Reflections

Last week dealt with the question of what theory really is and what types of theories exist. In particular, there was one question in the seminar, which was debated over and I tried to reflect on this question specifically: What is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

As we learnt in the lecture, a theory provides an explanatory framework for an observation. It presents a range of proposals to identify objects and their relationship to each other.

On the one hand, a theory generally describes the scientific realization itself, describing an idea of something being not subject of our sensory perception. As a scientist, you usually observe first and then based on your findings try to form universal laws not by experience but by reasoning. A theory is therefore always something constructed and not something that exists by itself. As each theory is based on a key idea, it has to be continually contrasted by practise. The saying "it might work in theory, but not in practise" is hereby actually wrongly used, because when something is wrong in practise, it is essentially wrong in theory too.

On the other hand, a hypothesis can potentially become a theory, but starts out as a logical idea. It functions as prediction, which is taken as an explanation of certain appearances - usually in nature. For instance, you watch the light fall a specific way, and take on an assumption about the nature of light itself. Based on this prerequisite you try to explain other phenomena of light. Hypotheses present therefore the state of our knowledge of that truth. For them to become part of a scientific theory, you have to check them in reality. Therefore, a chain of events should be conducted emphasising the hypothesis. When the comparison with practise is failing or in the long-term not possible, the hypothesis is proven wrong and rejected as unscientific. As long as a hypothesis cannot be compared to reality, it cannot be called a theory.

A theory has therefore always to be matched with experience. It tries to reflect the best possible and complete image of reality. Laws of nature and theories are not allowed to contradict each other. When they do, then it is a sign that something is wrong. That is why you always have to review, adjust and extend your understanding. However, in science the concept of the one final, universal truth does not exist. A theory can never dispel all doubts or be ultimately proven, it can just be confirmed by tests.


Carone, L., 2008. Was ist eine Theorie? [online]. ScienceBlogs. Available: http://scienceblogs.de/planeten/2008/04/07/was-ist-eine-theorie/ [Accessed at 27 Sept. 2015].

Kirchner, F. and Michaëlis, C., 1907. Kirchner's Wörterbuch der philosophischen Grundbegriffe. Leipzig: Dürr, p. 632-633.

1838. Brockhaus Bilder-Conversations-Lexikon. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, Vol. 2, p. 435. 



Reading you first blog post on this topic, I can see how much time you have put into these answers and you worked well with the texts! The lecture and seminar, though, seemed to have helped you - also me - to clear things up, for instance, on the term Nominalism; I found Plato's cave allegory also really helpful, nice to read about it again! I agree with you, the context the texts were written in is extremely interesting - I think by trying to understand their environment more, but being able just to imagine how they lived at that point in time, we uphold Benjamin’s point on perception being determined by nature and history.


Your pre-reflections on theme 2 clearly show that you worked hard to get a good understanding of the texts! I especially liked your evaluation on how perception is historically determined and how you comprehend the term Nominalism.
You have a very structured way of writing and I like also that you focus on the main parts of the seminar discussion you found particularly interesting. Since I was in another group, I enjoyed reading about the connection between enlightenment and mass media in the eyes of Adorno and Horkheimer. Well done!


I definitely agree with you, the seminar helped a lot by explaining the term Nominalism. You did a great job in presenting how Nominalism and Enlightenment are interconnected – especially the examples help to underline your words.
The power of media still strikes me and it is just realistic to attest it even more growth over the next coming years. There is a quote by Allen Ginsberg saying, “Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture.” I think this is a very important statement and specifies that we have, in the context of fostering vision and development, a certain responsibility which media we decide to 'let come true'.


You did a great explanation on the term aura in your pre-post! Interesting example by differing between the presence in a theatre play and in a motion picture.
Both of your posts are very well written and structured, so it's very easy to follow your thoughts. The seminar seemed to have helped you especially by resolving some questions about Nominalism, its comparison to Platonic realism, and its connection to enlightenment. Nice reflection!


