Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

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 reasons about knowledge, analytic and synthetic. The first mentioned is not grounded on experience (priori) but the second is (posteriori). Knowledge can be independently of experience, but can also gain from experience. Kant question that cognition must conform to objects since the attemps to broaden our cognition of objects by not rely on experience have not given any resultet. Therefore he propose that we shall thru experiment, assuming that that objects must conform to our knowledge, see if it will not improve within the issue regarding metaphysics. Can one knowledge (priori or posteriori) do without the other, or are they both necessary or even dependent on each other?

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 Soctrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?

Hearing and understanding a word that has been spoken does not implicate the same, we do not perceive by hearing. For instance, if we listen to a foreign language we will hear the sound of words but not understand the meaning of them. Likewise can we see symbols or letters but not nececcarily perceive them. Therefore we hear words and by perceiving we understand them as well. Hence as Socreates argued we do not see and hear with the eyes and the ears, but through them. Is than hearing and seeing a necessarily must to be able to gain knowledge?

Socrates argument is directed towards that knowledge and perception can been seen as equivalent, by those means things are the way they appear to oneself. Therefore knowledge comes than from seeing things, with an other word experience things. Consequently knowledge gains from experience, which modern empiricism emphasis.