Theme 1 Pre

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 the time where Kant lives, the science must contain elements of a priori cognition, and this cognition must relate to its object. Therefore, the object must determine about how it established in the reality (Practical cognition of reason) and what we know about detailed fact and concept about the object (Theoretical cognition of reason). For example, in mathematics and physics, when Thales demonstrates the isosceles triangle. Kant points us to illustrate that a priori concept of the isosceles triangle is already thought by Thales inside his mind and present the isosceles triangle by constructing base on a priori concept.

On the other hand, this theory of science is distinguished in metaphysics. Kant defines metaphysics as “a wholly isolated speculative cognition of reason that elevates itself entirely above all instruction from experience”. Metaphysics is compromising only with mere conceptions, as a consequence, metaphysics cannot consider as science. Indeed, because of this limitation Kant assumed that if the knowledge must adhere to object, then some of the effort will be meaningless due to the nature of metaphysics which do not have an exact object in reality. In his own words, Kant thinks that "up to now the procedure of metaphysics has been a mere groping, and what is the worst, a groping among mere concepts”.

In order to adopt the metaphysics, Kant assumes the opposite way that objects must conform to our cognition. With this method, we can have a better understanding to set a goal or object to achieve before the real result presented to us. For example, it is like Copernicus when he tries to explain regarding the solar system. When he found any difficulty to make an explanation about solar movement to the spectator, he changes his point of view that the sun is the center and the spectator moving around it. Regarding this example, we can try a similar way to make an experiment with metaphysics, and make an alternative thinking like intuition. If this intuition resembles the nature of the object, then it could be a priori, but if reversed it could be a cognition.

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 Soctrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?

By using word “with” it means we are only using the eyes and the ears to perceive something with only these organs. When using these organs, the obtained information is only a small part that cannot be interpret as an actual knowledge. For example, we can only get information about color and shape when using eyes, the same as the ears to receive only sound around us.

However, when using word “through” it means that we use something from beginning until the end to achieve specific results. Hence, Socrates shows Theaetetus, that using “through”, he can perceive not only from the eyes and the ears, but he can perceive the information with all his organ and all his sense. This information than deliver to the mind and then interpreted as useful knowledge about many things in the world.

Wikipedia describes “Empiricism is a theory which states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensor experience”. Based on that, the empiricism will mainly underline experience and evidence of the object to define a knowledge. Furthermore, in empirism, sensory experience is the only source and secure in the certainty of knowledge. Without experience, the ratio does not have the ability to describe anything, if anything illustrates such a way, then it is merely an imaginary.

For this reason, we can assume that Socrates argument is same with empiricism. Because both of them show that sensory experience is base for the knowledge.