Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

For the first theme I have recieved two texts, Plato's Theaetetus and the preface to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, each with an associated question as follows:

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?

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"?

Here are my thoughts on the questions:

1. In the preface to “Critique of Pure Reason” Kant talks about the secure course of science and the relevance of logic and reason within cognitions. In order to be a science the cognition must have some reason within itself, something that can be recognized a priori. Math and physics are theoretical cognitions where math is entirely pure (although it was not as easy for math as it was for logic, which only deals with reason itself, to be widely accepted). According to Kant, metaphysics has not been favored to enter upon the secure course of a science because reason always get stuck within it somehow or another.

When the question of whether we must have the objects conform to our cognition rather than having the cognition conform to objects is raised I am given the impression that the author wanted to revolutionize the way the people of his time looked at and defined science. I think that Kant wanted to change the perspective of science in the same way that Copernicus tried to figure out why the starry sky seemed to move. Copernicus at first assumed that the earth was the center of the universe but he made no progress in explaining the celestial movements with that perspective. He then had the stars stand still while the earth turned and thus found a way to understand how the solar system worked.

2. In Plato’s Theaetetus we meet Socrates who is in search of a bright man to help him figure out the definition of knowledge. He is introduced to the young Theaetetus and their dialogue is what most of the text consists of. Socrates wants to challenge the young boy’s mind by referring to a priori facts and then comparing them to the original problem in his argumentation. For example, he compares himself with his midwife mother and explains that being a teacher is like helping young minds with giving birth to their thoughts and therefore he, Socrates, is much like a midwife himself. He wants Theaetetus to think further than the question to find an answer, much in the same sense of which Kant argues about logic and reason.

Empiricism is about testing and using experience in order to prove a theory and not only rely on a priori reasoning. When Socrates urges Theaetetus to, at first, look at a simple version of the problem and then to try thinking outside the box I would say that he uses a form of philosophical or theoretical empiricism.