Your posts are very well written and well structured yet skillfully intertwined. It is really a joy to read them! Your pre-post feels like you got an in-depth understanding on the texts even prior to the week.
Indeed, the cave allegory was very helpful to understand the difference between realism and nominalism. And I like your thoughts on what could happen if you take both of them to the extreme. Excess is hardly ever an advantage; I guess you kind of need balance in everything.
I also agree that we might have destroyed a lot of the aura in our surroundings, which was likely much more cherished before the technical revolution. But I think there is already – or predict there will be – a countermovement to the strong influence of digitalization and mass media, a growing urge to experience nature or culture, go travelling or seeing things actually on-site. Do you agree?


It feels like that the seminar and lecture could give you a new appreciation of the texts and that they ignited an interest in this topic that will last also outside of class. The discussion in your group sounds very interesting. Reading about your contemplations on myth is incentive – you definitely have a point there! It would be interesting to know, which mythologies are already so enrooted in the nowadays culture that we don't even recognize them at myths anymore. Good job with your reflections!


By reading your reflection, I have the feeling you worked hard on understanding the difference between nominalism and realism. I actually also accredited nominalists the desire of promoting change and supporting new ideas, since they reject the 'putting in a box' thinking fearing inactivity and no foresight. But with you saying the revolution took actually place within a realistic worldview will start to make me think about that once more. It is interesting that we rarely hear about these concepts in our life, but that their defined way of thinking has actually such a big influence in the world we shape.


Thanks for sharing your reflections with us. You have a very nice writing style and were able to check off the given questions skillfully. In particular, I like your reasoning on how interpretations are also key to our perceptions and therefore dependent on our upbringing and habits.
The seminar seemed to have helped you, as it also did with me, to increase the understanding of the texts. I really appreciate your thinking beyond it though. How interesting to read your examples on new sort of auras for the industrialized culture. I haven't thought of that. Good job!


Thank you for your nicely elaborated reflection on theme 2. It feels like you could develop your own understanding of the texts better during the lecture and the seminar. You did a great job in putting your thoughts into words, which makes it really easy to follow – for instance your deduction on nominalism and realism is spot on! I agree with you that nowadays media with its rising force can actually both portray current living standards and argue for a change. That is indeed an interesting topic as well, so thank you for bringing that up.


Having read already other blogs, you are the first to define Dialectic with thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Interesting! We also discussed Plato's cave allegory in the seminar, but it was nice to read your summary of it again. Your reflection is well written and is nicely structured; I like that you put nominalism in context with fascism, or compare enlightenment with mass media. I wouldn't say that putting a politician in Plato's clothes would make him look cleverer, but that is again dependent on our individual perception. Anyway, I am excited about how nowadays superstructure will look in 30 years, aren't you?

Quantitative research

Select a media technology research paper that you argue is using quantitative methods in a good way. The paper should be of high quality, with an “impact factor” of 1.0 or above. The following are examples of questions to discuss in your blog posting:

The research paper "Evaluating the Wisdom of Strangers: The Perceived Credibility of Online Consumer Reviews on Yelp" is written by Young-shin Lim and Brandon Van Der Heide. The article was first published online on August 25,2015 in the January issue of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication in 2015 (Issue 1, Volume 20, Pages 67-82).

The paper analyses "how people make sense of consumer reviews posted by unknown others in online communities with social networks" (Lim and Van Der Heide, 2014: 79). In addition, the study presents the factor of familiarity with a certain online platform to be in relation of evaluating and combining user profile elements. Moreover, the significance of a review predicts the perceived credibility and the position to the reviewed product.

Which quantitative method or methods are used in the paper?

The researchers used the method of a written survey to measure the participant’s reception of online reviews. The online questionnaire queried each participant (of 241 college students) on assessing a restaurant review accompanied by a reviewer's profile, judging the credibility of the review and to measure the attitude towards the restaurant. Moreover, the students had to fill out their level of familiarity with Yelp.com.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using these methods?

Benefits include the design of the method that allows the researchers to isolate theoretically important variables. Moreover, the study approach was set to include participants of any cultural background. With the given method, the researchers were also able to set up a thought-out questionnaire attributing to a purposeful and result oriented study. They took into account other study results and tried to research other factors that could contribute, e.g. the effect of valence on the perceived credibility of Word of Mouth.

