Does the Knowledge I had before the seminar is the same as I have now ? Was it real knowledge back then ? Did I percieve things clearly or was I missdirected ?
After my personnal reading and writting on the matter, i've formed certain ideas, trying to find the direction Kant was directing us toward. After the seminar, where we had to discuss and entertain new ideas about this, we came upon a certain point of view about the subject. We have been able to discuss it with the lecturer and open our minds wider.
During the seminar we covered the basis so we can have a discussion with the same base. Once I got to understand :
“Perception without conception, is blind.
Conception without perception is empty.
This is the perfect sentence to understand what Plato meant by we do not see or hear with our eyes and ears, but we see or hear throught our eyes and ears. This means that we do have to go further from a first impression, understand the real meaning and don't take what we see for granted without the understanding. The eyes do not lie, but they can be lied to. What we believe and see may not be the same. And yet, we have to separate ourselves from this God's point of view and see and understand the things as we see them.
I, myself, use to think I could distance myself from things and react accordingly to the bigger picture. That I shall have enough distance to see things as they are and understand them. After reading Kant, it seems that my point of view seems to be far-fetched or at least, naive. But instead of following Kant's point of view on this matter, I'd rather keep mine and have an open mind on what he has to say about it.
My opinion on this has changed since we first started. I still think this is possible to have a "God's point of view" in order to observe, analyse things. But Kant offered an alternative to this. I do have to be aware that there are certain things I can't distance myself from. but if i'm aware of them and still want to have a bigger picture, I have to work on those i'm awared of and understand those things as they are (What Kant recommends)
My opinion on this has changed since we first started. I still think this is possible to have a "God's point of view" in order to observe, analyse things. But Kant offered an alternative to this. I do have to be aware that there are certain things I can't distance myself from. but if i'm aware of them and still want to have a bigger picture, I have to work on those i'm awared of and understand those things as they are (What Kant recommends)
Therefore, I would like to remove what I said about Kant in my previous blog :
"Kant in the other hand is not looking to create idea of our own but to expose is own truth".
He certaintly explains his way of thinkings but it doesn't replace what we already think, it just comes and add a new way of seeings things.
About the discussion with my groups, we ended up thinking that in this world, we have 7 billions of worlds. That each and every one of us see the world as he sees it and it is not the same as his brother, friends of colleagues. But the more we share with people, the more knowledge we acquire about the world we live in by comparing our different point of view. And the more people are talking and sharing experiences, their own knowledges, the more the world becomes clearer. For example, thousands years back, we (As humankind) used to don't share anything other than family, the world was as small as our territory. Evolution happens and now, human beings share information with the whole world. Everyone has access to the Human's knowledge about the world. And it has never been more shared, talked and discussed. And for a more practical example; We all read Kant on our side by ourselves. But since we shared it in a seminar, our perception about Kant, knowledge has changed.
But hey, this is only how I percieve it. Care to share ?
Hi,
ReplyDeleteyes, probably the fact that everyone understood Kant's ideas differently is the brightest demonstration of how we perceive the same objects, permeating them through our experience and views. You've also drawn quite an interesting conclusion: the more knowledge we share and perceive - the more consistent picture of the world we have a chance to observe.
The way you connect Plato and Kant really emphasizes that one in some way builds upon the other, uses his ideas, corrects them where they are wrong and builds up on the parts that were already somewhat 'true'. In itself that is already what you describe in the end of your reflection with the example of us all, sharing our views on Kant: the more our knowledge gets shared between the people, the clearer and more true it becomes, even though it can never be entirely pure.
ReplyDeleteI really liked reading your reflection. I liked how you structured it with some questions in the beginning, the reflection regarding how your own work-process developed with the use of your previous blogpost, and the end with an open question of relevance regarding this wide topic. I especially would like to highlight your sentence “The eyes do not lie, but they can be lied to” because it describes in a clear way Plato’s reasoning on why we see through our eyes instead of with them. I also noticed that you bolded the word lie in the word believe in the following sentence. That was quite effectful :) I do not have anything to remark on. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading your first blog post about theme 1 I recognized the interpretation of Kant's understanding of knowledge towards a "god's objectivity", that is not achievable for humans. That is the conclusion that so many other interpreters had after the publishing of the "Pure Reason". In your second blog post you come back to that again but through the lecture and discussion your opinion about that changed. I like the most about your reflection that you apply Kant's perception of knowledge to our learning (or gaining knowledge) process on the course. And your are right, each and everyone's reflection is just their perception of the gained knowledge. Good thought.
ReplyDeleteI found the concept of the ”seven billion worlds” very thought provoking. If we perceived our fellow human beings as carrying their own small universe we might have greater understanding for our differences. However, I am not sure that the more knowledge we acquire by sharing information ultimately leads to us questioning our set of opinions. As we today can access more information than previously, do you believe that there is a risk of choosing to see/read ideas that conform to ones own? Your last paragraph also made me think about what questions we are talking about in the western society today. Are we discussing questions that matter or are we trying to isolate from the more difficult questions by escaping into imaginary worlds such as Game of Thrones?
ReplyDeleteI, too, have thought about the concept of individual worlds (i.e. that there could be 7 billion worlds on planet earth). I think that the idea opens upp for social acceptance and cross-cultural understanding. I am, how ever, not sure that sharing thoughts with other people will per definition make life more clear. Perhaps it will offer some ease, or a perceived state of reaching truth. But I think that just might be an effect of ending up in a filter bubble.
ReplyDeleteWhen you write that information has never been "more shared, talked and discussed", I partially disagree. In one sense, it is clear that there has been an increased distribution of information i society. But are people, on a more personal level, really widening their views of the world? I believe that the increased information flow has backfired and brought out tendencies where people protect their own views of the world in order to not feel completely lost in what is and what isn't.
There are different human behaviours. Sure there are some who select the information in our thechnologies to confirm their own opinions. But there will be humans who will take the new information to evolve and develope new mind sets. And if it were not so, than we would have been stuck somewhere in the middle ages.
ReplyDeleteThough it is more democratic with all the information distributed through new technologies in the world, it is also harder to check the facts and avoid propaganda and false knowledge. (Wikipedia as an example)