I spent most time preparing by reading definitions of all theoretical concepts stuffed into the aged texts we were required to read. Initially, the theme seemed overly theoretical and texts outdated, but I soon realized that they could be helpful to think at a higher level which will be useful not only at university but also in life.
The group seemed to struggle. We had a Facebook group chat where I I spent some time to give views on what I thought was expected from the theme. Hopefully it helped some of the others to get started.
To question our individual perceptions of the world was central in what we did in the seminar. Our group was good as all participated with interest in the discussion. We discussed how technical revolutionary advances such as social media may have affected the faculties of knowledge. Although they stayed fairly intact, we questioned why the framework of 12 rules should apply and how future-proof the theory really will be, moving forward.
You can also spot certain overlap with other sciences as for example psychology where the faculties of knowledge overlap with functionality of a schema, and to some extent the Maslow stairs. We furthermore agreed on that there is no objective knowledge as all information is filtered through human perception - also by scientists and journalists. You could argue that space and time are objective, but these are also seen differently depending on e.g. cultural background.
We did also discuss how the first thought is filtered and prejudiced based on past experience, but that an adult human being can control the second thought. Is there a world independent of the mind? Not really; everything is a point of reference. To organize in this way is how we make sense of the world.
On a personal contribution level, I questioned how the faculties of knowledge would be applied by a blind/deaf/mute person and whether mental illness has a connection to particular losses of the same (e.g. schizophrenia - reality). This later created an interesting discussion with the rest of the class and the teacher, whom had a psychoanalyst background. Speaking as an expert in this subject, he did believe there was a correlation with losing faculties of knowledge and mental illness.
To reflect on the theme overall, I found the theme useful but, nevertheless, some things bothered me. Plato emphasized gender in what I found an irrelevant and sexist way. He discussed barren women in contrast to fertile women in correlation to teaching, I found this a primitive and outdated way of thinking. Furthermore, gender was in this context irrelevant. Kant’s use of language seemed overly difficult, as if he was making longer sentences and using more complex words for the sake of it - not necessarily ideal for the sake of improving a learning process.
All in all, this was a deep-diving, occasionally frustrating but still somewhat enlightening theme.
Hi,
ReplyDeletewhen I was reading Kant I was wondering whether he wrote such a long sentences to make as less people as possible to understand him so that his work would be upgraded to the level "for the elite only". But when my friend-translator assured me that this was typical academic style at that time, I had nothing but to exult that the modern trends in education and media require explanations in an apprehensible manner.
If seriously, your question about the perception of the world by people with disabilities or illnesses looks really interesting. In case with blind/deaf/mute person, I suppose, it's possible to substitute the information from the outside by other organs (e.g. blind people use braille alphabet to read) so that their knowledge will be up-to-date with the rest of the world, but in case with those suffering from schizophrenia... Hard to answer without psychiatric education. What did the teacher tell you?
I found the authors thoughts on weather or not faculties of knowledge would be applied by a blind/deaf/mute person, and wish the author would have explore that idea a bit more. How would a correlation between losing faculties of knowledge and mental illness affect a person? Would the faculties of knowledge change and the world be organized in a different way?
ReplyDeleteI also found the section about the first and second thought interesting, and would have wished for the author to elaborate? In what context?
Overall I feel the author has a good grasp of the theme and an understanding of the texts. I think the example of Java and putting Kant into a more understandable context made it interesting to read, though I would have liked the author to link back more to the text and make more concrete examples, to make it a bit more understandable.
I’ve read both of your posts regarding this theme and I appreciate how you, in your first post, are trying to put the concept of ”pure reason” into context. However, I think your comparison with java and a backpack ends up being more confusing than explanatory. I see where you are coming from though.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, your discussion about Socrates is pretty clear and interesting.
It would’ve been interesting to know what thought you presented in the FB group chat.
Regarding being subjective and how we as human construct our ideas of space and time, I do agree with you.However, science as a concept is a human, cultural invention, but do you believe the results of scientific studies (e.g. gravity) can be defined as subjective? I believe it’s hard to define everything as purely subjective, although I know most things are dependent on how we perceive it.
I wish you had elaborated on how technical advances may have affected our faculties of knowledge and how the theory might become more or less relevant in the future. It sounds interesting, but I can’t really know where you’re headed with this.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should have gone into more detail about the schema and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and how they “overlap” with the faculties of knowledge. Hyperlinks are not enough to understand your point, and I can’t know if the connections I make between the 3 are the same as the ones you make.
It is indeed interesting to think about how the faculties of knowledge would be applied by a physically impaired person. I thought about the same (and about perception too) in relation to people with synesthesia (confusion or merging of the senses, which causes people to, for instance, see noises and hear shapes and colours). But that is something to be experienced, so only synesthetes can have a say on the matter.
As for Plato and gender – I think you’re seeking a calf under the ox, to use that expression. Moreover, if gender is not relevant to the theme, why bother discussing it in this blog post?
In the first post I feel that your answers are a bit vague, especially on the first question. You give a good example of your intepretation, but it's a bit confusing since you don't give an explanation to it. The second half of the second answer is much better, though. It shows that you've understood the concepts.
ReplyDeleteI really like your reflection, I think it's great! You are very clear with what you've been discussing and what you've learnt during the theme. I have also been thinking about how absence of certain senses affect perception, but I forgot to bring it up during the seminar. It would have been interesting to hear your discussion on that matter.
You wrote that Plato emphasized gender in what you found an irrelevant and sexist way. You I found this a primitive and outdated way of thinking. I think Plato’s attitude towards women has to be understood in the context of his environment. If you want to analyze Plato’s attitude towards women you first have to analyze the general Greek (in Plato’s time) attitude towards women. As far as I know from earlier courses Plato was quite progressive in his ideology and approach towards women. Anyway I think you blog was fairly easy to read, and your reflections difference from the other blog post I have been reading, which is good and stimulating. Well done!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting in your initial blog post in which you explained that Kant’s view was twisting and turning concepts in order to create arguments against them. This reminded me of our seminar discussion on dialectics and how you can similarly “twist things” or contradict them in order to come up with new meanings.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciated that you discussed how the faculties of knowledge overlap with other sciences. I wonder if these sciences were influenced by Kant’s theories as a framework. For example, you mentioned schema. Jean Piaget, who introduced the term, also described it as a category of knowledge. As it is also a way of categorizing information, it must have been an idea initially developed from Kant’s work.