Limitations can be derived to the selection of one review instead of many reviews you usually read when browsing community sites. Furthermore, other factors than the investigated ones might attribute to a participant’s evaluation, e.g. predisposition to online review sites or the familiarity with the restaurant and their prior experience there.

What did you learn about quantitative methods from reading the paper?

The quantitative method attributes to a clear structure dividing each step on the way in reasonable sections, like the introduction, the presentation of key variables, source factors, followed by a detailed description of the method, the results and the discussion.

The method in the paper emphasizes the variables used to deduct the experiment. The researchers explain these in an in-depth way using previous study results on each of them, which provides a context for the variable itself and gives the reader an insight of what has to be considered.

By describing their procedure in their method design, it can be seen how a questionnaire can be measured and which scales, for instance, are used to measure perceived credibility or the attitudes towards a restaurant.

Which are the main methodological problems of the study? How could the use of the quantitative method or methods have been improved?

One of the main methodological problems of the given study might be the inability to imitate a real browsing experience. The participants, although not knowing what they are tested on, are aware that they are in an experiment and take therefore more time to evaluate the review on Yelp.com. They give unconsciously more thought to how they perceive the review, the reviewed object and the reviewer. Arguing that you usually scroll faster through these reviews, it might change the outcome of the experiment. In addition, you normally read more than one review and therefore compare different opinions of a restaurant, for instance. 
Therefore, the quantitative method could have been improved by testing participants on several user reviews instead of just one.


Read the following paper written by Ilias Bergström and colleagues. Reflect on the key points and what you learnt by reading the text. Also, briefly discuss the questions below.

The research paper Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality deals with the situation of changed reality and what you would do if you wake up in a different body but still with your own mind. The paper poses the questions on how your behaviour and attitude would be affected by the body change and if your level of performance would improve by a seemingly more appropriate body to tackle these.

By inviting a group of Caucasian people to a virtual drum session, participants were divided into groups of either Casual Dark-Skinned people or Formal Light-Skinned people. The differences in the movement pattern between these two groups of participants were investigated while they played the drums.

I learnt that body ownership can change your adaptability and performance towards a given task when you feel that your body is now more appropriate for it. Moreover, I find it interesting, that despite demographic differences you can still feel a high body ownership score and that "that those participants who had experienced the body ownership illusion more strongly showed less racial bias after the illusion than before" (Kilteni et al., 2013: 598). This result could benefit future research in multiple ways, for instance, in the field of psychology, rehabilitation or education. I find especially its benefit in the dissolution in resentment by enhancing a person's empathy, behaviour or attitude at least for a short period.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods? 

The quantitative method describes a method in scientific papers to systematically measure and evaluate behaviour, character traits or attitudes with the help of different tools. The starting points are hypotheses, which are then proven in concern to their correctness by measuring the characteristics in numbers. The quantitative method is beneficial if you want hart, replicable data explaining causal relationships that you can generalize later on. With the help of testing, experimenting and observing, you deduct your conclusion. However, individuality is not taken into account, and the response frame is limited.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?

A qualitative method describes a process where the focus lies on observing individuals and their subjective interpretations and experiences. It is commonly used in new research fields or to develop hypotheses.
It is a beneficial method to ask questions how a singular person or group experiences certain situations. The focus lies here on the point of view of the subjects. Interviews, group discussions or text analysis are popular methods used qualitatively. The benefits are that the affected person is the centre of interest and that the method adjusts to the subject of investigation. Disadvantages might be that you investigate a very low number of people who cannot be representative. Moreover, the method consumes a lot of time and relatively high costs.


Lim, Y. and Van Der Heide, B., 2014. Evaluating the Wisdom of Strangers: The Perceived Credibility of Online Consumer Reviews on Yelp. J Comput-Mediat Comm, Vol. 20, No. 1, p. 67-82.

Kilteni, K., Bergstrom, I. and Slater, M., 2013. Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality: The Body Shapes the Way We Play. IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graphics, Vol. 19, No. 4, p. 597-605.



