Theory and Method

Hi all!

I am not good in scientific theories and philosophies but it is my effort to present my understandings. So I will appreciate your suggestions and comments.

My reflection about first question:

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?

Kant means cognition is normally based on how people perceives objects apparently and then they use their perception as knowledge. But before making the cognition all our perceptions are based on concepts that we already use as knowledge about objects (e.g. characteristics of an object). Kant wants to express that how and why all the objects around us are perceived like this as they are. As Kant proposed that ‘’objects must conform to all our cognition’’ would be better than, ‘’ all our cognition must conform to the objects’’. It means that we should must analyze and think about objects in a different way and make cognition about them through our experience rather than through priori or presuppositions. In the perspective of metaphysics which requires a lot of discussions about nature and world, this thinking would be more accurate (e.g. in mathematics and natural science) as he says that making cognition about objects without experience is just like the assumption of Copernicus and how could we make any constitution based on the intuitions (assumptions, perceptions).

Hence, Kant wants us to change our thinking about perceiving the things (objects) around us, we cannot make cognition about anything without experience. Let’s take the simple example of a book, without studying the book we cannot say something authentic that how it is and before studying the book, all our assumptions about the book is priori.

My reflection about second question:

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? 

In the dialogue about ‘Knowledge is Perception’ where Socrates talks about senses ears and eyes, he means that ears and eyes are only organs and instruments which we use in the process of perception. As our all senses ears, eyes, nose etc. are directly connected with mind and we use our eyes and ears to just see and hear, but we sense or think about something in our mind. Hence, ‘mind’ is a key part in the process of perception and we use our sensory organs to activate our mind and produce information. As in above text Socrates used a very good example, when we are sleeping so what we think is ‘dream’ but when we awake and use our sensory organs so what we think is ‘Knowledge’.

However, we can see and hear ‘through’ our eyes and ears but we can understand it in our mind and then our understanding becomes a knowledge.

And in what way is it correct to say that Socrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?

Empiricism in the philosophy of science states that knowledge comes only from sensory experience and as Socrates argues that knowledge is perception and we perceive something in mind through our sensory organs. In this way I think that Socrates argument is directly connected with the empiricism philosophy as nothing in this world is self-existent, all the knowledge came into existence from any kind of sensory experience. Also at the end of discussion Socrates and Theaetetus argues that perceptions about objects vary from person to person so it is important to consider all the impartial theories of observers to find the correct knowledge.