Why are we doing this? The purpose with this theme, I believe, is to dissect the concept of knowledge but also to practice right brain thinking. As a target group with a relatively technical background, many of us are used to a logical way of thinking (with our left brain halves). This facilitates risk of losing out on a theoretical and philosophical approach resulting in, for instance, losing out on important innovation capabilities. Out of the box thinking is especially important from a business perspective. Lastly,”knowledge” as a concept is important to discuss in preparation of research.
The questions that will be focused on in this blog post are:
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?
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"?
Critique of Pure Reason
To criticize reason (or "logic", frequently used definition in "Critique of pure reason") we must understand what the definition of "logic" is and how it differs between conceptions. I will explore this complexity as well as how objects conforming to our cognition was reflected in the text.
Once upon a time, I studied Java. A programmer friend of mine did not follow when told "Java as a language is not logical". Where I analyzed the language from a linguistic standpoint, he did so from a mathematical one.
Presuming "Java" would have been in form of a physical object rather than an intangible one, say a backpack, we would potentially have had additional ways of understanding each other. Where my "java" would have been a neat, small, yellow, stylish backpack, his would have been a green, hiking gear made of nylon. We could have used more senses than our head alone to understand each other, such as stroking the fabric texture with our hands, capturing smells, seeing, hearing. The cognitive experience would have been expanded if this would be a reality.
I believe that Kant’s view was twisting and turning concepts such as this in order to argument against them. Overall the mind and the physical world was central in limitation of knowledge creation.
Knowledge is perception
In “Knowledge is perception”, we understand better what Plato means by examining the sentence:
"by the uninitiated I mean the people who believe in nothing but what they can grasp in their hands, and who will not allow that action or generation or anything invisible can have real existence."
Empiricism is defined by the thesis "We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience." If you believe Standford's definition.
Plato creates a discussion where it could be argued that he in some parts supports the thought of empiricism. An example of this is Socrates saying “Yet perception is knowledge: so at least Theaetetus and I were saying”. In the sentence, in a certain light, he could be showing the ability to question his own reality. This presumably because he believes his reality is formed by his own perception, which goes in line with the empiricist thought. He, however, moves further in the argument with “neither can we allow that knowledge is perception, certainly not the hypothesis of a perpetual flux” where he clarifies that he argues against empiricism.
To see and hear through eyes and ears; I believe Socrates means they are not seen as independent instruments used to connect perceptions to the brain, but rather “interpreters” that the mind uses. He gives a mathematical example of odd and even numbers which the mind sees without an organ to strengthen this statement.
The mind is independent and central in Plato’s thought of where knowledge is created; rationalism. There's also a differentiation between being opinionated and having knowledge, which (disclaimer: my text is opinionated, but one could argue this is sometimes the purpose with a blog) is important in research. Citing sources for claims made, rather than claiming personal opinion to be universal knowledge is one of the underlying messages.
