After one week filled with discussions about Kant, Plato, epistemology and how everything fits together, I feel like I can finally grasp at least some concepts of knowledge, which were introduced by Kant.
To prepare for this lecture I first read the German version of "Critique of Pure Reason" by Kant, hoping that the original might be more understandable. Still there were so many terms I didn't know, that I had to look up most of them in philosophical dictionaries. After that I read the English version, as well as Plato's Theaetetus. In total, it was a "step-by-step" progress. During the first lecture I took notes of what we discussed and that helped me during the seminar to follow Johan through the discussion.
In the seminar we discussed how Kant suggested, that we should climb down from God's point of view and investigate knowledge from our point of view instead. We discussed this in my small group during the seminar, unsure what to make out of this metaphor of God's point of view. Johan explained that everything we observe is tainted by our history, sex, language and knowledge. It's impossible to completely block out this prior knowledge. We cannot make, as in God's sense, untainted observations. Therefore the conception of scientific knowledge is just a dream.
We also discussed, how we can know anything a priori, if we can't potentially have posteriori knowledge beforehand. To know that all bachelors are unmarried (a typical a priori analytical judgement), we simply know that the word bachelor refers to an unmarried man (a typical posteriori knowledge). However, Kant never discussed this. Instead, he discussed the most basic forms, e.g. space and time. Furthermore the categories structure a priori knowledge and as Kant says, we can only see the world structured through categories.
Hi,
SvaraRaderaA interesting reading and you seems to be an ambitious student that read Kant's text in different language to understand it better. As I understand it the seminar was a good tool to understand the full meaning of the text, so it was for me as well. I think that you have pointed out the most important key words from the text and you describes them in a good way.
Hi,
SvaraRaderathanks for sharing your thoughts. What I liked about your "pre" lecture post is your clear and organized explanation. Your "post" lecture post I like that your participation in class become very obvious and it summarised really well what you learned through the lecture and the Seminar. Good Job!
Hi,
SvaraRaderaI particularly liked that you pointed out the context in the pre-blog which makes your answers very structured and easy to follow.
As I am of German nationality I tried as well to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason first in German. However, I have to say that this was more confusing to me than helpful and didn't help at all.
In the post-blog I especially like the explanation of yours, if a priori knowledge can exist without a posteriori knowledge beforehand, as this was my favourite discussion within our seminar group.
Hi,
SvaraRaderaDuring the seminar I attended a discussion was made on the differences between Kant’s and Plato’s view on objectivity in knowledge. (I came to think of it when I read about what you had discussed about the metaphor of God’s point of view and the conception of scientific knowledge.)
In that discussion it was said that Kant means that we cannot ignore our senses when we try to develop knowledge. However Plato means that we are able to find a way to not let our senses be a part of the knowledge we develop and that we should strive for that objectivity.
I like that you both mention the different terms you have learnt and also show that you have learnt them by having explanations and/or examples for them.
Hi, I like that you adjusted and explicated in your reflection your previous definition of a priori and post priori. It is seemed that you gained and shared your knowledge discussing and writing about knowledge and perception. Reading your reflection, I got new point about scientific knowledge. As you wrote "the conception of scientific knowledge is just a dream." I am not sure that I understand correctly. Do you mean that according to Kant, there is no point to do an empirical research because still we will not get true knowledge? Before reading your reflection, I was so sure that Kant was in favor of doing scientific researches from a practical stand point of view as a way to gain more knowledge.
SvaraRaderaNice deduction in your pre-reflections on why Kant can be called revolutionist, and what position our sensory understanding takes in empiricism. The seminar seemed to have given you a more in-depth knowledge on these texts and you did a great job in summarising the things that were discussed - I especially liked your example of the word 'bachelor' and the preconception that comes with the term.
SvaraRaderaHi,
SvaraRaderaThank you for sharing your thoughts. Same as you , after one week I can finally get understanding of some concepts. The last paragraph in your blog is really useful for me since I am confused with a prior. The example mentioned help me understand better now. Great job!
Hi!
SvaraRaderaA well-conducted analysis of Kant's and Plato's texts. I agree with you to a great extent, in the beginning I had to re-read several times and look up different words and concepts to truly understand the meaning.
I also agrees with you regarding that in the end of the week after completing the lecture and seminary did my understanding of Kant and Plato increase significantly and I understand now their basic ideas. Keep up the good work!
/Paul
Hi! Your reflection is well structured and easy to follow. It is interesting to know that you read Kant’s work in both German and English version, which makes me curious if there are significant differences in two languages with your understanding. Besides, you made a good point of view on God’s point of view. As you said, this metaphor does help us explain and understand our ‘limited’ knowledge, since ‘untainted observations’ are impossible to achieve. I think this will also lead us to think about ‘subjectivity’ and ‘objectivity’ for our future studies. Thanks for sharing your inspiring thoughts. Good job!
SvaraRadera