Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

According to Kant we are unable to attain knowledge of things as they really are, (the thing-in-itself). When we try to gain knowledge of things as they really are we are limited by our understanding of the thing. By approaching the study of material and immaterial objects with a goal of understanding them as they themselves are we allow our reason to be constrained by the objects we try to study. Kant proposes an alternative line of inquiry, one where we acknowledge that the things in themselves are beyond our grasp. In this alternative line of inquiry we should instead focus on the objects, that we wish to study, as they appear to us. The ”objects must conform to our cognition” as Kant puts it.

Kant’s main focus, is the study of metaphysics which as a field is still in his time (in Kant’s own estimation) far from being a true science of reason. This unlike logic which is accurately determined because there are clear rules for all thinking. For there to be reason in science, knowledge must be obtained. This knowledge can be obtained in two different ways. Either by determining the object and its concept, or by also making it real. The first is a theoretical knowledge and the latter a practical cognition of knowledge. Up until the time of Kant it has, according to Kant himself, been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects. But all attempts to determine anything about them a priori has come to nothing, and knowledge (pre-supposition) failed to expand. This is where Kants new proposed method of study comes in. Perhaps it would be more efficient to understand metaphysic problems when we suppose that objects must conform to our cognition, to study them as they appear in light of our reason. This would also allow knowledge a priori. Then something can be determined about the objects before they are given to us.

Now Kants main field of interest is that of metaphysics, for which the methodology of study might seems less clear than for that of the natural sciences. Kant wishes to use the method of natural science as an example in as much as he wants to, through reason, form testable hypothesis beforehand (a priori) and again through reason find a viable means of testing said hypothesis. But in metaphysics where the items of study might not be given in experience, you must try to test your hypothesis against experiments of reason rather than against the pratical experiments of the natural sciences. We may only think a priori of things that which we have put into them ourselves. By seeking pure reason, we can gain cognition a priori of the thing.

To Socrates’ question, “What is knowledge?”, Theaetetus comes up with a serious proposal for a definition “Knowledge is perception”, Theaetetus explains what appears a certain way to a given subject is that way for that subjec (Sedley 2004, s.16). However Socrates argues against Theaetetus, that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears, that things are to any observant as they appear to that observant, “Man is the measure of all things”. For an exempel, the doctor says that the patient is cold, but the patient says that he is warm. Or as Socrates present Protagoras view; two perceivers that are exposed to the same wind can have different opinions, one feels cold, the other not. Therefore Socrates question - are we going to say that the wind itself by itself is cold or not cold? To judge the wind cold when its not would be an error. Senses is an instrument that has its limitations, we do not see or hear the whole reality.

We can understand Socrates critique of Theaetetus’ in several ways. (a) In a modern context we could see it as Socrates saying that we are not in direct contact with the world, we don’t see or hear everything. Our perceptions are limited by the tools with which we perceive the world. The reality that we are experiencing is not the full reality and it appears different to each individuals. So when we perceive reality through our senses we must take into account the fallacies of said senses. (b) Another way to understand Socrates critique is in a more literal sense. We are not our senses; we are instead beings equipped with reason and what we perceive through are senses is interpreted by our reason in light of our individual experience. Hence any perception would by definition be subjective as it is filtered through our individual minds in the very process of our perceiving it.

Now, in what way is Socrates argument contradicting the view of empiricism? Modern empiricism makes the claim that it is only through our experience of the world that we can gain knowledge. But if Socrates claim is true that all that we may perceive of the world through our senses is subjective, then empirical study can’t be seen as a viable path to knowledge.