Our cognition must conform to objects. If this were to be true, there would then be an objective truth about objects within metaphysics. If this objective truth were to exist, our lack of understanding would be solely dependent on our limited cognition, something that we should be able to overcome. Kant then argues that all our efforts to get to this objective truth through just thinking a lot about them have been very unsuccessful. This, again, can be attributed to our limited cognition, but he also says that ways to expand our cognition have failed. He suggests that we should instead be considering whether, instead of there existing an objective truth, there exists true cognition, and all objects are therefore influenced by the way we choose to regard them.
He, throughout this passage, seems to argue that there is no point in trying to find the absolute truth. Since it hasn’t already been discovered, it either doesn’t exist or is dependent upon means of cognition that are out of reach. Instead he appears to believe that it would be more helpful and productive to regard all things as being dependent on the way they are viewed. The knowable truth is influenced by the ways we collect that knowledge, and therefore it is not absolute and can be disregarded. Instead he takes a more spiritual approach to things. I must therefore abolish knowledge, to make room for belief. Indeed, it is not what we learn from looking at things that is important. Instead it is the mere fact that we are looking at them that will give us knowledge.
...for which is more correct, to say that we see or hear with the eyes and with the ears, or through the eyes and through the ears. Plato, on the other hand, believes that the mind is the be all, end all of logical reasoning and acquisition of knowledge. The senses, in his example the eyes and ears, are just tools of the great overseer, the master of all that is, the mind. According to him it doesn’t matter how we regard the things that we do, the mere fact that we are is enough. He thinks that to take into account different perceptions is to skew away from the truth since, to use one of his examples, if the wind is cold to one and not cold to another, how are we to know what is true? If there, and he seems convinced that there is, exists an absolute truth about the world, we cannot figure that truth out by using our flawed and differentiating senses and cognitions. No, we should only consider things that can be reached through reason and deep thought. I therefore believe that indeed, his argument is very much directed towards empiricism, and that he thinks it is an inadequate system that has nothing on the gloriousness that is pure thought. If we were to take Plato’s arguments at face value the only reason that the absolute truth about all things have not been discovered is that there hasn’t yet been born a man with a great enough mind to figure it out.
Having read both of these very different opinions, I have to say that I prefer Kant’s worldview. Plato can be perceived an elitist who believes that the greatest of minds is all that is required. A great thinker is in himself perfect and fully realized. Kant, on the other hand, seems to believe himself and all others to be inherently flawed and imperfect people, and that this, since he sees it as inevitable, is not something to be rejected but rather something to be embraced and accepted. We can never escape our inherent bias, and therefore we should strive to take it into consideration in everything that we do. This world view seems to me to be more in line with how we in modern times regard the acquisition of knowledge. To put it briefly, my view on modern methods is to take data from as many viewpoints as possible, and when we can then see similarities appear in differentiating data, that must be one step closer to the “absolute” truth, if there even is such a thing.
First of all, I must admit that the I liked the title. It is quite thought provoking! The opening paragraph sums up pretty much the argument set forth by Kant. Furthermore, on the concepts of “objective truth” and “absolute truth”, you have covered basically what he talks about. Overall, I must say that your text is quite coherent and you have covered all the question succinctly.
SvaraRaderaIn the third paragraph, “ I must therefore abolish knowledge, to make room for belief.” I guess you got that from the book, Critique of Pure Reason. In that case, quotation marks are the punctuations that should be used. It’s understandable that you Italicised that sentence, but I think that equations marks should be used instead. There are some other instances that you have used italic words to quote a section from the text. Despite this, it is a well-written text. Good job!