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?
Put simply, Kant speaks of reversing the approach towards gathering knowledge, replacing the a posteriori tradition of trying to fit theoretical reasoning to that which is experienced with an a priori that formulates a theory based solely on reason, which if correct must then by definition explain all possible experiences of that which is theorized.
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"?
According to Socrates, any information we obtain through our senses (i.e. sight and hearing) is mediated in the biological process. Various abstractions occur as the brain processes information in order to be able to compare it, subjectifying information through patterns of sameness and difference; likeness and unlikeness; as well as other qualitative judgments such as beauty or goodness. Although not consciously so, these judgments are based of off previous, current and future experiences, being put into comparison within the context of ones personal reflection.
As a result this impossibility of objective perception, any notion of empiricism is by definition impossible as well; the supposedly non-mediated information being the result of a mediated form of perception of a human seeing and hearing through his eyes and ears.
1 comment:
Would be nice if you could make it clearer when you reflect over the texts and when you just interpreting the texts as is. Very nice to get the blog text started with a longer citation from the text. It sets some kind of frame or context for the rest of your blog post.
I think you manage to answer the questions with satisfaction. If you have read the texts I find it unlikely that you wouldn’t agree with you review of the texts.
Post a Comment