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?
My opinion in what Kant want’s to say is that we can not trust how we see things thru or own eyes. Or cognition is based on objects and thats why the author say that we can not really trust how we see and percept time and room. Nothing says that the way of looking at things and thinking of them needs to be something that we can se (a object).
Today or cognition complies with the objects Kant say, he thinks for us to learn more we need to change the way we see things. Instead of making or cognition complies with the object, the object should compile with or cognition. Meaning that we may see something in one way but for us to truly understand we need to se things thru the objects perspectives. So we base things on this assumptions and then make it knowledge but when looking at Kant’s point to it we can not call it knowledge since we can not be truly sure if it is knowledge or just our way of seeing things.
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 Soctrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?
What we see and what we hear is not coming from the eyes and the ears. It is just tools for us to collect information. The collected information then goes to the mind. The mind makes us understand the information and in some case it is not understandable.
Just because we see something or hear something that does not mean that we understand it. For us to make something understandable we need to fist collect the information and then based on old knowledge we can make something out of it.
When I say old knowledge I am meaning collected information about different things from a lot of different people. The more of the same information that we collect about the same thing will make us believe that it is knowledge and what they are believing is the truth.
This is the way that we do empiricism today. We collect a lot of information from different persons and what the majority things are often described as the knowledge. Like if a flower smells good or not. If a majority say it dose than we are more likely to believe that it those.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar