Pre-seminar reflection 1

As a person just venturing into the world of philosophy, having read two rather extensive texts on the definition of knowledge, I can’t stress enough how mind-boggling this has been. I believe this has to do with the fact that one generally doesn’t look upon these types of concepts as something that is even debatable, however - after reading these two texts - the conclusion is that it is definitely possible, and even somewhat interesting at times...

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 starts of with the notion that humans understand the world through relating information and knowledge to something which is of a tangible nature to us. For example, the idea of infinity is something most of us can’t comprehend since it’s a concept which one cannot relate to an object or any concrete thought in our human lives. Thus, this results in us not being capable of understanding such a phenomenon in the way we understand factual numbers which we can relate the concept of being and not being. However, Kant argues, if one would disregard the thought of our cognition being molded by the connection to tangible objects and reasoning, and rather the other way around - that objects are conformed by the way of our cognition - we as a species could potentially overcome obstacles previously insurmountable. Thus, metaphysical problems (i.e. problems related to being, e.g. the concept of infinity) could be overcome due to us establishing a priori knowledge of objects before attributing them knowledge a posteriori - instead of the other way around. To clarify for myself and the reader; through establishing knowledge without connecting it to our previous experiences, perhaps problems that have previously been uncrackable would be overcome. 

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"?

Seeing and hearing doesn’t simply boil down to consuming information that is handed to us in a neat pre-processed package. It is rather a feat of processing information based on perceptive skills and factual experience. Thus one can argue that the action of interpreting the data received from watching something unfold is the brain’s empirical way of establishing a conclusion to an event. Since Socrates argues that one does not see with our eyes but rather through them, he is of the belief that our senses are based on empirical methods rather than emotional or through other connotations. The notion as to why his thoughts may be described as resemblant to empiricism is that the concept of empirical knowledge is defined as information which can be accounted for from real experience, i.e. for example; impressions from seeing or hearing. Furthermore, connecting to Kant’s text discussed above, this means that if knowledge is to be defined as perception, the a posteriori knowledge is active due to perception (in the empirical sense) being mixed with preconceptions and past experiences. Thus, in order for metaphysical problems to become clear, one would not only have to perceive - but remain susceptible to preconceptions and connotations before reaching conclusions - to further expand one’s mind.