every science wants to find this path because only then can you be sure to reach unanimity and a true conclusion.
"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?"
The idea behind this is that instead of finding objects to try to describe and explain, we should try to think and come up with an idea or conclusion and from that conclusion see if the object fits in that cognition. This way it can be easier to find out and learn new things about the universe for example, where it can be hard to discover objects if you have no idea what you’re looking for.
To illustrate the concept of a priori (knowledge without experience) Kant writes about Copernicus who finally could explain how celestial bodys move in the universe. He did this by changing his view on the object and instead of trying to make sense of what he saw, he reasoned and came up with an idea which he later could confirm by observation.
Plato’s Theaetetus is for the most part a dialogue between Socrates and Theaetetus. Socrates says that what he does is a lot like what a midwife is doing. But instead of delivering babies he brings forward and tests ideas that the person he’s talking to has. By discussion and reasoned arguments Socrates tests the idea and decides if it’s true or false. Socrates says that he never has any opinions in the matter himself, instead he lets the person he is discussing with form his own.
"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"?"
We see through the eyes and hear through the ears because ears and eyes are just the tools that help us collect the data that the mind then interpret and makes sense of. Depending on ourselves and our experiences we interpret things differently. This means that the perception of one person is with a high probability not the same as the perception of another person.
The theory of empiricism says that knowledge comes primarily from experience. Socrates says that the perception of a person is different from another, which means that knowledge is not perception. Therefore Socrates argument is directed against empiricism.
Both Kant and Socrates speaks highly of reasoned and rational arguments to determine the correctness of an assertion and that experience is not enough. Therefore they are both making arguments against empiricism, and I think they are making very good arguments. Experience is important but it’s far more important to remember that what appears to be clear and obvious might be interpreted differently by others.
No comments:
Post a Comment