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?

In “Critique of Pure Reason” by the philosopher Immanuel Kant, knowledge is discussed in terms of a priori cognition, which is a rational theory independent of experience, and its counterpart; a posteriori, which is based on empiricism and dependent of experience.

Scientific subjects such as mathematics and physics are a priori, which according to Kant was a revolutionary discovery revealed by studying the iscoceles triangle. Greek mathematicians first looked at the figure and tried to understand it based on appearance, but later found it much more enlightening when producing the properties by thinking themselves about what it represented (p.108).

However, as mathematics and physics “traveled the secure part of science” (p.107), the same could not be said about metaphysics, which faced problems even though considered a priori (p.109). To solve these problems, Kant proposed that objects should conform to our cognition instead of vice versa, and therefore change the way of previous thinking.

An example that Kant brings up is Copernicus theorem, where Copernicus could not explain the then common belief that celestial bodies traveled around our Earth, but had greater luck when assuming the contrary - that we were in fact moving around the sun. Without any real experience of how the galaxy behaved, Copernicus discovered the science by assuming that the galaxy conformed to his cognition and did not limit himself to what was earlier assumed (p.110). A “think outside the box” sort of thing so to speak.

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"?

In the text “Thaetetus”, Plato discusses the definition of knowledge and questions the very core of the concept. At first the word gets a simple and factual explanation by one of the characters, as he counts up fields in which to have knowledge in. As the story continues, it is revealed that the concept is a little more complex than that, since “Things appear to each one such as he perceives them” (Plato p.140). Thus knowledge is a matter of perception, and therefore is not something to just behold, but something to understand. This, I think, is probably what is meant by seeing and hearing “through” the eyes and the ears instead of “with”. That is, to perceive things with the mind, much like the case with iscoceles triangle as explained earlier. I believe that this can be linked to why it is also important to be critical to information, and to remember that studies and research should be done while keeping in mind that all subjects are different.

After having googled “empiricism”, I learned that it is a theory in which “knowledge comes only and primarily from sensory experience” which very much sounds like what Plato was discussing, but differs a bit from Kants theory that knowledge comes from many factors. I think I agree more with Kant in this case, as there is also rationalism which is described as more intellectual and deducting, and even scepticism which states that it’s basically impossible to have enough justification of knowledge. Perhaps this is also an individual thing, how knowledge is aquired that is.

Sources

Kant, I. Critique of Pure Reason, Cambridge University Press
Plato, Theaetetus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/