Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science
The philosophical conclusions that we are presented with
indirectly by Plato in “Theaetetus” has many similarities to those we meet in
"Critique of Pure Reason" by Kant. For them both the forms of the
phenomenal world - everything that is visible,
that can be heard or touched, do not match and even differ from the true nature
of the world. In both the dialogue and in “Critique of Pure Reason”, we are
presented with the concept about everything intangible, which is located outside the human limits. One is
at the same time dependent on his senses and his own experiences and limited by
them to see beyond.
For answering the following question:
In the preface of the second edition of "Critique of Pure Reason" (page B xvi) ant 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 would like to start with another question which is perceived as among the mains concerning metaphysics – What is knowledge?
Knowledge is a product of the mind and the experiences, because they namely are the main criteria for the true knowledge about reality. This is what empricists would answer. In other words, the world around us is based on how we see it and how we experience it. The outside reality is different from the subject, but is known only by the mind and the experience and it is the human senses that let us know that it exists.
While exploring the above Kant reaches to the conclusion that mind actually percieves and knows certain things differently than the experience because not all of the knowledge we have is a result of experience but it exists a priori. It can be created and defined by the soul and through the apriori forms such as time and space.
Going through this critique he destroys the limits of the way metaphysics has been looked at until then.
In his book “Time Driven:Metapsychology and Splitting of the Drive” Adrian Johnston comments on this specific matter by saying “Instead of events or experiences being determined solely by external factors, events are always already caught in the matrix of unconscious significance. The unconscious compulsively integrates all circumstances into its web of associative connections”. (p.39, 2005)
I think that the above paragraph perfectly matches Kant’s vision on the true nature of metaphysics.
He also points out the relation that exists between chance and casuality and the way intuition works giving the example with Copernicus. He concludes that metaphysical knowledge is more or less apriori knowledge and opposes the essence of metaphysical knowledge to the ones of the sciencies and empricism, because they are justified by the appeal of the senses only.
So in a nutshel, Kant lead us to the conclusion that metaphysics is not only about discovering the apriori knowledge but also about extending it beyond definition of truth, sense and experience. It is about creating an alternative way of thinking, about what is beyond our senses and how we can set goals, have ideas or visions about something before the object itself exists in physical way or by experiencing it.
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"?
After reading "Theaetetus" we see that according to Socrates instead of trying to find out what knowledge is, it is much more easier to define what it is not. The reader is suggested three possible answers to the question "What is knowledge?" and there are long discussions on the three given answers to the subject - knowledge is perception, knowledge is true judgement and knowledge is true judgement, which follows accurate articulation.
When concentrating on Theaetetus's suggestion that knowledge is perception, Socrates takes up the question whether we receive with the senses or through them.
The preposition "with" when used in the context can only suggests that the senses are tools which let us reach certain information. Socrates examines the limitations that the humans organs and senses have. For example - "sound and colours are unlike and no organ can perceive them both" (p.152; 1972). So stressing on this in particular Socrates leads us to the idea about something, a different kind of tool that can unite all human perceptions and combine them in one single unit - the soul.
Mind can reach existence and we cannot reach truth without reaching existence first. It follows that we cannot know things through the senses alone since through the senses alone we cannot know that things exist.
I think that "through" is the correct expression as it hides the constructional meaning of this whole process.
The conclusion is formed around the idea of all that the soul understands through the "eyes" and the"ears", all that it understands by itself, and both combined. The soul apprehends the perception in relation to its own "data" because we might see, feel, hear, touch in order to perceive the surroundings but the perception becomes a reality once we are able to explain it via understanding or memory.
When concluding that knowledge is not perception, Socrates states that knowledge is not reached through our sensations only but it is hiding in the way we reason them which can be used as an antithesis to the main concepts shared by the empiricism.
For answering the following question:
In the preface of the second edition of "Critique of Pure Reason" (page B xvi) ant 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 would like to start with another question which is perceived as among the mains concerning metaphysics – What is knowledge?
