Theme 1 - Pre Seminar

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 this part of the preface to the second edition of “Critique of Pure Reason” Kant discusses cognition and aspects of it. Thus far it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects - Meaning that our knowledge of things has until now been adapted after objects and phenomenons we can observe and our experience with them. When using this approach in science and mathematics Kant recognises that knowledge can be obtained both a priori and a posteriori, either through reasoning or through experience. But our knowledge of things is based on having experience with them.

But the issue Kant sees and discusses in this passage is the difficulty met when trying to gain knowledge which would expand beyond what we already know if one has the approach which has been used hitherto. How can we though reasoning, a priori, gain knowledge which would expand our minds? Philosophical thinking is not possible when using this approach. In this preface he uses as an example how Copernicus revolutionised cosmology by not learning through what he already “knew", i.e. the stars moving while us being seemingly still and therefore assume that the stars revolved around us. Instead Copernicus look outside of what he already “knew” and thought, what if we are the ones which are revolving around the stars? 

Kant wants metaphysics to stop “blind groping” and want it to find “the secure course of a science” which logic, mathematics and physics already have. Metaphysics try to explain the nature of reality, something which cannot be explained by trying to conform to what we already know. Like Copernicus he wants to change the perspective used when gaining knowledge, in his view we cannot learn about things beyond ourselves and what we make unless we think outside the box and take a new approach. 

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"?

The definition that “Knowledge is perception” is the first definition of knowledge discussed in Theaetetus.  This is based on the presumption that what can be heard, seen, smelled, tasted and felt is what we can know. 

Socrates statement that we do not know “with” our senses but rather “through” them is based in the idea that our senses are not merely something we use objectively but rather subjectively. In other words when hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting and feeling everyone will not gain the same knowledge but rather their own version of what has been experienced. It is not the waves produced by a sound which are then registered by our ears which constitute what we then “know” about that sound, if that was the case all sounds would be the same to all people. For example a trained musician and someone with no interest nor previous knowledge in music would according to this line of thinking perceive a piece of music in two very different ways.

The senses cannot be used alone, when using them things such as previous experience and personality will change what is perceived and therefore learnt. We do not learn with our senses but rather with our mind using the senses as a tool to do so. This would mean that knowledge is relative to the observer, the world does not appear the same to all.

Empiricism argues that knowledge derives from sensory experiences, that Socrates argument could be directed towards this line of thinking is easy to believe. Empiricists claim that something can only be known if it has been proven through experiences, but one experience does not constitute knowledge but rather when put in to the greater picture that is all previously gained knowledge and experiences can something be known. What Socrates claims about the senses is in other words a rather empiricist notion.