Plato does however write that what our senses perceive has to be somehow compared to our knowledge inside our soul. One could argue that this is an early and rudimentary version of Kants idea about the faculties of knowledge and how everything we perceive has to be organized in these categories.
"perception without conception is blind"This means if we were only to receive the signals from our senses, but don't make any sense of them by organizing them (or comparing them to what we knew beforehand) we cannot have (or gain) any knowledge.
Kant however does not agree with the concept of empiricism. He argues, that if that would be the truth, it would have been impossible for Copernicus to discover his model of the universe. Kant asks how it could be possible to have synthetic knowledge a priori.
This however also means that knowledge presupposes knowledge as without any prior knowledge, of for example the categories, we cannot categorize it. Therefore knowledge can never be "pure" as it is dependent on any prior knowledge as well as cultural, historical or language background.
We also discussed that Kant was apparently misinterpreted by most people as a critical or formal idealist which lead to him writing a second book in which he corrected this interpretation and made clear, that he meant his work to be of skeptical or empirical idealism.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteNice summary: brief and up to the point. After the seminar I've got similar thoughts on how Plato's concepts of knowledge (perceived "through" the sense organs and processed by "soul") had evolved in Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" even though rationalist Kant disapproved empirical approaches.
Hi! I think you have done a great job explaining the things we have learnt during this first week. I especially would like to emphasize your ability to draw connections between, for example, Plato’s text and empiricism which shows that you have gained a wider understanding of the topic. It would be interesting to hear a little bit more of your own thoughts and opinions of the theme and about your work-process. Perhaps for the next reflection you could add that. Otherwise, good job!
ReplyDeleteIt is great idea which I haven't realized before lecture and seminar that Plato actually anticipated Kant. Thanks for your reflection! I really liked you simplification of Kant's categories idea that we need to organize our sense to make a meaning and acknowledge the surrounding world.
ReplyDeleteI like it that you set the focus of your second blog post more or less on empiricism and how the opinions of Plato and Kant agree or disagree with it. I like your thought that knowledge can never be "pure", since each and everyone has a different cultural, historical or language background. That means that the a priori knowledge varies a lot from person to person. This might have also been a reason why Kant's first book was so often misinterpreted. Considering that prior to Kant no one was able to put these thoughts about knowledge somehow into words, the opinion of him was misunderstood according to a priori knowledge, based on early attempts on knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very good summary of the concepts we've been presented during theme 1. It would be interesting to read what you think have been useful in these seminars and your approach to "knowledge", also whether you think this theme will be of any advantage in future studies. However, I think you've shown a good understanding of the different terms and connections between them.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI think you explain "Perception without conception is blind, conception without perception is empty." very well. As I understand, concept without a perceptional base is nothing. Perception can’t think, and understanding can’t perceive, they have to work together. It is through your mind that you can make sense of the world. To have any knowledge we have to organize our mind, knowledge is a product of both our senses and our understanding.
I think it was easy to read you blog post. You did some god reflections and you gained some new knowledge and better understanding after the lecture and seminar.
Hi! Nice summary on how the lecture and the seminar gave you a clearer view on how Kant's text should be interpret. You can see that you understand the text and the examples that you use to explain the theories are interesting. The conclusions that you draw are exactly what Kant wants us too understand.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the fact that it is hard is to be objective, because of the different factors from our background influencing the way we perceive things.
ReplyDeleteYour blog entry is a concise summary of this weeks theme, and I appreciate the effort to keep it simple.
I would have, just like previous commentators, liked to hear about your own opinions or thoughts on the theme. When you write that Kant is misinterpreted, does that apply to you as well? Were the concepts clear from day 1?
You comments on Kant's critique on the sovereignty of empiricism is a relevant part of the post. Kant's "copernican revolution" is an interesting study theme, and it was neat to link it to its source ("Kant asks how it could be possible to have sythetic knowledge a priori").
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how you connected Plato’s and Kant’s texts in your reflection and connected it to empiricism. It would be interesting to hear, as several others have pointed out, how you would apply the concepts to a modern context. My view was that Kant wished he had called it formal or critical idealism so that he would have not been misinterpreted as a sceptical or empirical idealist, as the sceptical idealism is formulated from the god’s point of view, which Kant distanced himself from.
You have managed to summarize the key points from Kant and Plato. I had a similar understanding of Kants theory of knowledge but you managed to communicate it very effective with the way humans categorize perceptions to process it into knowledge. And as mentioned above you managed to present a distinct connection between Kant and Plato. I interpret that you were quite consistent in your seminar group and that no other reflections or thoughts arose.
ReplyDeleteI liked the way in which you described Socrates’s dialogue with Theaetetus in your first blog post. You say that Theatetus makes statements and Socrates counter proofs those statements as a means of discovery. I hadn’t realized it was a form of dialectic until you explained it this way and it is interesting to connect it with our week two discussions on dialectic.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was interesting to read about how Plato’s ideas were an early form of empiricism. I had initially thought that Plato was against empiricism as he thought that you could not solely rely on the senses to learn everything about the world.
I liked the way in which you described Socrates’s dialogue with Theaetetus in your first blog post. You say that Theatetus makes statements and Socrates counter proofs those statements as a means of discovery. I hadn’t realized it was a form of dialectic until you explained it this way and it is interesting to connect it with our week two discussions on dialectic.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was interesting to read about how Plato’s ideas were an early form of empiricism. I had initially thought that Plato was against empiricism as he thought that you could not solely rely on the senses to learn everything about the world.