Reflections

On week 2 of our philosophical outings, the past lecture can really be categorized as one of these history lessons that accomplish to give life to a certain episode in time and transfer its events vividly back into our minds. To hear about the context of the given texts altered my perspective on them. Moreover, it was helpful to see how every political and cultural development prior led up to the retaliation of the technical movement and resulted in the collapse of the progressive idea.

Enlightenment - based on reason, rationality, knowledge, science - was apparently not able to enhance the world, but resulted in political regime, the cultural commercialization and the development of mass media.

Benjamin Walter wrote the text in question in 1936, when his vision of the world was shaped by the present and rising power of Nazi Deutschland. Just eight years later, Adorno and Horkheimer were in no need anymore to substantiate the evils of the past, but focused mainly on the current developments in America, where society deemed to stay blind and – despite their good living standards and educational system – did not act upon reason at all. 
According to them, the freedom of media neither gave people truth nor did it result in ideas put into action. Art was just another way of directing, and even manipulating people.

Benjamin, meanwhile, thought art had massive social revolutionary potential, because now the difference of class (the Bourgeoisie, the Proletariat) was diminished and everyone could experience art. Portraying 'ordinary people' substituted a newfound dignity in the working class.
If Benjamin would live in our presence, he would also credit nowadays-social media the power to change the worldview. Media scholars might agree with him, saying that "Online socialization may encourage very different behaviors and cultivate individuals with very different values than past forms of socialization" (Swigger, 2012: 590).

The technical reproduction also changed the way we perceive the aura of an art object. The interaction with the art object changed from being based on spiritual experience, on being mainly based on vision. There again, the privilege of experiencing is gone, because you and me can look at our art print of Monet at the wall. This resulted, for instance, in a change of perception when visiting a museum, because likely your awe of the object is diminished. The beauty of art, though, is now liberated and free for everyone.

Moreover, the past seminar could also clear things up for me concerning the term Nominalism. Nominalists argue against concepts, because they are made up; in their mind, everything is individual and is its own self. Putting this on a scale from "individual" to "abstract", objects are all individual things, not at all classifiable. Their thinking can be visualised by the following example also implying the risks that are tied to conceptualisation.
Films are usually classified into genres due to their supposedly comparable content. However, just because a movie plot revolves around a couple and contains humorous elements, it cannot be defined as a romantic comedy. By putting these the stories into one distinct group, people start to assess the film by its created label with certain associations (powerful, weak, interesting, boring), which result into prejudgment and restriction.

In our group discussion, we were particularly stuck with the question if naturalism argues in the same direction as enlightenment. The answer is that both of these mind-sets are to some extent agreeing with each other, because they both promote empirical thinking (enlightenment by grounding ideas with experiments; nominalism by focussing on counting, describing, weighing things of).


Swigger, N., 2012. The Online Citizen: Is Social Media Changing Citizens’ Beliefs About Democratic Values?. Political Behavior, Vol. 35, Nr. 3, p. 589-603. 

I liked how you connected the two philosophies of Kant and Plato and compared them to each other putting Kant's concept of a priori and a posteriori knowledge on Plato’s theories! I might now read into the themes of philosophical empiricism, this sounds interesting!
Reading your after blog post on the lecture and the seminar, it gets clear that the discussions elucidated things for you, especially how we should understand Kant's theory on a priori knowledge. I was in the same seminar where E.T. came up as a visual sample, which surprisingly clarified things up for me as well. Who knew that changing to the perspective of an alien would make our own understanding of the world clearer!


Thanks for two great entries on theme 1! Reading your pre-post, I have the feeling you already understood the texts quite well before the lecture by diving deeply into this difficult philosophical subject! Well done - also for explaining very skilfully in which ways knowledge can be approached in.
Your comparison of Kant with Confucius was extremely interesting. I like how you brought these two masters of philosophy together although they seem quite diverse in culture and time! If they had they ever met, they would probably have found some similarities in their understanding of knowledge!
By giving the example of the cookie, you created a nice visualisation of Kant's faculty of understanding and helped to deepen my understanding in this! However, I might disagree with your statement "This means that we will never know the true nature of reality". In my mind, I understood the forms of intuition as categories of the world that come with the world anyway and that can be thought of as a priori from the beginning. Therefore, they do not prevent you to see the true nature of reality. By stripping them away, you would not only change the world and its reality completely, you would create a completely new world based on a completely different structure of knowledge.  


