Theory of knowledge and theory of science (Pre-seminar reflection)

Hello! Here is my interpretation of the two texts:

1)
Cognition is a collective term that describes our different emotions,senses, knowledge and information that we can receive(1). The term includes our way of thinking, memories, learning, interpretations and so on. Further Kant discusses in his text about a priori knowledge. This knowledge is independent by experience, it speaks about the obvious, logical knowledge. An a priori example is “there are people on earth”. This statement does not include our cognition nor experiences from life.

The opposite of a priori is a posteriori(2).

For example we know (for know) that one can not travel back in time. By our experience and the knowledge of physics, time and space, we know that this is impossible. We know that time is a dimension that moves forward, and therefore we can not go backwards. We know that things that already happen is history, and we can not change that. We know that time goes by. Due to this knowledge,a posteriori, becomes more obvious.  

Since our cognitions develops through experience, such as memories, learning, decision making, problem solving etc. Kant means that it is impossible to establish something (cognitional) without the experience. How would we get memories without being there to experience them? How can we learn something if you do not know what to learn? Therefore it is impossible to expand our cognition without the experience. And tho cognition and experience cooperates, it is not likely to establish something a priori.

As a result, Kant discusses that why not use our cognition to develop and solve metaphysical problems? Due to metaphysic problems, one needs to be able to applicate experience from oneself to have a chance to understand these problems.


2)

When Socrates argues that we do not see and hear “with” eyes and ears, my interpretation is that the eyes/ears is only an organ with the function to see/hear, and there is nothing more to it. And that they only exist like a ‘tool’ to help us navigate ourselves. What I think Socrates means when he says we see/hear through our eyes/ears is about experiencing your surroundings and the present from a  three-dimensional perspective. With this I mean, that the body which includes your sensory experience can perceive and receive the surroundings you are in. By using your eyes/ears you receive knowledge (by seeing and hearing things that affects you and your senses) by interpreting and experiencing your surroundings. In this way it can affect for example your emotions and other senses in your body. So when you see/hear through eyes/ears my interpretation of Socrates discussion is that you experience something that will also expand your cognition.

Empiricism is that we obtain knowledge through experience and awareness(3). Due to my earlier discussion, you receive knowledge through your eyes and ears which are converted to your senses. This is why the modern term is directed towards Socrates argument. Because they complies to each other.  








(1) http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/cognition.htm
(2) http://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/
(3) http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/sources-of-knowledge/empiricism/