During this first theme, we read two texts that for me were difficult to read and required a lot of focus. To understand the texts you had to really rethink what you'd just read, and even then you had to reread several parts to see what they actually ment. But after doing this, I have to admit, I still find them hard to understand.
During the seminar we began with identifying terms from the texts. A first step closer to comprehension. We talked about analytic and synthetic judgements, a priori and pure reason. How is synthetic apriori possible to get knowledge of the world? And to state that "the book is black", are our eyes looking on the material enough to confirm it? We need knowledge to understand that the thing we see is a book, and to know that the material is black, which is a color we know. We know things about the world, but what does that mean?
We talked about categories of understanding. The categories are not in our heads, but everything is according to these categories. They are not, but they are what make everything in the world to be.
Furthermore, Platos thoughts were discussed to find out what seeing trough our senses mean. But, what is seeing and who sees? Maybe seeing is a combination of looking and perceiving. As Kant says "Perception without conception is blind".
After the lecture with Johan, at least some parts are more clear than others. But some understanding, actually leads to even more questions.
I can relate to what you said about your reading difficulties with these passages. I don't know if it is the text's fault or that Kant insisted of making them difficult to follow but I experienced the same thing as you. Perhaps it's because of my short attention span (I blame internet!).
SvaraRaderaI think seeing is a combination of a whole lot of chemical components analyzing received signals. These perceptions vary a bit from person to person but I think they're mostly similar. I would like to know how this makes us different from some of the intelligent animals. What component is it that makes us contemplate and do we contemplate because we are taught to do it? Does a person growing up alone with wolves contemplate on the mysteries of the world and universe?
Hi Gabriella,
SvaraRaderaInteresting blog post! I would take your reflections about the categories of understanding a bit further by saying that what Kant is trying to say is that there is some kind of structure in the world. "unity", "limitations", "substance", "space" and "time" are categories of understanding and forms of intuition that make the world as it is, as it is, and gives the world a meaning for us humans. This is how i interpreted the text by Kant.
Hello Gabriella! Good reflection!
SvaraRaderaDuring my seminar we talked a lot about Kant's saying "Perception without conception is blind". I found this really interesting since I have never thought about it. I believe that it means that most people and even babies are able to see with their eyes. However, if we don't gain experience or reflect upon what we are seeing we can never learn or gain knowledge about the item. For example babies learn language through other people who point at objects and say the name. The babies thus see the object and start to connect it with words and it learns to say for example "bed". Next time the baby sees a bed, it also knows that the beds are soft and that you can lay in them. This is because they have learned something about the item more than just the word by perceiving it - that is by touching, seeing it and gaining experience over it. I hope this made any sense.
/Stephanie