I really enjoyed reading your posts on theme 1. Your Pre-post already feels like you understood the given texts very well and concluded nicely what the two philosophers meant - respect that you were able to do this already before the lecture and seminar. I could especially reinforce my own view through your inference on the a priori knowledge.
I share with you the feeling of getting more interested by this topic and about how we as human beings could actually conceptualize perception. The image of the braindead person just staring into space gives a very distinct picture of a world without forms of intuition and the twelve categories.
You did a great job in reflecting on the whole week! I'm looking forward to reading your posts on the other themes.


In 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.
Having 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. 


You did a nice job in preparing for the theme week 1. Reading your first blog post shows that you have digged deeply into the theories of Plato conveyed in Theaetetus. Good structure, nice examples and metaphors in your whole post, I especially liked the examination of water! It is evident that you put a lot of effort into your reflective post and revised the given texts in a very detailed manner. Interesting read!


I really like the structure of your two blog posts and your analytical approach to the subject. You succeeded in explaining me the difficult definition of Kant and Plato and even underlined the connection between these philosophers and their timely deferred theories, something I found particularly difficult. I especially like that you brought up various examples to underline your trains of thought.
Don't you also think it is crazy that these philosophers wrote such influential texts leaving room for so much discussion and interpretation for millennia after - even as early as 369 B.C.?!


Thanks for the high quality posts on theme 1. You structured them nicely, especially the breakdown of your reflections. Since I was in a different group, it was also interesting to read what you discussed. For instance, I have not considered the possible definitions of pure reason - yet an example would be nice to clarify that more.
Your thoughts about the faculty of knowledge are fascinating. It is hard to grasp that categories are not meant to limit, but actually enable deriving a posteriori knowledge. Your explanation though, and also your comment on my blog got me contemplating about it some more, so well done! I really think you are asking very interesting questions, which make you contribute beneficially to an in depth discussion. 


Nice 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. 


I like how you focused in your pre-reflection on metaphysics and its working on being a secure course of science. I have not yet perceived it in comparison to mathematics and natural science. Interesting! Thanks for the examples you brought up while reflecting on Socrates' concept of empiricism.
In your post reflections you did a good job in contemplating on what you have learnt during week 1. I really like the quote you included in the text - it really sums up Kant's depiction of reason. Following his advice, we maintain the purity of cognition and continue to actively ask questions, not acting as a mere observer but an active participant.

 
I liked how you put in effort to compare the given theories on empiricism. Your reflections, in general, really transfer that you thought about the philosophies of Kant and Plato quite a bit and did not just list what was spoken in the seminar. Well done! I also appreciate that you put the week's topic in relation to your field of study. It is indeed a fabulous idea and I will now start to reflect about this too.
Your statement on objectivity got me thinking about my stance on this: I actually think that Kant believes in the ideal of objectivity. He generates it with the set up of his faculty of understanding and with this given ability to judge a priori, he actually found way to experience the world objectively.

Research and theory

Select a research journal that you believe is relevant for media technology research. The journal should be of high quality, with an “impact factor” of 1.0 or above. Write a short description of the journal and what kind of research it publishes.

The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC) is a quarterly, peer-reviewed, web-based scholarly journal whose social science research focuses on computer-mediated communication, e.g. instant messaging, email, social networks. Currently it has an impact factor of 3.117 and ranks on position 2/72 (2014) in the field of Communication and on position 4/85 (2014) in the field of Information Science & Library Science. Since its year of foundation in 1995 by Wiley-Blackwell, the high profile journal has consistently published multidisciplinary research on, for instance, communication, business, sociology, media studies or information science.


Select a research paper that is of high quality and relevant for media technology research. The paper should have been published in a high quality journal, with an “impact factor” of 1.0 or above. Write a short summary of the paper and provide a critical examination of, for example, its aims, theoretical framing, research method, findings, analysis or implications. You can use some of the questions in Performing research article critiques as support for your critical examination.

