Theme 1 - Reasoning around the reason why a resonable critique is reasoned to be resonably pure.

Kant's Critical Critique, and his Reasoning

Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is a fantastic read, I had the privilege of reading through the whole book, some 850-ish pages, as part of a course during my last year at upper secondary high. So naturally I was thrilled when I learned that our first assignment would include this particular book.

Though the actual question at hand, how are we to understand Kant’s preface, has a rather simple answer. Namely, that Kant seeks to understand if it is possible to gain synthetic knowledge, A Priori, and if so how one would go about achieving that. It is in some sense far more interesting to think about his reasoning up until that point, in other words, why the answer is simple?

A bastardised summary of Kant’s work is, as was referred to in the lecture, usually presented through the “Metaphor of spectacles”. If a person is always wearing a pair of spectacles, without knowing it, the things that person can perceive is limited by the properties of the spectacles. Simply put, if the glass is tinted green then everything that person could see would look green.

In order to understand Kant’s mind, one has to grasp the idea of Pure Reason, and specifically Kant’s definition of what that is and also what it inherits.

Pure reason is, which might seem obvious at first, reason unaffected by experience and empirical observations. Kant himself uses a phrase which roughly translates into “stripped of experience”, although considering the rest of his work, I think that it is fairer to use the former.

This notion is important, since it creates the fundamental keystone for Kant’s own form of knowledge that is called, as the lecture reminded me, “Synthetic A Priori”. This new type of knowledge is a middle ground between classical (trivial) analytical knowledge and synthetic knowledge. The perfect example of Synthetic A Priori knowledge, fitting for engineering students, is math. Math is in many ways a tool which utilizes Synthetic A Priori knowledge in order to enable empirical observations. We can derive explicit knowledge, such as 1+1=2 and 5*3=15, but also other fundamental truths such as the fact that an effect is always preceded by a cause. These truths are affirmed via reason and then proven by empiricism. To make this example even clearer one can simply state the following:

“The knowledge is not synthetic, because no observation is needed and so it is universal, neither is it analytical knowledge since a cause does not contain the concept of an effect”

Also, in order to fully comprehend the idea of Synthetic A Priori knowledge, the notion of transcendental idealism has to be explained. Transcendental idealism (sometimes referred to transcendental aesthetic) is about the conditions necessary for any thought or experience at all. In order to organize these A Priori - thinking conditions in any perspicuous form, Kant sorts them into roughly twelve categorizes. The idea is that these categorizes merges the empirical observations into a unified object or thing.

There is only one way to represent space, any other space is confined within that space. This conclusion in itself is mind boggling simply because it feels intuitive. The concept of anything is also confined within this space, thus space is an intuition and not a concept, and so transcendental. Taking this on step further, one can ponder on the notion of infinity. Space is for all we know infinite and even more importantly infinitely divisible, which means that this infinity resides within the space itself, and is not a property inherent to its various sections.

To me this is a fantastic way of thinking, since it clearly goes deep enough to "hit the bottom". Kant manages to not only convice the reader that the given conditions are really necessaties to observe the world, but also that these conditions provide the limit for how we can even conceive knowledge. 

The book is not flawless however, and there are a few problems which become evident after awhile. Although one has to consider that under the circumstances, these flaws may only be semantic mistakes, from time to time, within Kant’s assertions. Anyway, sometimes I find it hard to understand exactly “where” he draws line, or rather the boundary, between noumenal and phenomal reality. For instance, when discussing the previously mention transcendental aesthetic he can’t seem to decide whether or not space and time is something real. He implicitly attempts to prove the Euclidian view of space, whilst later claiming that any such view is irrelevant since his system, this time explicitly, is based upon the intuition of space.  To be specific, time and space is the structure, the vessel if you like, of empirical observation or experience, and not something which we “gain” from experience. He even goes on to prove the latter several times. Once again, it is important to emphasize that Kant has his own definition of what intuition really is, but we should all know that by now.

Likewise when he defines his categories for an ultimate truth, I have a hard time following his line of thought all the way, especially regarding what a concept is. Kant states that a concept can exist without the help of intuition, somehow creating a thought or form. Having read the structure and reasoning behind Kant’s categories, one finds it hard to understand his conclusion on that matter. Intuition, through the said categories of observation, enables perception which is in turn required to even form the basis of a concept, since otherwise there would be no content to “fill” it with.       

Regardless of that however, Kant has still been able to form a masterpiece of philosophy. By using epistemology he creates a foundation for intuition, from which one can “properly” observe empirical knowledge, which in some sense is the most practical form of knowledge. 

Socrates, justifying his bad manners by recklessly abusing the fact that he is right

Alright, in the instance of Theaetetus, I have to say that for once it is not fair to say that Socrates is behaving badly. Throughout the dialogue he is actually polite, articulate and consistent, even though that is not his usual way handling an argument. Anyway, the dialogue itself is about defining what knowledge really is, and in a way strive to achieve that goal through active philosophy.

By asking a question, defining the following answer through a set of sub-questions and statements and finally thoroughly dismantling that very answer, Socrates tries to “extract” segments of the truth from Theaetetus. The general concept is that Theaetetus knows more the actually understands that he knows, and by actively engaging him in dialogue this can be proven.

During the dialogue the two men manage to go through three possible definitions of knowledge, which are all eventually proven false. The conclusion from Socrates seems to be that it is far easier to approach knowledge by stating what things are not, rather than trying to prove what they are. Still, the question remains, and since Socrates does not give us a final definition, we have to make do with what we can learn from his reasoning.

Although I was not able to find the specific part where Socrates claims that we do not see “with” our eyes, but rather “through” our eyes, I assume it is somewhat paraphrased and supposed to be placed into perspective

  

To me it is evident that Socrates is a rationalist in the sense that he suggests that empirical observations can never be proven to be real. A hallucinated mind can be deceived and there is no way of proving whether you are awake or asleep. You can however, using reason, handle the empirical input given to you through your senses and then “decide” how the world relates to you in that instant. Examples of this are the three statements Socrates provides to prove that without reason, attributes for a certain object can never be defined as they would always be relative to something else. A rock is both larger and smaller the other objects, so is it large or small?

Obviously one has to include the context of time when reading this dialogue, since the empirical observations back then where very much limited compared the possibilities these days. Likewise, nowadays the answer for such a questions is usually referred to as trivial, since “everything is relative”.

Even though I cannot help but think that half of the dialogue is a dance of semantics (as in half of all the “premise -> statement -> answer -> retort -> understanding -> conclusion”-sets feels like a play on words), I am also baffled by the thorough method with which Socrates dissects all Theaetetus answers. Socrates consistently explains why previous experience, in itself, is neither universal nor applicable as a proof for all cases.

During the lecture, we learned that Socrates (Plato) in some sense predicted Kant’s work, and after reading the Theaetetus I wholly agree. I do believe that it is safe to say that Socrates central argument, i.e. reason is the basis for synthesising experience into knowledge, is directed at the modern view of empiricism.

And with those words, I leave you to your thoughts, for now.

So long, and thanks for all the fish