In preparation for
the blog post and the seminar I read Plato’s Theaetetus and Kant's Critique
of Pure Reason. I also read several
other texts that discussed Theaetetus and Critique of Pure Reason
in order to get a better understanding of parts of the text that I found
difficult to comprehend. I also discussed questions about the text and
different passages with classmates beforehand as this type of discussion helped
me make sure that I actually understood the meaning of the texts instead of
simply memorizing them. I also prepared during the week by attending the
lecture at the beginning of the week and taking notes, especially taking note
of the parts which I did not fully understand. These questions were then
discussed during the seminar, both in a smaller group and also later with the
lecturer after which I had a greater comprehension of the parts I was
previously unclear about. During the seminar I also contributed in the smaller
groups by helping explain aspects of the texts that I felt I understood to the
others in the group. Everyone had their on grasp of the meanings of the texts
and I felt that the group discussions were very worthwhile and rewarding.
One thing in
particular I understood better during discussions at the seminar was the
concept of “God’s point of view” in regards to knowledge. From what I
understood, Kant means that pure knowledge without preconceptions is “godly
knowledge”. It is as if God himself has this knowledge because of its overview
and pureness. God, in this meaning is an observer who does not add and
perspectives or preconceptions to the knowledge. However, since the human soul
and mind is made up of schemas and has an organized character that automatically
determines the world around us according to our preconceptions, it is not
possible for humans to transcend above ourselves and receive knowledge from
“God’s point of view”. Instead, we must accept this and choose a point of view
to look at things from when we are looking into the world.
Hello Denise,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoy your reflection and especially your explanation of the concept of “God’s point of view”. You made it very clear and explained it in a very structured way. Even your explanation during our discussion made me understand it better. Regarding the discussion during the seminar, have you considered Kant questioned how knowledge could be structured and not where knowledge might come from? Great Job!
Hi Denise,
ReplyDeleteafter reading both your first and second blog post about Kant/Plato I can see that you've spent a lot of time discussing and thinking about what the key concepts of both texts are. I agree with you, that the concept of God's point of view might seem a little odd at first. For us it's impossible to have a view untainted by history, language and gender. Wouldn't you agree with me, that in that case, a scientific objectivity is just a dream?
Hi! I really like your reflections especially "God's point of view" point. We didn't pay attention on this at our seminar. But how do you think if we get the knowledge from when we are using our senses and previous experience, is it possible to obtain objective knowledge?
ReplyDeleteHi Denise,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I agree that reading the two texts the were not enough to fully comprehend them and that debating with classmates helped to get the quintessence of Kant's and Plato's texts as this was also quite unclear to me prior to the lecture. I also liked how you summarized that human beings can't project God's view as we have an organized character that automatically determines the world.
Hi Denise,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I agree that reading the two texts the were not enough to fully comprehend them and that debating with classmates helped to get the quintessence of Kant's and Plato's texts as this was also quite unclear to me prior to the lecture. I also liked how you summarized that human beings can't project God's view as we have an organized character that automatically determines the world.
Hi Denise,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I really agree with your ideas about " god's point of view". Actually before I read your understanding of Kant's method, I am a little confused. Thanks for your perfect explanation. Nice job!
What interests is me is the idea that we could, somehow, 'choose' a point of view from which to look at things when we look at the world, as a substitute from the impossible transcending into the God's point of view. I would imagine making such a decision, be it consciously of subconsciously, would require us to not only be well aware of the fact that we are by definition tainted by our perception, but also of the faculties of knowledge in which we operate. However - and I'm confusing myself here - such awareness would itself be tainted by our perception of our own perception, thus itself requiring an 'impossible objective view' to be achieved. The furthest I got is that we can acknowledge both our faculties of knowledge, and the fact that we can never quite comprehend the extent to which our perception is colored by what you so eloquently describe as the "organized character of our souls."
ReplyDeleteHej :) I really like your structure of your pre-post because you focused on the most important facts and explained them in a very good way. Your reflection shows how you the seminar helped you with the more unclear things in the text. To deal with the God's point of view it is somehow interesting that we have to pick a point of view, but it also clarifies which basis Kant used to write his text. Thinking about how he thought about the God's point of view made it a lot easier for me to understand what the text really is about.
ReplyDeleteHi Denise, I agree a lot with others about your blogs. Your reflections are very clear and show us your study journey with theme 1. In particular, I like your discussions on the concept of “God’s point of view”. I think it is also a good way to help understanding 'priori knowledge'. Thanks for your sharing. It's very helpful to me.
ReplyDelete