Arozin - Theory of knowledge, reflection

After this weeks lecture and seminar, I came to the conclusion that I had interpreted Kant and Plato correctly in some aspects, and incorrectly in some other aspects. For example, i interpreted Socrates theory that man hear through the eyes and ears, and not with the eyes and ears, mostly correctly. Johan Eriksson explained that the human soul use our senses to perceive information and process knowledge, and that our senses are mere tools to gather information which we then categorize, summarize and draw a conclusion from with our brain.

And the argument that perception without conception is blind enlightened me, in some ways it’s obvious that man process information differently, due to subjective feelings that differs from man to man. You perceive something and analyze it based on what you already know, but take for example that you stumble over something you have never seen before. In this peculiar case you have nothing to base your view and opinion on, and therefore you are blind in you perception, and can not make a correct assumption of the meaning of the perceived object.

They argue that pure reason and the definition of an object's existence and meaning is defined on the faculties of knowledge. These faculties gave me another perspective on the cognition that man posses, and I assume that I had interpreted Kant’s theory correctly, that mans cognition doesn’t conform to the object she contemplates, but rather that the object conform to our cognition (also known as Kant's Copernican Revolution)

And especially after the weeks seminar I think i have a vivid definition of knowledge. I define knowledge as based on the same theory as Kant's Copernican Revolution, to contemplate the faculties of knowledge, that the faculties are mere guideline which man can use to define the use and meaning of an object or a skillset based on the twelve categories. And in my opinion the definition of knowledge is the use of these faculties to define an object. I would also define knowledge as “to know”, to know something about something is to have knowledge about something. I won't admit that this is a correct definition, since after reading Theaetetus and listening to johan Eriksson gave me the impression that the definition is way more complex than I can possibly imagine.

I also defined this on the theory that time and space can exist without an object, but an object can’t exist without time and space and thereby objects, their existence and meaning may be a product of space and time, and then also dependent on space and time.

The problem with defining knowledge is the different experiences that influences mans way of thinking and processing information, which makes non evidence based knowledge being a slave to the subjective judge. maybe the definition of knowledge is that all knowledge is subjective?

The thing I found peculiar was that Plato argumented against that times definition of empiricism. When I read Platos dialogue between Socrates and Theaetetus, i interpreted it as that they both concurred that what we today call empiricism was the correct way to define the truth in knowledge, that evidence based theories and such were the credible way to go. And when it came up during the lecture that Socrates argued against empiricism, made me question my own interpretation of Theaetetus. had I understood the underlying meaning of the text correctly? Or had I just interpreted it differently?