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 has two beliefs. He believes in the idea of empiricism, called a posteriori, the idea that objects and experiences are built and understood by senses and previous experiences. He also believes in a priori, which is not a part of the empiricism and is not about objects seen through use of our senses. A priori means something that is independent from experience, something that is understood from the beginning without prior knowledge. It is not knowledge coming from our senses, it is universal and defined by itself. A rose is a rose, and the truth is verified without our senses. The same goes with Mathematics, it is true by definition. Other examples are space and time. You could argue that you build up an understanding of these two by experience and by using your senses, but according to Kant these exist by intuition and from intitution, your experiences are put into context.
If the idea of a priori is affirmed, our cognition would be expanded by confirming that all knowledge is not empirical. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that explains the world and the ‘being’, including the things which cannot really be measured or explained. What is the humans place in the universe, what is free will, what is existance etc. Kant describes this way of thinking by “leaving the thing in itself as something actual for itself but uncognized for us”, accepting that some truths are true without our definition and that this “provides satisfactory proofs of the laws that are the a priori ground of nature”.
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"?
Socrates states that using the term “with” is not precise enough, instead we should rather say that we hear through the ears and sees through the eyes. It is through these instruments that we perceive our surroundings. These tools combined with our mind, gives us understanding and experience and, further on, knowledge. Applying previous experiences and the information withdrawn from them on other situations can give an understanding, even if it’s not the same experience you encounter. It makes it possible to reason out of what you know and apply this knowledge on other unfamiliar situations or facts. The understanding of the world is built on our experiences which we’ve gathered since we were born in terms of what our senses have memorized - what we’ve seen, heard, sensed, smelled and tasted. There is more to the picture than just the eyes can see, and to hear something is not the same as to listen to it. To understand, you have to go through the channels that physically takes in the data that your mind transform into something that has a meaning.
To compare what is being said in the dialogue between Socrates and Theaethetus to empiricism, we need to start by explaining what empiricism is. Empiricism means basing ideas on experience, on testing and on observing. It states that everything we know comes from impressions and perception through our senses. When talking about science, you often talk about empirical results. This is very similar to Socrates argument.
I like your text. It’s quite coherent and well written. One example is when you explain a posteriori and a priori. It is quite interesting how you weaved excerpts form the text with your own ideas and arguments. Hence, you simplify the difference between those two different types of knowledge. However the are some issues, regarding word choice, that I think in a sense make your arguments slightly less solid. For example, “Kant has two beliefs.”. Despite this I agree that he definitely talks about a posteriori, and a priori. Later on, in the same paragraph you mention that “A priori … [is] something that is understood from the beginning without prior knowledge. It is not knowledge coming from our senses, it is universal and defined by itself.” Can there be anything like this? To us, me and you and many other people who have seen a rose before, “ a rose is a rose” but what about those who have never seen one before? Is a rose still a rose for them too?
SvaraRaderaIn the concluding paragraph you mention “To understand, you have to go through the channels that physically takes in the data that your mind transform into something that has a meaning.” I am really not sure what you mean by that. However, I agree that Socrates argument is very similar to modern day empiricism.
To sum up, apart form some minor issues here and there, you have written a very nice, methodical text.