The paper "The Extended iSelf: The Impact of iPhone Separation on Cognition, Emotion, and Physiology" is written by Russell B. Clayton, Glenn Leshner and Anthony Almond. The final manuscript was first published online on January 8, 2015 and appeared in the March Issue of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication in 2015 (Issue 2, Volume 20, Pages 119-135).

The study ultimately examines the effects of iPhone separation on self, cognition, anxiety, and physiology when the inability occurs to answer the ringing phone during a cognitive task. Assessing the growing physical and emotional attachments humans have been developing for cell phones, the researchers prove that the heart rate and blood pressure increases and the feeling of anxiety occurs when users - distanced from their ringing iPhone - perform word search puzzles.

To put the discussion in context, the researchers validated their logic and outline by discussing the framework of previous studies, which was of importance for their own assessment. More specifically, they looked into the psychosocial role of the smartphone (e.g. the function of comfort; fear of missing out), the Extended-Self Theory (mobile technologies becoming an extension of our physical selves), and the Embodied Motivated Cognition.

The researchers successfully constituted hypotheses and followed up with a detailed description of their method. With the employment of a 2 (cell phone: possession/separated and ringing) x 2 (time: possession/separation) repeated-measures experiment, the distinction was made between the possession or separation of the smartphone ringing while a questionnaire is being completed. It seemed important to the researchers that the experiment was not manipulated in any way and followed a strict logical method dependent on the predefined variables (e.g. cell phone extension, state anxiety, performance).

Assessing their procedure of the experiment, they were careful to check the materials and not to let the participants in with certain expectations. The outcome was therefore independent and not threatened by manipulation. Out of 208 recruited undergraduate students, 136 completed the first round of online questionnaire. Being able to specifically respond to the iPhone users, 41 of the given 117 were invited back for a second round of more detailed tests.

After analysing the data, the detailed discussion results in the achievement to prove most of the hypotheses right. For example, the inability to answer the ringing phone ultimately increases the heart rate and unpleasantness and led to a decline in cognitive performance. The blood pressure, as well, increases due to the iPhone separation.

Within the section of limitations, they consider also future research possibilities, which are also discussed more intensely in the conclusion of their findings and their advice on future advancements.


Briefly explain to a first year university student what theory is, and what theory is not.

Theory is trying to answer questions on why; in research, there should be a balance of a theoretical and an empirical side. In quantitive research the emphasis should be more on theory and conceptualizing ideas, while the qualitive research should focus more on empiricism. However, theories are neither references, data, diagrams, lists of variables or constructs, nor hypotheses.

Describe the major theory or theories that are used in your selected paper. Which theory type (see Table 2 in Gregor) can the theory or theories be characterized as?

The selected paper follows the theory type of Analysis and Description. After setting up hypothetical questions, specific effects on a group of participants and their relationship with a certain type of technology were closely analysed with the help of logical variables. Their approach to the subject was broadly explained by reviewing e.g. other study results to similar hypotheses. In terms of generalizability, it was advised to see the test results within perspective to the limited sample size.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using the selected theory or theories?

The paper definitely contributes to the field of research of computer-mediated communication in its interrelation of our social behaviour. Due to the analytical and descriptive approach, the reader understands the set up and the execution very clearly, especially the information to the related field studies are very interesting and are able to give you a perspective of what power technology has over you as a human being. It shows, however, just a tiny fragment of a social behaviour that might or might not be confirmed due to its mainly empirical approach.


Clayton, R., Leshner, G. and Almond, A., 2015. The Extended iSelf: The Impact of iPhone Separation on Cognition, Emotion, and Physiology. J Comput-Mediat Comm, Vol. 20, Nr. 2, p. 119-135.

Gregor, S., 2006. The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30, Nr. 3, p. 611-642.

Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M., 1995. What Theory is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, Nr. 3, p. 371-384.


Reflections 

The last week was a hard plunge into the philosophy of Plato and Kant, nonetheless I found it very interesting to read more about their theories of knowledge and how we as humans should understand it.

Following the lecture on theme 1, I found it to be successful of giving me a broader background on these two philosophers and their disposition in time, especially in relation to the understanding of Empiricism.

