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?
In general, Kant's aim in the "Critique of Pure Reason" is to determine the limits and scope of pure reason. He differentiates between two important distinctions; first, the a priori and a posteriori knowledge and second, analytic and synthetic judgments. On the one hand, posteriori knowledge is what we have gained from experience, on the other Hand priori knowledge is the necessary and universal Knowledge we have independent from experience. An analytic judment, for instance, is contained in the concept in the subject. A synthetic judgment is informative rather than just definitional. From the above citation and Kant's preface to the second edition of "Critique of Pure Reason" in general, I understand that one should assume that the conception does not depend on the objects, but on the objects as they appear. They are determined by the intuitiv faculty. Knowledge is based both on intuition (sensibility) as well as on the mind. For example, natural consciousness gives the impression that the sun revolves around the earth. Even today, one speaks of the sunrise . Only with the help of the mind you come to another realization which contradicts an epistemological realism .
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 Socrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?
In Plato's dialoque, Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes. In my opinion, this means that the body is just a tool to understand knowledge. There is a saying that the eyes are the window to your soul. Considering Socrates argument, it is our mind which processes and interprets Information into Knowledge. The theory of empiricism says that knowledge comes only or primarily from out senses. (Psillos, Stathis; Curd, Martin (2010)) Therefore, it is correct that Socrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism". It means that what we have experienced so far has built our knowledge. Socrates argues that through perception we achive knowledge and perception is something that we all experience differently. We all perceive or "see/hear" the same experience but we will all gain knowledge from it in a different way.
Your pre-read reflection is very clear, I think you are good at concluding the concept of articles. The Kant's kernel concept is clear pointed in the reflection. And in Plato's Theaetetus, I have the same opinion with you, which consider eye and ear as tools to know.
AntwortenLöschen