Kant
speaks of a priori and how we can cognize of things a priori. As we know a
priori’s meaning is a fixed state and our cognition of the a priori is only
affected by the variable in the object. If our cognition is to conform to the
object, then our cognition is another variable that defines the object, making
it a posteriori instead. Kant suggests that we should try the possibility that
the objects must confirm to our cognition instead of the other way around. He
makes this possible with the aid of our intuition and says that if an object of
the senses can confirm to our intuition then we can see these objects as
experience, which in itself is very much needed for cognize the object in the
first place and in some sort of way also can be interpreted as cognition. In
the end we seems to only be able to cognize of things a priori only what we
ourselves have put into them and these attributes is very person dependent
given all of us carrying different experiences from life up till now.
Socrates
proposal that we don’t actually hear or see with our ears and eyes is easy to
understand because it’s not these organs that translate the input (data if you
would like) into what we perceive as reality but the brain. Considering that
the brain need several inputs from the ear or eyes to calculate distance and
perspective you could argue that this is indeed an empirical way of determine
the reality or truth if you so wish.
Page 189, When socrates speaks of objects inner greatness and that it is impossible for an object to remains true to its own state if it shifts between greater or less than another object started me to think about my bachelor paper and how it is important to always try to compare numbers with other numbers. Especially when it comes to grading a test of some sort. Let’s say that a specific test can generate a score between 0 and 10. How good is an 8? It’s better/greater than 7 but not as good as an 9. If you can’t compare the test score with another test, or even better with several other tests, the number you get will not be as informative as it could be.
In the end, both texts get us to reflect
on what is real and what is not. Who determine what is, and what is not? I find
this very interesting, but then again I have always found this sort of
discussions interesting since the day I got banned from the Christian Sunday
school having questioned the bible in all sorts of way. The essence from both
texts is, according to me, that you should always stay open for the possibility
that you got some things right and others wrong, and that the power of persuasion
could inject false opinion in the meaning that it is not your experience that
is the foundation of your (false) opinion. However, if it’s your experiences that
are the foundation of your opinion, then, it can never be false. At least from a philosophy
point of view that is.
I think your highlighting is good. I like that you don't just copy and paste the questions and then answer them, but it makes it a bit unclear what the question actually was. I and the teachers and other people who read your blog do however have great insight to what it is you're writing about, but anyways, it might be a good idea to like, rewrite the question instead next time. I wish you would have explained what empiricism is, because your argument kinda depends on the reader knowing what it is. I'm also not really sure what you're trying to say with your number example? And finally, maybe it's a good idea to read through your blogposts before you publish, to fix grammar/spelling errors. In the last part of your post, I again don't really understand what your personal life has to do with the reflection of Kant and Plato, but it's nice that you put a conclusion in the end.
SvaraRadera