Hi, During 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.
2.
I think that you have asked an interesting question with “is a priori = an analytical judgement?”
To add to earlier comment I have an example:
During a lecture these words were discussed. And as far as I understand they mean the same thing, even though they are two different ways of saying the same thing.
An example that was mentioned was:
“There are pupils in this class” = analytical judgement.
“There are 39 pupils in the class” = synthetic judgement.
An analytical judgement means that what is being stated does not need for someone to see if the statement is true. As in “there are pupils in this class”, because the word “class” is a word that in itself means “a group of pupils”. So we know without double checking that it is true that there are pupils in a class.
A synthetic judgement means that we can only know that the statement is true by experiencing/testing. To know if the statement “there are 39 pupils in the class” is true we have to calculate the pupils in the room to see if the statement is true.
Now I believe that to say “to have knowledge a priori” means the same as the knowledge being an analytical judgement. We do not have to have experience to know a priori to be true.
To say that a knowledge is “a posteriori” means that it is a knowledge that requires experience before we know the knowledge to be true. It is therefore equal to a synthetic judgement.
I hope I did not misunderstand your question!
3.
Great summary and I also think that it can be difficult to understand the different concepts at times.
I agree with you that it is a whole new way of approaching a question, to sit and discuss it without really having a clear answer in the end. In the seminar I attended we entered the topic of “is a table actually a table?” And that discussion ended with “it is, because the majority can accept the concept of the object being a table. But some might not agree on that concept and perceive the object as something else”.
To add to the comment on getting to know what you thought before and after the seminar: Seeing that you mention different concepts that you have discussed I think that it would be interesting to read what you learned about the concepts from those discussions :).
4.
I do not think you are alone about feeling that the texts are confusing (at least I felt the same way). Sounds like a good thing to mark words and concepts in the texts while reading them!
I think that maybe you can use some examples or further explanations about your thoughts in your blog posts? It seems like you have thoughts about the different concepts in the texts, and it would be interesting to read what they are :).
I have a question about where you wrote:
“Things like analytic judgement, where you will know after investigating something (aposteriori knowledge), sounded quite intriguing.”
Do you mean that an analytic judgement = aposteriori knowledge?
Do you mean that an analytic judgement = aposteriori knowledge?
I might be mistaken but I interpreted it to be that:
Analytic judgement = a priori knowledge
And
Synthetic judgement = aposteriori knowledge
5.
Your reflective text is easy to follow and I too found that I felt like I got a deeper understanding of the texts after the seminars and the lectures.
I also think that when you say that you tried to “simplify something very complex” you are not alone! These texts share some complex thoughts on knowledge and how we perceive things, and it is hard to understand it all at once.
However I liked the fact that you tried to “simplify” things in your first blog post in terms of you writing examples on how you understood the texts. They made it easier to understand how you interpreted the texts.
6.
I think that both of your blog posts are well written and I think that your first blog post showed that you understood Kant’s and Plato’s texts really well! I did not think of reading study guides or text analysis, but they seem to help give a good understanding of the texts.
I found it interesting that you mention that you think that you after the seminar and lecture no longer agree with your previous answers to the questions. (I felt the same way about my own blog post)
It would be interesting to read how your answers differ now compared to the answers in your earlier blog post.
7.
Did you discuss Plato’s text in the seminar? Did you learn anything new about Plato’s ideas concerning knowledge and perception after your first blog post?
Side note: In your first blog post you switch between using quotation marks and colon when you quote a person, the quotation marks made it easier to read. (I am referring to the sentence that starts with “What he says is: since metaphysics hasn’t been able to enter upon…”)
I did not think of reading the texts referred to in our texts. That sounds like a good way to understand their thoughts better!
8.
I like your blog design and the fact that your reflection is easy to follow. It sounds like you had an interesting example to explain a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Before reading your blog post I had only heard explanations in the form of “bachelors” and “pupils”. It would have been interesting to hear how the discussion about “E.T.” and a “rabbit” discussion went and how it helped you in order to understand the two concepts :).
9.
I like the fact that you use the terms presented in the texts when you are discussing the answers to the questions.
I think it would be interesting to read some more about what you feel that you have learned or what concept you think of differently after the seminar and lecture. It would also be interesting to hear some examples of what you discussed during the seminar :).
10.
I think that both of your blog posts had very well explained thoughts in them and were easy to follow. I think that you did a great job on giving examples and explaining the concepts a priori and posteriori knowledge. And in your first blog post I think that your method to do research on what Kant opposes to in order to get a better understanding of his ideas is really interesting.
Analytic judgement = a priori knowledge
And
Synthetic judgement = aposteriori knowledge
5.
Your reflective text is easy to follow and I too found that I felt like I got a deeper understanding of the texts after the seminars and the lectures.
I also think that when you say that you tried to “simplify something very complex” you are not alone! These texts share some complex thoughts on knowledge and how we perceive things, and it is hard to understand it all at once.
However I liked the fact that you tried to “simplify” things in your first blog post in terms of you writing examples on how you understood the texts. They made it easier to understand how you interpreted the texts.
6.
I think that both of your blog posts are well written and I think that your first blog post showed that you understood Kant’s and Plato’s texts really well! I did not think of reading study guides or text analysis, but they seem to help give a good understanding of the texts.
I found it interesting that you mention that you think that you after the seminar and lecture no longer agree with your previous answers to the questions. (I felt the same way about my own blog post)
It would be interesting to read how your answers differ now compared to the answers in your earlier blog post.
7.
Did you discuss Plato’s text in the seminar? Did you learn anything new about Plato’s ideas concerning knowledge and perception after your first blog post?
Side note: In your first blog post you switch between using quotation marks and colon when you quote a person, the quotation marks made it easier to read. (I am referring to the sentence that starts with “What he says is: since metaphysics hasn’t been able to enter upon…”)
I did not think of reading the texts referred to in our texts. That sounds like a good way to understand their thoughts better!
8.
I like your blog design and the fact that your reflection is easy to follow. It sounds like you had an interesting example to explain a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Before reading your blog post I had only heard explanations in the form of “bachelors” and “pupils”. It would have been interesting to hear how the discussion about “E.T.” and a “rabbit” discussion went and how it helped you in order to understand the two concepts :).
9.
I like the fact that you use the terms presented in the texts when you are discussing the answers to the questions.
I think it would be interesting to read some more about what you feel that you have learned or what concept you think of differently after the seminar and lecture. It would also be interesting to hear some examples of what you discussed during the seminar :).
10.
I think that both of your blog posts had very well explained thoughts in them and were easy to follow. I think that you did a great job on giving examples and explaining the concepts a priori and posteriori knowledge. And in your first blog post I think that your method to do research on what Kant opposes to in order to get a better understanding of his ideas is really interesting.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar