- 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?
To get a better grasp of metaphysics, the fundamental nature of things, we first need to establish the two forms of knowledge. The first is a priori knowledge, meaning knowledge obtained through theories. This form of knowledge is independant from experience and relates mostly to factual tasks such as mathematics and physics.
The second is a posteriori knowledge, and unlike a priori takes experience into account. This form of knowledge is a combination of imagination and logic and is regarded by Kant as the pure reason, the form of knowledge that leads to new discoveries. Kant argues that you can only understand the real nature by reason, not perception alone.
The second is a posteriori knowledge, and unlike a priori takes experience into account. This form of knowledge is a combination of imagination and logic and is regarded by Kant as the pure reason, the form of knowledge that leads to new discoveries. Kant argues that you can only understand the real nature by reason, not perception alone.
Since one can only percieve reality from ones perspective and viewpoint, and since this percieved image of nature is bound to our experiences, education, everything that has formed us as humans, it will be unique to us as individuals. Because of this, perception was said to conform to objects around us and not to reason. The Copernican revolution rejected the established perception and argued that objects must conform to our cognition, to reason. A gust of wind could be cold to someone and warm to another, our perception gives objects their qualities.
- 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"?
As I said earlier, we all percieve reality uniqely to our own experiences, this would not be true if everyone recieved information “with” the sensory organs, it would imply that we all percieved the environment the same way since we all have the same senses. This would give us a raw perception from senses not capable of analysis or creating a common understanding.
Socrates instead argues that our sensory organs are mere tools for the mind to gather information “through”. These impressions are processed and combined with experience to create a personal intepretation, even though we all have the same tools to percieve the environment. Knowledge comes from our reflections on sensations which are based on sensory information. Our understanding of nature, our knowledge, has therefore its ground in sensory experience. Which “empiricism” also declares.
Hello Marcus! I like how you describe a priori and a posteriori knowledge to the reader in a clear way and the relations between these types of knowledge. I do believe however that some of the things that you mention in your answer about Kants´ text is more relevant when talking about Platos´ text such as the unique individual perception which is something Plato talks about.
SvaraRadera