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 what Kant means by our cognition being forced to conform to objects, I believe that we have to use a metaphor. Kant talks about the Copernican revolution, and how Copernicus decided to change the way he looked at celestial bodies: away from the theory that the sun and other planets rotated around earth, to that the earth rotated around the sun. In the same way, Kant wants to flip the idea of our cognition conforming to objects, and change it to that objects are conformed by our minds for metaphysics.

We cannot experiment on the notion of metaphysics since we do not understand how to let our cognition be conformed by the object - our minds cannot comprehend the spectrum of metaphysics. However, if we, just as Copernicus flipped the notion of celestial bodies, change the way we look at metaphysics, and let our own minds define and conform the objects, we will gain a greater understanding and knowledge of what metaphysics truly is.

With the above said, I believe that a priori knowledge of an object does not truly exist, since we always need some sort of a knowledge to make the a priori consensus. An example often used is that we know that “all bachelors are single” without a priori knowledge – but for us to truly know it, we need to know the definition of the word bachelor.  Because of this, letting our cognition conform objects is next to impossible due to a lack of a priori knowledge – which is the difficulty of the entire thought process of Kant.

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"?

I believe that Socrates is talking about how everything we know is always based on prior experience – and that what we know is constantly changing and adapting to what we see, feel and hear. The sentence about how we hear/see “through” our eyes and ears to me is about that our organs are only vessels to deliver these experiences to our mind – which is where the true sight and hearing takes place. A modern day example might be that two people looking at an object will see entirely different things: for someone who is very interested in art, seeing the Mona Lisa is an amazing sight – not only do you see the painting, but also the history of it, because your previous experiences has helped define the Mona Lisa in your mind. However, the same painting, Mona Lisa might to some only be a painting of a woman, and nothing more.

Another example might be that two people hearing the same song will hear entirely different things. Someone who has studied music might hear the different tones, the instruments and the people who have created the song - whereas someone might hear just hear a piece of music.

Empiricism, defined as “Empiricism is the theory that experience is of primary importance in giving us knowledge of the world. Whatever we learn, according to empiricists, we learn through perception. Knowledge without experience, with the possible exception of trivial semantic and logical truths, is impossible” (http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/sources-of-knowledge/empiricism/). Coincides perfectly with what Sokrates says. Empiricism states that all knowledge is primarily based on our experiences. Sokrates says that a “filter” of sorts is added, and what we see is dependent on our previous experiences in life.  The common point is that knowledge is based on previous experiences, and that knowledge is ever fluid and can change based on new experiences that you may encounter.