Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

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?

To understand the given statement by Kant we should start with taking a look at the central words of it: A priori, cognition, and object. According to the Oxford dictionaries a priori is „knowlegde which proceeds from theorectical deduction rater than from observation or experience“ (Oxford University Press, 2016). In comparison to that cognition is defined as „the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.“ (Oxford University Press, 2016). The observed object, that Kants is aiming is to understand, is described by „A material thing that can be seen and touched. A thing external to the thinking mind or subject.“ (Oxford University Press, 2016).The assumption that our cognition has to be conform to objects may lead us wrong in understanding the world and gaining knowledge. This assumption might keep us away from real understanding. Same if we only base our knowledge a priori. Easily said we shall not only rely on what we see. The cognition of objects through a new perspecive may help understanding the truth about it. Kant mentiones here the example of Copernicus. He assumed that the other planets might circle around our planet. This assumptions is exactly what Kant mentiones as „objects must conform to our cognition“. Only when Copernikus opened his mind to the new perspective of our planet might be the one moving in the system he got access to knowledge. This could be applied the the problems that metaphysics had back then.

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"?

The outcome of the dialogue between Socrates, Theateteus, and Theodorus circles around the definition of knowledge and where it comes from. The discussion ends with the definition „knowledge is perception“. Socrated states, and Theateteus agrees with him that we do not see and hear „with“, but „through“ our eyes and ears. This implies that we collect the information about our enviroment with our senses, but the processing to knowledge of these impressions happen through them. Not every human being has the same perception, because opinions and experiences influence our understanding of things. Socrates states throughout the dialogue that knowledge is perception and through sensing the environment everyone gains a different subjective truth about it. So bascially the knowledge that each individual perceives is differently from each other.The statement of Socrates goes along with the definition of empricism. It is „the theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses.“ (Oxford University Press, 2016) This is exactly what Socrates explains. The senses are the access to everyones knowledge. We gather information with hearing, seeing or feeling and understand through the preception inside of ourselves.

Source:
Oxford University Press (2016). Oxford Dictionaries. Available under: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ (Accessed on 02/09/16).