In the Preface to the Second Edition of Critique of Pure Reason, Kant himself called his own philosophy a Copernican Revolution in Epistemology. Why? Because Copernicus once unable to explain the motion of heavenly bodies – in assumption that these bodies move around the earth, adopted to the alternative idea that these bodies actually move around the sun. Transferred to the philosophy of the 18th century, Kant changed the mind-set of knowledge forever by changing the human standpoint on how objects actually should be perceived.

In class, we also learned about Kant's ideal of objectivity, so to speak knowledge as God would perceive it and not as a human influenced by bodies, environment, stand in society etc. To be able to exercise this a priori ability to judge the world, Kant constructs the faculty of understanding, the framework of necessary forms and categories that can be judged as a priori. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy offers an insightful explanation. With these categories being "rules for making judgments about objects or an objective world, Kant arrives at his table of categories by considering how each logical function would structure judgments about objects (within our spatio-temporal forms of intuition)" (Rohlf, 2010).

In the seminar, this was discussed more deeply and in particular one metaphor I found to be very helpful: We generate this a priori knowledge on the same playground - a conceptualized playground with certain rules, the categorical framework in which we can quarrel with each other to get a posteriori knowledge of the world. If the playground changes, we can't compare the both types of knowledge anymore. So when scientists, for example, are empirically researching a certain topic, another scientist can versify or falsify this knowledge, because they are still playing on the same playground which is defined by space and time and conceived within the twelve categories.


Rohlf, M., 2010. Immanuel Kant [online]. Plato.stanford.edu. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#TraDed [Accessed at 13 Sept. 2015].

Critical media studies

1. Dialectic of Enlightenment

What is "Enlightenment"?

As deducted from the Dialectic of Enlightenment of Horkheimer and Adorno, enlightenment pursues the goal to take away the fear of the unknown and with that make humanity more powerful; because the more knowledge it has about the world, the more powerful it is. By disbanding myths and revising longstanding imaginations, we are bound to ground our ideas with experiments instead of just coming across new inventions blindly.

In their work the two philosophers are trying to prove two theories, so to speak, the myth is enlightenment in itself and enlightenment retaliates back to mythology, this caused by "the fear of truth which petrifies enlightenment itself" (Horkheimer et al., 2002: xvi). Enlightenment and truth conceived by them are also important for the presence as they are bound "not merely to intellectual history but also current reality" (Horkheimer et al., 2002: xvi).

What is "Dialectic"?

In the Preface to the New Edition (1969) they define the term as developing "its vital energy from the tension between the two intellectual temperaments which came together in writing it" (Horkheimer et al., 2002: xi). Dialectic can therefore be interpreted as a method of thinking in opposed corners without searching to prove their theories by practical experience.

What is "Nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?

Researching Horkheimer within his connection to the Frankfurt School, nominalism is critical of universal concepts – so to speak universals – due to their tendencies to be human constructions or formal terminology and not based in reality. Hence, nominalism rejects myth and fantasy due to their abstractness and inability to initiate progress in reality or bring forward truthful enlightenment.

Adorno saw this conflict also in context of historical events and inseparable to the philosophy of law, that when abstract forms are predominant over nature, injustice can happen. He bases this theory on the actual reality of the horrific actions taken place in the times of National Socialism.

What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?

Myths fall victim to enlightenment, but since myths at all times had intended to illuminate roots and with that constitute a certain truth, myth became the human's reality, or in Adorno and Horkheimer's words "False clarity" (Horkheimer et al., 2002: xvii) for a period of time. Because of that myth became the enlightenment's own product and with that its own function of elucidation.


2. "The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity"

In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analysing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?

Superstructure and substructure stand in relative causality to each other, the substructure as the real economic base of society determined by materialistic conditions defines the superstructure, the intellectual structure on top (or social conscientiousness of the dominating classes at the time). Although the superstructure (within e.g. the political, educational, judicial system) is developing through technical developments, the substructure in itself is the final force of necessity and defines therefore the social superstructure.

