For the first theme "Theory of
knowledge" of the course we were asked to read Plato's Theatetus and the preface of Immanuel Kants "Critique of
Pure Reason" in order to prepare ourselves for the lecture. The
two readings took a considerable time of time and rereadings to understand the
main ideas in the texts. Especially Kant's
Critique of Pure Reason was
quite challening. Besides the reading I investigated on the internet and
discussed with the students of my programme their views about the texts.
However, ther were still significant gaps of misunderstanding, especially in
regards to a priori and a posteriori knowledge.
In the lecture about the theory of
knowledge we discussed among others the differences between naturalism and
scientism, the definition
of primary and secondary qualities and
the ideal of objectivity.
This lead us to Kant’s
copernican revolution and
thus to the finding that a self-evident
conception of knowledge is
after this revolution not any longer a valid standpoint as our knowledge cannot
be solely constrained to mathematics and the science of the natural, empirical
world. However, Kant’s key claim was that judgment enables us to distinguish
objective connections of representations that necessarily belong together from
merely subjective experience.
However, after two thirds of the lecture it was difficult to follow and so I
did not fully understand the concept
of categories and how a priori and a posteriori knowledge is relevant in this context.
During the seminar we were divided
into groups of four people in which we discussed and compared the individual
views formed by the readings and the lecture. The main discussion topics within
our group were about “the understanding of a priori and a posteriori
knowledge” and the role of Kant’s
categories, i.e. the table
of judgments. At the end of the seminar it was clear to me that categories are structured
characteristics of an
appearance before it has been experienced and that they are something we do not
know that we know, i.e. a
priori knowledge. After the seminar I was able to arrange the things heard,
read and discussed and figured out that our mind is able to constitute the
impressions of sensory experience through the structured table of judgments, only
limiting the mind’s access to the so called forms
of intuition: space and time –
also a priori knowledge - resulting in a posteriori knowledge, i.e.
knowledge depending on experience.
Hi,
AntwortenLöschenInteresting reading about that the essence of Kant's text became more understandable the longer the theme week went on. I myself had the very same experience. Some things in Kant's text is from my side is still a bit unclear, but the big picture and the point of his conclusions, does feel as clear now after that the theme week has past. Finally, I think you got the most important concepts from Kant's text in your reflections.
Hej! Very interesting post. I specially like your point about categories that categories are sort of structured characteristics. Now I understand the following Kants' statement better: "we perceive everything in terms of space and time and table of categories". After seminar I also made a conclusion that knowledge cannot exist independent of previous knowledge.
AntwortenLöschenI really enjoyed reading your posts. You described the core concepts of Plato's and Kant's texts in a way that was structured and easy to follow. I thought it was good how you explained the process of understanding the texts, what you thought was difficult and how you yourself prepared. You can tell that you have put in a lot of effort into the texts and I agree that the seminars helped clear up a lot of concepts for me as well.
AntwortenLöschenHi,
AntwortenLöschenthanks for sharing your thoughts. It's interesting that you summarized the lecture and Seminar. It becomes obvious that you put a lot of work into it. Because of the discussion during the seminar, we clarified that Kant questioned how knowledge could be structured and not where knowledge might come from.
Thanks for sharing us with your thoughts. You did a really good job concluding what you did in the lecture and seminar, which could show your effort. It is nice that you have solved your question on priori and posteriori knowledge. Your post blog was neatly written and well structured. Really like your post!
AntwortenLöschenHi,I have the same opinions with you in a priori knowledge that we never clarify the truth in an objective way.In the end you mentioned that knowledge depending on experience.It seems convincing to interpret the existance of posteriori knowledge.However,if we cannot response to the external changes objectively,how could we utilize our experience to conduct the knowledge hierarchay which is authetic truth.It still questions me in some ways. Thanks for sharing.
AntwortenLöschenIn your pre-reflection on Plato you are doing a very good job in dissembling his text. Reading your thoughts helped to comprehend it on a wider perspective, so thanks for that! It is a pity that we didn't have more time to discuss Plato in the seminar, however, it seems that the discussion helped you clear things up about Kant's forms of intuition and the twelve categories.
AntwortenLöschenHaving never read philosophy before, I can relate to you and also feel the challenge in these texts. I think, and perhaps you too, that writing posts on them and being forced to deal with the content is a good way to take a closer look at actually very interesting ideas and concepts.
Hi, as I see reading the blogs, that the majority of groups was discussing on a priori and posteriori knowledge. I would say that it is the key to understand Kant. You wrote that it was hard to understand categories and how it is related with a priori and posteriori. I understood that these categories are the beginning of apprehension. In order to get knowledge, you have to structure the concepts, and these categories organize our concepts. According to these 12 categories, we make our personal investigation, gain experience and as e result we get posteriori knowledge. While a priori is already defined and verified knowledge according 12 categories. That is my answer how I understood categories. Maybe you will get another point of view.
AntwortenLöschenSeems like theme 1 was really interesting for you! I had a similar experience when reading Kant, it was a really difficult text. It is nice to read that the seminar discussion really helped you fill in gaps in your understanding of the lecture. The categories were a bit hard to understand for me as well, I specifically asked about them during the discussion in my group and one person had a very clear picture of it!
AntwortenLöschenHaving to on one hand read and reflect on the texts, then go to a lecture about them and finally discuss them at a seminar is a very good way to learn in my opinion and seems like it has been beneficial to you as well.
Hi,
AntwortenLöschenInteresting reflection! Our group has the same discussion topics about a priori knowledge, you give me a new idea to understand knowledge. And you have a better understand of Kant's method after one week. Nice job!
Hi,
AntwortenLöschenThanks for sharing your reflections and experience. They are very interesting and helpful. I have a similar journey with you for the reading and understanding, while your explanation about 'priori knowledge' is much clearer that "they are something we do not know that we know". It is much easier to understand and discuss with others. Well done!
Hello,
AntwortenLöschenThank you for an interesting text. I think that you have written a good reflection over the text, the seminar and what you have learned from the seminar. Kant's text is indeed hard to comprehend and I think it is important to talk to other people to understand your own thoughts and to get input from others. It was good that we had several times to reflect over the concepts with some days in between and I think that it is very clear that you have done that.
Hello,
AntwortenLöschenThank you for an interesting text. I think that you have written a good reflection over the text, the seminar and what you have learned from the seminar. Kant's text is indeed hard to comprehend and I think it is important to talk to other people to understand your own thoughts and to get input from others. It was good that we had several times to reflect over the concepts with some days in between and I think that it is very clear that you have done that.