Knowledge is a product of the mind and the experiences, because they namely are the main criteria for the true knowledge about reality. This is what empricists would answer. In other words, the world around us is based on how we see it and how we experience it. The outside reality is different from the subject, but is known only by the mind and the experience and it is the human senses that let us know that it exists.
While exploring the above Kant reaches to the conclusion that mind actually percieves and knows certain things differently than the experience because not all of the knowledge we have is a result of experience but it exists a priori. It can be created and defined by the soul and through the apriori forms such as time and space.
Going through this critique he destroys the limits of the way metaphysics has been looked at until then.
In his book “Time Driven:Metapsychology and Splitting of the Drive” Adrian Johnston comments on this specific matter by saying “Instead of events or experiences being determined solely by external factors, events are always already caught in the matrix of unconscious significance. The unconscious compulsively integrates all circumstances into its web of associative connections”. (p.39, 2005)
I think that the above paragraph perfectly matches Kant’s vision on the true nature of metaphysics.
He also points out the relation that exists between chance and casuality and the way intuition works giving the example with Copernicus. He concludes that metaphysical knowledge is more or less apriori knowledge and opposes the essence of metaphysical knowledge to the ones of the sciencies and empricism, because they are justified by the appeal of the senses only.
So in a nutshel, Kant lead us to the conclusion that metaphysics is not only about discovering the apriori knowledge but also about extending it beyond definition of truth, sense and experience. It is about creating an alternative way of thinking, about what is beyond our senses and how we can set goals, have ideas or visions about something before the object itself exists in physical way or by experiencing it.
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"?
After reading "Theaetetus" we see that according to Socrates instead of trying to find out what knowledge is, it is much more easier to define what it is not. The reader is suggested three possible answers to the question "What is knowledge?" and there are long discussions on the three given answers to the subject - knowledge is perception, knowledge is true judgement and knowledge is true judgement, which follows accurate articulation.
When concentrating on Theaetetus's suggestion that knowledge is perception, Socrates takes up the question whether we receive with the senses or through them.
The preposition "with" when used in the context can only suggests that the senses are tools which let us reach certain information. Socrates examines the limitations that the humans organs and senses have. For example - "sound and colours are unlike and no organ can perceive them both" (p.152; 1972). So stressing on this in particular Socrates leads us to the idea about something, a different kind of tool that can unite all human perceptions and combine them in one single unit - the soul.
Mind can reach existence and we cannot reach truth without reaching existence first. It follows that we cannot know things through the senses alone since through the senses alone we cannot know that things exist.
I think that "through" is the correct expression as it hides the constructional meaning of this whole process.
The conclusion is formed around the idea of all that the soul understands through the "eyes" and the"ears", all that it understands by itself, and both combined. The soul apprehends the perception in relation to its own "data" because we might see, feel, hear, touch in order to perceive the surroundings but the perception becomes a reality once we are able to explain it via understanding or memory.
When concluding that knowledge is not perception, Socrates states that knowledge is not reached through our sensations only but it is hiding in the way we reason them which can be used as an antithesis to the main concepts shared by the empiricism.
Used Literature:
1.
Johnston,
Adrian. Time Driven. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 2005.
Print.
2.
Russell,
Bertrand. A History Of Western
Philosophy, And Its Connection With Political And Social Circumstances From The
Earliest Times To The Present Day, Chapter 18 – Knowledge and Perception in Plato, 1972.
Some improvement suggestions for the text. For exampe, in the sentence "After reading "Theaetetus" we see that according to Socrates instead of trying to find out what knowledge is, it is much more easier to define what it is not." the expression "much more" could better be removed.
ReplyDeletePlus points for including sources, but in a blog post it is better to hyperlink them than stating them below the text as you would do in a report.
Content-wise this felt a bit farfetched. It was in some parts difficult to grasp what the author wanted to say. I think it would be useful for the author to create some practical examples and shorten down some sentences to improve this.