Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science - Kant and Plato

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?

According to Kant, there are two different types of knowledge, one based on a priori way of collecting knowledge and another based on a posteriori way of collecting knowledge. The former, a priori, could be described as a knowledge that does not require any experience, i.e. an obvious knowledge that we just know is correct. While the latter, a posteriori, needs experience to confirm the knowledge.

The first part of Kant’s quotation states that for a long period of time it has been assumed that our cognition must conform to objects, meaning knowledge comes from experience, i.e. we must experience something to gain knowledge about it. In the second part of Kant’s quotation he puts on another angle and states that objects must conform to our cognition. According to my interpretations this means that in order to gain insight about an object, we need to use our knowledge, and by that try to tackle the object from a new perspective and be able to think outside the box. Kant mentions a great example of this in his text, that of Copernicus and the idea of celestial motion. Copernicus failed in trying to explain how the sun revolved around the earth which made him take on a new perspective and instead study the sun as the midpoint for the earth to revolve around. This is a great example of how we should not be restricted to the mindset that our cognition must conform the objects, but instead let the objects conform to our cognition.

In my opinion, a combination of the two above-mentioned mindsets would be the most effective way of describing knowledge. Sometimes I think we need to use our experience to collect new knowledge and sometimes it is better to put things in a wider perspective to really gain the knowledge.

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 Socrates 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 rather through the eyes and the ears. And by that, Socrates is trying to explain that the human senses are far more complex than we imagine them to be. The eyes and the ears are just instruments that our mind use in order to perceive our surroundings and gain experience and knowledge. Seeing with the eyes implies that the eyes function as glasses, while seeing through them is a synonym for being aware of how the construction and structure of the eyes and how they correspond to the mind, the other senses as well as previous experiences affects what we see and how we see it. For example, a picture contains way more information and knowledge than the naked eye can register at first sight.

Empiricism is a theory that emphasize sensory experience as base for our knowledge. As stated above, Socrates argues that the senses work closely together with each other and the mind to perceive knowledge which I think aligns with the ideas of empiricism. Socrates mentions that an experience could vary a lot among different people, even though the people are watching the same picture or listening to the same song.