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?
First we need to understand that there are two different kinds of knowledge, a posteriori and a priori. A posteriori knowledge is obtained through experience, that is, it is empirical. While a priori knowledge means that knowledge is obtained independently of experience. Therefor you do not need to confirm something to know it’s true, for example a simple mathematical equation as 2+2=4.
Kant thinks that having being thought that our cognition must conform to objects has not given any results. Because to able to do that we must have gained the knowledge of the object through experience. I understand it as Kant saying that we can never truly experience anything directly. There are other perspectives to be taken into consideration other than the perspective of oneself, such as e.g. time and space. Therefor for us to make better progress within the field of metaphysics he proposes that objects must conform to our cognition. In other words, by instead using our knowledge we can understand an object. Kant explains this by comparing to Copernicus understanding of the celestial motions. The point of that comparison is that Copernicus had to change his point of view in order to understand the celestial motions, instead of having the sun revolve around us he put the sun in the center and made us revolve around. I think that it’s an interesting point of view that our minds, through a filter built on different perspectives, influence the way we understand and observe an object.
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"?
My understanding towards this question is that Socrates argues that our eyes and ears are tools used to see and hear “through” so that our mind can then collect the information and perceive what is being seen or heard. We don’t see and hear “with” our eyes and ears because we need our mind to create an perspective and opinion. Socrates says that all people have their own unique perception. Basically in order for us to understand an object we must use our senses and combine them with the help of our mind. I think that this makes Socrates argument directed towards the modern empiricism. The modern empiricism is based on knowledge being obtained through experience, a posteriori knowledge, primarily deriving from our five senses1. Which Socrates also argues for by saying that knowledge is obtained from the experience of using our senses combined with our mind in order to perceive an understanding of an object.
1. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/#1.2
I think it was a good idea to start with an explanation of i priori an posteriori knowledge in order to discuss Kant’s view more clearly. It is good that you take math as an example science. In this field knowledge is gained the way Kant wants it to be gained: through concepts which you build a priori conform to the objects.
SvaraRaderaI also like that you made the connection between Socrates’ point of view and posteriori knowledge. You are absolutely right in saying that the experience, from which knowledge is gained posteriori, can be seen as the connection between the senses, the extra part which the mind adds to perception to form knowledge.
I like how you've focused on - or at least used as an example - the role of Copernicus within the conceptualisation of a priori and a posteriori knowledge, seeing as 'copernican' has sort of become a synonym for being world-changing and revolutionary in our perception of things. It's an easy relevance to miss, seeing as the supposed lack of similarity between celestial science and philosophical concepts, but you're one of the few in my sample that has so explicitly discussed it.
SvaraRadera