Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science [before seminar]

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?

From my understanding, Kant was debating that ways of acquiring new knowledge can be better expanded if we try to make object conform to our reasoning rather than conform our thoughts to the object.

New knowledge will not be discovered if we assume things beforehand. Our cognition that is conformed to object will lead nowhere. The better way to produce new knowledge is to experiment whether object will conform to our cognition or not.

For example, if Sir Isaac Newton conforms his thought by assuming that the apple was falling down under the tree was because of the wind blowing and did no experiment, we would not get a new knowledge called ‘Gravity’. In the text also mentioned that we should not be instructed by nature or object. We should not approach nature like a pupil but like a judge. Sir Isaac Newton went further with the experiment and discovered forces that change in speed and direction of the apple and came up with theories of gravity. That is how object conform to the cognition and produced new 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 does not believe that knowledge is perception. Eyes and ears are just materials we use to get knowledge but they do not produce knowledge.

If you see or hear things “with” your eyes and ears, each person will see and hear differently based on their perception. One person would hear a piece of music and say it is a good music, one might have said it is bad.

Instead, we should see and hear “through” our eyes and ears and take what we see and hear to the analysis.

For example, you cannot perceive that one person have blond hair because their parents do. Instead, knowledge should be able to explain with more theory and reasoning that this blond hair occurs due to the human genetics aside from their own observing experiences.

This would support the argument towards the modern term called ‘empiricism’ that knowledge doesn’t come from one’s experiences. Personal experiences cannot become knowledge. They needs rational theory to prove that it is not just one’s perception.



source:

THEAETETUS by Plato. (n.d.). Retrieved September 3, 2015, from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1726/1726-h/1726-h.htm


Guyer, P. (2010). The Cambridge companion to Kant's Critique of pure reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rohlf, M. (2010, May 20). Immanuel Kant. Retrieved September 4, 2015.