Before Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

(N.B. This is the study blog for the course Theory and Method for Media Technology. More detailed information regarding the theme as well as the course is available on the course page [1].)

In this blog, I will focus on and discuss two questions: One regarding the words from Kant saying in the preface to his book "Critique of Pure Reason" [2] (page B xvi) (second edition); The other one related to Socrates’s argument to the discussion of the definition “Knowledge is perception”, as well as its relation to the modern terms “empiricism”.

For the first question, my initial understanding to Kant’s words is focused on the relationship of our cognition and objects. On the presupposition, it is said that “it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects”. But Kant argued for its possible problem which may lead us to “nothing” with a priori. Thus he further proposed his idea to trying another assumption that “objects must conform to our cognition”. In other words, Kant rethinks and discusses the relationship of our cognition and objects, particularly with a focus on which one should be thinking first in our assumption when we try to explore the world or expend our cognition.

To get a better understanding of this, I am thinking to find an example to illustrate his words. Firstly, what is the presupposition that “all our cognition must conform to objects”? Then, what would be the problem with the presupposition in the example? At last, what would be happened if we change our assumption to that “objects must conform to our cognition”? One possible example I find is about Nicolaus Copernicus’ model of the universe. As everyone knows, he proposed to “place the Sun rather than the Earth at the center of the universe” [3] in his model. At that time, this was a very bold idea. The reason to that is similar to what Kant’s talking in his book. That said, if we follow the presupposition that “all our cognition must conform to objects”, we may understand the world from the real objects which we can see or feel. Then it is very hard to understand Copernicus’ model, as it is very hard to see the center of the universe. As Kant said, if we believe that all our cognition must conform to objects, we may only get limited cognition and be stuck somewhere on the way. But if we try to change the assumption to let objects conform to our cognition, then there will be more bold idea coming out like Copernicus’ model. Although it is found out that Copernicus’ model is quite limited in our new knowledge system, which gained thanks to the development of technology. We still have to admit that the model itself is a big step for the knowledge journey. In other words, if we drop the priori that our cognition must conform to objects, we are able to break the limits and embrace more bold ideas which form in our cognition but may be not easy or possible to be observed from objects.

On the other hand, the second question is about the discussion of the definition “Knowledge is perception”. I find this definition very interesting. It may come from the famous The Theaetetus [4], one of Plato’s dialogue concerning the nature of knowledge. When Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears; I think he wants to point out that we don’t get the knowledge with our perception, instead we gain the knowledge with our mind. To be specific, “we do not see and hear” indicate the knowledge or our understanding of the world; “with” the eyes and ears refer to the perception we have, while “through” the eyes and ears emphasis that perception is just like a tool. The real mechanism makes me gain the knowledge is the deeper thinking inside us.

At last, what is the relationship between Socrates argument and the modern terms “empiricism”? Personally I will not say that Socrates argument is directed towards the “empiricism”. According to the definition, Empiricism is “a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience” [5]. That said, empiricism shares the same idea with Socrates that knowledge comes from sensory experience (“through eyes and ears”). However, the empiricism emphasizes evidence and experiments in the philosophy of science, while Socrates did not mention these at all. Socrates argument focuses more on the denial discussion of “knowledge is perception”, with a lack of discussion on how “perception” working for the knowledge. Moreover, Socrates also did not mention whether he agreed on the sensory experience is the “only” or “primary” source for the knowledge, as empiricism stated. Therefore, it is safe to say that Socrates argument may lead to the modern terms “empiricism” somehow, but it may be not correct to say that Socrates argument is DIRECTED towards “empiricism”.

That is all for today’s blog. Thanks for reading. Your valuable comments are welcome.

Sources:

[1] https://www.kth.se/social/course/DM2572/page/theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and-theory/

[2] Kant, I., & Guyer, P. (1998). Critique of pure reason. Cambridge University Press.

[3] Linton, Christopher M. (2004). From Eudoxus to Einstein: A History of Mathematical Astronomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-82750-8.

[4] Theaetetus, by Plato, section §152e http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0171%3Atext%3DTheaet.%3Asection%3D152e

[5] Psillos, Stathis; Curd, Martin (2010). The Routledge companion to philosophy of science (1. publ. in paperback ed.). London: Routledge. pp. 129–138. ISBN 978-0415546133.