Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and Theory of Science - Pre-reflections

Pre-reflections: Theme 1

1.

That all our cognition must conform to objects implies that what we experience must relate to a corresponding object. When trying to expand our cognitions into grasping knowledge that does not require any experience to understand, logical knowledge, a priori, such as we need to breath air to survive or that all of us attending this class are human beings, we have according to Kant, failed. But he then proposes that if we experiment and assume that objects must conform to our cognition, that is the other way around, we might make progress in metaphysical problems.

What this would indulge is that our cognitions limit would broaden and thereby increasing the reach of our experiences. In other words, we would be able to experience events that as of today are not possible. Events, a priori, that we comprehend as certainties without actually having experienced them. Things we know without having had the experience. But how would this function? How would objects conform our cognition? Would we not need to evolve our cognition, our experience abilities, to becoming more complex and skilled at gathering experiences? We must try and observe an object from the object's perspective as well as from your own.

2.

The initial thought that comes to mind it that our eyes and ears are merely tools which we use to absorb surrounding events. It is not until the light and sound waves reach the interior that we are able to comprehend and understand what has just happend before us. Hence; through the eyes and ears. Empiricism, as we are familiar with, has its basis that all knowledge from the outer world is perceived through impressions and sensory perceptions. With this one could argue that not before any happening is perceived that it becomes knowledge. The information must pass through our sensory organs and then be processed and interpreted before it can be defined as knowledge. During the event when our eyes and ears are receiving new information, we are not yet able to call this information knowledge since our minds has not yet process it. This is how I understand Socrates argument to relate to empiricism.

However, this contradicts Socrates and Theaetetus conclusion that knowledge and perception can never be the same thing which they seem rather convinced about. It might be due to me having difficulties following their argument leading up to the conclusion but I do not agree that perception can never be the same thing as knowledge. At least I believe that perception is a requirement for knowledge but can not be the sole cornerstone. Something else is needed to. My thoughts circulate around how not all knowledge is gained from outer events. For example, the opinions and arguments laid forth during Socrates and Theaetetus dialogue, had they been previously perceived or simply constructed in their minds. If so, can these arguments and opinions too be considered as knowledge?

//G