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.
0 Kommentare:
Post a Comment