week 1 - first post

To start off this blog post I will describe some of the important concepts of the texts to be able to answer the question. By doing so it will be easier to understand my thoughts and my answer and thoughts regarding the questions.

Question 1:

Metaphysics = Objects must conform our cognition. Can be used to describe objects you can’t see.

A priori knowledge = knowledge obtained independent of experience.

Posteriori knowledge = knowledge obtained of experience.

So now for the answering of the question:What we could read about in Kant’s text, and what we can read in the question, is that by instead of letting our own cognition decide the object, the object should decide our thoughts. And by doing so might get closer to the truth. But this is not an easy thing to do and Kant explains in the text that the difficulties is that it is hard to have that mind set. But by presenting this example below I think that the benefits of this way of thinking will be clearer. Say for example that you have a cell phone in front of you if you only let the object speak for it self, you can see what is truly is. The material and so on, you really have to investigate what it can do. And since I study media technology I can´t help but to think that if the cell phone has great design then it will be easy to find all it´s functions. If you don’t let the objet confirm your cognition then you might let your experiences speak more than the actual object. So who is closest to the truth? Lets say that you walk in to the woods with the cell phone and then would like to call home. For the first one you know its impossible cause you never saw any indications of that possibilities.  And the for the second you now realise the your out of battery.

So to sum up the example I would say that if there is a new area to analyse then I might be better to let the object speak for it self or else you might lose some fundamental facts. So by letting knowledge be a priori then you find out more facts then if you base some thoughts on experience. But this leads us one step further; how about the thing we as humans cannot see?

Like what happens after we die? There are many different ideas of what will happen, but can we know for sure? What it says in Kant’s text, that I thought was quite interesting, was that now when you don’t really have any experience of it then we only let the object speak for itself. So can anyone be wrong? Not really in the text I find this quote: “But I can think whatever I like, as long as I don´t contradict myself” and find it very comforting. And gives me the sort of feeling as long as you decides the “truth” and can´t contradict, then its true for you. And that is as close as we can get to make this not really scientific religions and beliefs true.

Question 2:

Empiricism= basing ideas on experiences and other observations. 

So now for the answering of the question:

”Knowledge is perception” by that you mean that by using senses to evaluate the world you get knowledge about it. How does the objects look like, feel like, smell like and so on? What you can see and experience is what you can know. But even though we all use our eyes to see we will not see the same things. This is what Socrates means by ”not using eyes to see with but rather through them”.  If I look at something I might notice different things from what my friend would base on what other experiences I have. When the senses together with experiences you have will result in a difference in what you are deceiving. Therefor it´s can be seen as it´s a bit subjective and dependent a lot of the person and his/hers earlier experiences.

So how can you establish scientific facts? With empiricism you base theories on experience, it is a example of posteriori. Something can be known if it can be proven by experience. So to go back to my earlier example, it could rather take place in a different way.  If you have a lot of experience then you would know how a cell phone looks like and functions. And know that you have to charge the battery to be able to call. And in that situation the second person would have the upper hand. So it is not enough with just one experience, its when experiences is in a greater picture it can be known. More than one person have to see and experience through their eyes and still see the same thing to establish some facts.