måndag 14 september 2015
Post Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science
This week, the theme has been knowledge. What is knowledge and what is science? For the assignment, we have read two texts. The first one was a dialogue between Socrates and Theaetetus where they discussed what knowledge is by reasoning and with logical arguments based on what they know and have experiences previously. The second text was by Kant and introduced the terms a priori and a posteriori. Kant’s theories presented a tool to cathegorize our world and reality.
I think the most interesting part of this week’s theme has been to question how we percieve the world, to discuss what we learned from the texts and the lecture on the seminar. Through discussion and the lecture, we’ve come across Kant’s cathegories which are a priori in themselves but can be used to describe a posteriori. To think about how we define the world, and that a posteriori is something that the majority of all people agrees on, is an interesting view of the world. To think about the world as something we understand through man’s cathegorization, which in fact is an understanding through concepts we’ve created. Objecivity is not objectivity in itself since we have created the term and definition, but we can still call it objectivity since we have decided on it’s meaning. We use our senses, but how we percieve the world is determined by more than just the data we collect. We percieve under a lot of conditions, such as culture, language, our gender and our point in history and time. As discussed in one of the two questions for the theme, we see through our senses rather than with them - they are merely tools. Through context, we create meaning.
I prepared for the theme and seminar by reading the texts and answering the questions. While reading the text, I came up with a lot of questions especially regarding terms and vocabulary which has made it necessary to search for more information to be able to comprehend the text. By preparing properly, it was rewarding to discuss the theme and what we learned to straighten out the question marks. I think being well prepared also contributed to my seminar group since I could take an active role (and function as a secretary by writing down the concepts we had problems understanding).
I think this week has been very educational. I realized though, that even by preparing properly, I did not understand the theme completely until the lecture and seminar - I found the texts quite difficult. Even after discussing them, I don’t think I fully understand everything, which I guess is a part of philisophy. The area has been completely new to me, which is also why I find it so interesting.
For my education, I think it might be good to reflect on what science is and what empirical result is. But even more so, I think this week’s theme has been generally educative and interesting since it’s been within an area we haven’t explored previously.
Prenumerera på:
Kommentarer till inlägget (Atom)
Hej Rebecka,
SvaraRaderaThanks a lot for sharing your thoughts. Really enjoyed reading your summary as you reproduced the first theme one in a very structured way. However, I think it is better to say that we can "gain" a posteriori knowledge through Kant's categories and forms of intuition, but this is only one small remark. Furthermore, I totally agree to your opinion how this week brought us step by step closer to understanding the theory of knowledge.
Hey,
SvaraRaderaGreat post i should say, i have the same feelings like you, before the seminar, i am not sure what i thought is right or wrong from the reading of the two writings even i am not sure if i pick all the things after seminar, at least one thing can be sure is i have clearly understanding of plato and kant's theories via the seminar and also read your posts :) I like you words "Objecivity is not objectivity in itself since we have created the term and definition, but we can still call it objectivity since we have decided on it’s meaning". Cause we are not god, we don't know what the real of objects, but we perceive through our eyes and ears and connect to ours prior and posterior knowledge.
Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.
SvaraRaderaI have read both your pre and post seminar blogpost and here I collected both of my comments. As I compare those two blogposts, I sense that you feel quite confident about the whole theme.
SvaraRaderaI also agree that how we perceive the world is one of the most thought-provoking yet difficult question we faced during theme one. I liked the section you talk about “objectivity”. I also think that there are such thing. Precisely as you mention “we have created the term and definition.” Very well said. As in the final paragraph you mention, it is philosophy, maybe it is not meant to come to any definitive conclusion.
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?
In 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.
Hi!
SvaraRaderaThank you for an interesting read on an interesting subject. I agree with you that the discussion of the world and our existence was the most intriguing one this week. Also, as you describe, the notion of us people understanding the world through the categorization of concepts we ourselves created, is an engaging subject which one could discuss for ages. As you mention, however, the texts themselves weren’t easily overcome - though it seems that you managed to get a great sense of the theme from other areas (both other sources and during the lecture/seminar) - great job!
I found it interesting where you discuss the notion of objectivity not being so in itself, which is an idea that I guess we all can agree on. Anything else, for instance there existing a “true” objectivity, would - as mentioned in the lecture - have to mean that there exists a being of higher intellect of some sort, which has the ability to see things without having established connotations and ideas a priori. In order to see things objectively, people would therefore have to elevate themselves above the rest of the human species and thereby walk seamlessly past Kant’s concepts of categorization - which I guess is an idea not befitting a society in which all people are treated equally. Great text and interesting ideas, keep up the good work!
Hi Rebecka!
SvaraRaderaGreat blog post! I believe you really grasp Kant's theories and thoughts. You write the following: "Objectivity is not objectivity in itself since we have created the term and definition". This is something I never thought about or remember being mentioned at the lecture or seminar, so I find it really interesting. It shows that us human will always perceive knowledge and the world through our senses, there is no way around that.
I agree with you that things are meaningless without context. This is something I think that we often forget when we consider stuff created in a different time or place than what surrounds us.
SvaraRaderaMy view, as far as it matters, is that you seem to have grasped the concepts of this week very well, and especially the whole "All I know is that I know nothing" thing that philosphy seems to have going for it.
Hej :) As you said in your post I don't think you can understand everything Kant and Plato meant when writing their texts. One of the reasons for that is that we don't live in the same time they lived and we are not influenced by the same history, political situation and perspective on knowledge. That is one of the most important things I have learned in the last weeks. I think the main goal of our blog is to figure out how we deal with philosophy but also to learn how important it is to investigate every part of a text (even its history, the situation of the author and of course the at that time way of thinking) to really understand what it tells us. I can see the progress you made from reading and trying to understand the text to actually understand at least most of what they tried to say in the text. In my opinion everybody deals with the same problem from not knowing if you got the text right in the beginning to finally understanding what you read a week before and what the text says.
SvaraRaderaDen här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.
SvaraRaderaHi!
SvaraRaderaInteresting read! I completely agree with you regarding not fully understanding the concepts while still having read and discussed about them. It is quite funny when you say that this is a part of philosophy (which I agree with) when the theme is about how we learn and perceive things. Which just shows that even though one can define concepts apriori and postpriori they are still very vague and open for interpretations.
Furthermore I think you explain the concepts very well especially the sentence "Objecivity is not objectivity in itself since we have created the term and definition, but we can still call it objectivity since we have decided on it’s meaning". For me this is spot on, so thanks for that!