Theme 1: Theory of Knowledge and Theory of Science

1. In the preface to the second edition of "Critique of Pure Reason" (page B xvi) Kant says: "Thus far it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects. On that presupposition, however, all our attempts to establish something about them a priori, by means of concepts through which our cognition would be expanded, have come to nothing. Let us, therefore, try to find out by experiment whether we shall not make better progress in the problems of metaphysics if we assume that objects must conform to our cognition." How are we to understand this?

There are two different kinds of knowledge, a priori and a posteriori. A priori is knowledge that doesn't require any experience. It is the knowledge that you know is true without further exploration, such as all homosexual men are attracted to men. A posteriori knowledge on the other hand is knowledge that needs to be confirmed through experience, like all homosexuals are "feminine".

Kant says that it has been thought that our cognition must conform to objects. Which means that we can't have knowledge about objects before we have some sort of experience about them. We can't just sit at home and think that we have knowledge about the outside world without experiencing it.

He then takes another view and says that we should assume that the objects must conform to our cognition. This means that we must use our knowledge in order to understand the objects. You should therefore look at problems from another perspective, like Copernicus. Copernicus tried to understand the celestial motions by putting the earth in the middle and that the sun revolved around us, but didn't succeed. So he changed his point of view and put the sun in the center for us to revolve around!

I think that knowledge should be viewed as a combination of the two. We need to combine our experiences with looking at objects from different perspectives to truly know something.

2. At the end of the discussion of the definition "Knowledge is perception", Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears. How are we to understand this? And in what way is it correct to say that Soctrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?

Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears. He is trying to show us that the senses are connected to a bigger picture so to speak. The eyes and ears are only examples of instruments that are all connected to the mind for us to be able to perceive "objects of sense". We then also perceive different senses through different organs but we can not compare the senses with one another, or link them together to know what differs without a mind or connection point of some sort.

Socrates also asks what bodily organ that perceives other universal notions like being or not-being and likeness and unlikeness. Theaetetus then answers that these notions differs from the other objects of sense and that they doesn't have any separate organ, but the power of the mind.

All objects of sense and universal notions must therefore be connected together by the power of the mind for it to be understood by us. We can not only understand thing by looking at it with our eyes. We need to look at it through our eyes and combine that experience with something more to understand it.

"SOCRATES: The simple sensations which reach the soul through the body are given at birth to men and animals by nature, but their reflections on the being and use of them are slowly and hardly gained, if they are ever gained, by education and long experience."

As quoted above we need to use the senses through our organs in to the soul, but also to reflect on the being and the use by education and experience. It is the part about the accompanied experience that I think makes it directed toward the modern empiricism. Empiricism is based on that the only knowledge is what has been given proof of by observations or experiences. And Socrates is saying just that. That collecting the objects of sense is an ability all men are born with, but then we need to make observations (by example education) or gather experiences to really reflect and understand the knowledge we assume we have.