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"?
Socrates and Theaetetus discuss what knowledge is and what is it not. Was is stated early on is that, according to Theaetetus, knowledge is what we perceive from the outside world. This statement is challenged by Socrates, who convinces Theaetetus that knowledge cannot be perception. He does this by saying that knowledge does not consist in impressions of sense, but in reasoning about them.
What I believe Socrates means is that we experience the world through our senses. They act as a middle-man between the outside world and our mind (where we perceive things). To say that we see and hear WITH our eyes and ears would imply that our senses are enough to obtain knowledge, which is wrong according to Socrates. We also need to reflect and compare to previous experience in order to understand. This means that it is more correct to say that we see and hear THROUGH our eyes and ears. Later on in the dialogue Socrates points out that knowledge does not exist in the impression of senses but rather in the reasoning in them, meaning we compare our impressions from our senses with what we already know and by combining the impressions and previous experience we decide what is knowledge and what isn’t.
Empiricism emphasizes experience rather than reason as the basis of our knowledge. This fits Socrates statement that our senses aren't enough, we also need to process our impressions. “SOCRATES: Then knowledge does not consist in impressions of sense, but in reasoning about them; in that only, and not in the mere impression, truth and being can be attained?”
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?
According to Immanuel Kant there are two ways of knowledge: a priori and a posteriori. The a priori means universal knowledge we have which isn’t based on any experience, for example mathematics (1+1=2) or a statement like “all bachelors are unmarried”. A posteriori is knowledge based on experience or empirical evidence. If we compare this theory with what Socrates says then according to Kant there is more knowledge than what we can observe and reflect upon, there is also knowledge that isn’t based on any experience at all. (I find this very interesting and can’t help but wonder what Socrates would have thought of priori).
Kant says that great scientists considers without conventional form. Objects (the outside world) should be observed with an empty mind and without preconceptions. According to Kant, great scientists comprehended that reason has insight only into what it itself produces according to its own design. If we want to get something a priory, we should consider it without conventional form. Some objects should be considered beyond space and time, without its own qualities and we will get a priory.
Kant addresses the importance of assuming that objects must conform to our cognition. One good example of this is how the astronomer Copernicus came up with the hypothesis that that the sun is the centre of our solar system, not the earth. He did this by making the objects conform to his cognition of the sun orbiting the earth. In other words, he first imagined a theory and then he examined if the objects (in this case through observations of space) matched his cognition. So by doing experiments where we don’t adjust the objects to our cognition and instead assume the cognition we can make great progress in metaphysics (explaining nature).
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar