To be fair these texts are giving me a headache. The language seems quite old, and the way Kant structures his sentences makes it really hard for me to grasp what he is talking about. Using obscure synonyms for many words, and "a prior" all the time gets me lost, but it wouldn't be any fun if it was easy, right?
However, as for the reflection.
Saying that all our cognition must conform to objects feels like saying that we have to adapt our understanding of something to what we're studying. So an object, in this case, could be a study-object. However, this way of thinking have yet to lead us where we want. So Kant suggests to try if we in metaphysics can make better progress if we have it the other way around. Can we somehow have what we're studying to adapt to our understanding of it? Or maybe it's just our understanding/knowledge in general here.
Not very much to say on the first text here.
Moving on to the second text.
Seeing through the eyes and hearing through the ears. Somewhere in the text they talk about what knowledge is, and how it's perception. They talk quite a lot about how things are perceived differently, and Socrates asks:
"Can I fail of knowing of which I perceive?". To which Theaetetus replied that you can't, which is pretty much why knowledge it defined as perception I suppose.
The eyes and ears are merely be objects, or instruments, through which we perceive information. So I think that the perception of information that we take in from the eyes and ears can be seen as seeing through the eyes and hearing through ears. I believe they explain it farily well in the text. Socrates says:
"..., there are perched a number of unconnected senses, which do not all meet in some one nature, the mind, ...". This means that the eyes and ears does not perceive information themselves, but rather that they are connected to the brain (or the mind) which inturn perceives that of what has been seen and heard.
Empiricism means that knowledge comes from sensory experience. Socrates argument, especially the quote above, points at the senses all are connected to the mind that then processes that information. The mind perceives information so that we get more knowledge from what we see, hear etc. through our senses. This is why his argument can be directed towards empiricism
I think that you could structure your text a bit more in accordance to the questions. Even if you answer the questions, as a reader you have to check the exact phrasing again to put yourself in the right mindset. I think that it would help (atleast me) if you were to state the question before you answer it. Or at least write a little bit more of an introductory text of what you are answering.
SvaraRaderaBesides from that, good job! Straight to the point on each topic!