Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

Introduction and thoughts on the theme 

"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 preface, Kant takes a dual approach when describing knowledge as a concept:
· A Priori, which is knowledge independent of experience. Here knowledge is discovered with a rational and analytical approach.
· A Posteriori, which is knowledge based upon experiences. Here knowledge is discovered empirically.

The claim ”Students are people”, is a priori cognition. Using deductive reasoning, I can draw a logical conclusion clarifying the statement. I can tell a priori that students are people by determining the object (the students). The claim ”Students are happy people”, is a posteriori cognition. I can only get an understanding of their emotions towards their studies, by investigating the students' situation, ultimately by using my senses. My cognition conforms to the object.

From the moment we are born, we want to understand the world, and to find out the nature of objects. This is our nature, we examine objects. But what if the object, whether tangible or intangible, can not be examined through our senses? And what if our ability to reason is limited? Can we then truly learn about a subject in a scientific manner?

Kant describes metaphysics as follows "a wholly isolated speculative cognition of reason that elevats itself entirely above all instructions from experience, and that through mere concepts/…/”. He continues with saying that we can cognize of things a priori only what we ourselves have put into them. This does not sound very scientific to me. The clarifying example given in the text is Copernicus, who instead of conforming to the recognized belief, questioned that perception of the world and shifted the perspective from the object to the observer. Thereby he conformed the object to his cognition.

Instead of using the rational and analytical knowledge, as one can with the science of mathematics, the knowledge about metaphysics can be based upon our experience. However, we can not prove metaphysical questions without testing them in the real world.

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 eyes and ears are example of parts of our body through which we perceive information. However, just aquiring information and knowledge does not equal learning. In order to obtain knowledge, we have to process and understand what is being presented to us. When we process and interpret information, we do it based on our previously obtained knowledge and experiences.

 In the dialogue Socrates asks if perception has any part in attainment of truth or of being. Theaetetus simply answers "No", whereas Socrates continues by asking if perception can be the same as knowledge or science.

"Clearly not/.../and knowledge has now been most distinctly proved to be different from perception." 

He illustrates this with a parable. If I perceive the wind to be cold, it does not mean that it actually is cold. Based on my reference point of wind temperature combined with my favored body temperature, I form a preference. So rather than saying "The wind is cold" the more correct way to say it would be "The wind makes me feel cold".

Empiricism implies, as the posteriori cognition, that knowledge is gained through our senses. Socrates ideas are derived from his intuition or his previous knowledge.

But, when interacting with Theaetetus, Socrates clearly uses his mouth to convey his questions, and Theaetetus uses his ears to perceive the information. By using their senses, they interact with each other, and through that dialogue questions arise and theories are formed.

I will finish with concluding what a) I have learned from reading these texts and b) I have learned thinking about the concepts:
· Our backgrounds, cultures, social heritage and upbringing influences the way we perceive the world.
· We do not interpret objects and the world in a uniform way.
· The rationalistic and the empiricist standpoint are sometimes overarching, sometimes conflicting.