According to Benjamin the superstructure needs by far longer to transform and has taken over 50 years to arrive at all areas of cultural production and its conditions. He tries to give us "theses about the developmental tendencies of art under present conditions of production" (Benjamin and Arendt, 1986: 217-218). From a Marxist point of view, these technical developments taking place in production also change the capitalistic conception of economy, for example in regard to the workforce of the proletariat.

Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?

For Benjamin, the revolution in culture and with that its "criticism of traditional concepts of art" (Benjamin and Arendt, 1986: 2131) already took place with the first real reproductive means - the photography and subsequently film. These developments enable mass reproduction of art and with that a fake depiction of reality and a changed collective perspective.

Adorno and Horkheimer seem more taken aback by the technical education since it also has a risk of influencing people, so to say bringing them under a spell, and destroying art with its overproduction. This again would diminish enlightenment by calculation and medial control.

Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).

It means that human perception is mainly determined by the nature and historical point in time. Benjamin states this with an example of the scholars Riegl and Wickhoff who tried to push away all the 'handovers' of the previous historians and to actually relive the time the realizations had originated in. However hard it is to actually show the changes of perception at that time, it is possible at last to recognise changes of our sense perception in the presence.

What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?

Through the transformation of art and the means we perceive art, the art itself looses its aura and changes the social function of the medium. Through reproduction society can now experience art collectively, however then has to fear to be misguided by sinister influencers.

Benjamin doesn't per se make a difference between natural objects and art objects, in his explanation though, he refers to the aura of natural objects to explain the aura of the art objects distinguishing between real and reproduced art. Here the aura of nature is a one time appearance in the distance, staying unapproachable. The perception of the artistic aura is however bound to space and time, the here and now proving the authenticity of the art object, the latter with its unique ability of influencing culture, tradition, and history at least for the period of its existence.


Horkheimer, M., Adorno, T. and Schmid Noerr, G., 2002. Dialectic of enlightenment. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Benjamin, W. and Arendt, H., 1986. Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books.

Theory of knowledge and theory of science 

1. In the preface to the second edition of "Critique of Pure Reason" (page B xvi) Kant says: "Thus far it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects. On that presupposition, however, all our attempts to establish something about them a priori, by means of concepts through which our cognition would be expanded, have come to nothing. Let us, therefore, try to find out by experiment whether we shall not make better progress in the problems of metaphysics if we assume that objects must conform to our cognition." How are we to understand this?

Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' reflects on how we should understand the self-awareness of reason. In his assessment, reason cannot be justified by ascribing them to different personal experiences but by approaching the science of metaphysics, the fundamental nature of things.
The Copernican Revolution claimed a change in the perception of metaphysics and instituted a modern view of long standing established conceptions. Where reason before revolved around – or as Kant puts it 'conformed to' – objects that shape our perception, now the objects must conform to reason. Reason is therefore the central measure of perception.

As I understand it, reason should a priori construct principles in respect to comprehensive appearances in nature, and then it should act in its own judge by testing these rules with experiments. This is necessary for the purity of cognition and to avoid errors of assessment that would exist if we base our cognition on more narrow precast experiences instead of our capacious imagination.


2. At the end of the discussion of the definition "Knowledge is perception", Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears. How are we to understand this? And in what way is it correct to say that Socrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?

The preposition 'With' declares that we all have eyes and ears as part of our human anatomy and therefore would experience everything similar to each other. 'Through', though, suggests that – although we have the same instruments of perception and of experiencing knowledge – we personally perceive everything around us very differently depending on our own personal interpretation. Knowledge relates therefore to our perception and with that to our own mind, education, practise, reflection, vision and analysis.

As told in our past lecture a lot of questions give room to a lot of answers multiplied by a lot of interpretations. Knowledge is therefore very dependent on the human himself and which experiences shape him throughout his whole life. Hence, the term 'empiricism' declares that we all learn through our own sensory experience and produce different results always in relation to our subjective reflection.
 

Gutenberg.org, 2003. The Critique of Pure Reason [online]. Available at: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm [Accessed at 1 Sept. 2015].

Gutenberg.org, 2008. Theaetetus, by Plato [online]. Available at: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1726/1726-h/1726-h.htm [Accessed at 1 Sept. 2015].