Our first
theme in this course was interesting and even though it was the first time
applying the course specific learning system with blogpost, lecture and seminar
I think it went smooth and I have learnt a lot. During the weekend before I got
a bit stressed of reading because I started a bit too late, need to get back
into the study rhythm and start earlier in the next weeks. Before the seminar I
read through my notes from the reading and lecture. I also read my own blogpost
and some others. The seminar was a good way to both learn and use what we have
learnt during the week. I specially felt like it deepened my knowledge and also
made me more secure of the concepts. The first
half of the lecture on the theme felt like repetition for me, but the second
half with the different categories was hard for me to understand at first
because it was new concepts that hadn’t read or even heard about before the
lecture. But when I got the understanding of it as a structure in which we see
the world.
During the
seminar we discussed the theme of the week both in smaller groups of four
persons and in the whole group. In the small group we discussed a lot if we
could get objective knowledge in some way if. We think it is really hard if not
impossible due to that everything we experience is thought our perception which
is subjective. We discussed if new born babies didn’t saw the world in a more ”true”
way because their limited experience. But as with all humans and their senses
we percept the world, even though babies don’t make use of all Kant’s
categories and actually don’t even handle time and space in the same way as grownups
they still percept after what they know.
Another
thing we discussed under the same topic was if our experience don’t limit our
thinking. Scientist who read a lot of difficulties with finding something
usually can be limit in their research due to everything they read, or even choose not to investigate it because of it. With this thought in mind it can be an explanation to why Albert Einstein
and other scientist have been able to publish scientific works that have been
revolotionary and this while they still were young.
The
discussion in the whole seminar group took a bit different direction which was
more philosophic. We mainly discussed if there was something called objective
knowledge and even if there is any proof that there are objects on earth or if
they only exist in our perception. The first thing we discussed resulted in the
second discussion and if there aren’t any objects we can’t actually claim that
there is any objective knowledge then there is nothing to have knowledge about.
But if there is, in my opinion, there has to exist objective knowledge even if
might be impossible for us to reach it.
In
conclusion we can’t actually be sure about if there are objects and objective
knowledge. The only thing we can be sure of is that if there wouldn’t be
knowledge if we wouldn’t exist. We also discussed if we don’t have to redefine
what truth is. I have always seen it as there exist a totalitarian truth. But
if it is impossible to grasp objective knowledge there could actually not be
any totalitarian truth! We have to redefine it to something that with a great
probability is the truth, because we can’t be totally sure.
Hi,
SvaraRaderainteresting read! What especially stuck out for me was the discussion you had in your seminar group about age and experience which comes with it limiting our perception. On the one hand you could argue that more knowledge helps you to understand more and take different perspectives, on the other hand it might be that our perception becomes limited through knowing "too much" already - really interesting thought and definitely food for discussion!
Hi,In some degree,I agree with your conclusion as you mentioned in the end.About the "objective knowledge",it is always relative with subjective knowledge.It seems impossible to probe the authentic truth in our times.As I want to say,probably,the truth we pursue does not exist ever,because we always live in our own mind. is the mind really immense enough to figure it out? Or maybe I could see the truth as the synthesis of all the infinite dimensions,which are the kind of relations between the mirrorings of the world from all objects and the world itself.
SvaraRaderaHi Calle!
SvaraRaderaGreat post! I found your discussion about experience limiting our thinking as very interesting and something I have never thought about before. Your discussion about objective knowledge was similar to ours but we didn't discussed the concept of "truth" so that part of your post was interesting. I agree with you that since we cannot be sure that there is such a thing as objective knowledge then the same thing applies with truth.
You did quite well in that you could share so many points to us.I really love the example of Albert Einstein.Indeed I was in the other group that time.We all diacussed much about baby.What is interesting is that language can narrow down the baby's horizon,because when he was born,he is totally open to the world.Whereas,it is also his first step to open to the world.(from the seminar leader) quite impressive.
SvaraRaderaI really agree with you about the structure of this course. Our understanding of the topic is growing with the different steps. Reading articles and answering questions make us understand some concepts but the lecture and the seminar really help us to clarify the dark points.
SvaraRaderaI don’t understand very well your point about Albert Einstein. I understand that it is difficult to discover something new, in particular, in scientific fields because of the fact that it is complicated to think out of mind and not to limit our thoughts to what we know. But what is the link with the scientists’ age? Do you think that the older you are, the more difficult is to free yourself from what you know? don’t you think that on the contrary, when you are older you are wiser and so you can see the world with perspective?
Hi!
SvaraRaderaYou provide an interesting read on the first week’s theme in your two blog posts! It was especially interesting to follow your thought process on the discussion of objective knowledge, and whether or not human babies have a more objective view of things than us grown-ups with a larger base of connotations attached to things. The way I understand it, what you’re saying in your argumentation is that even though we don’t share the same forms of intuition and categories of perception with young babies, they still have a framework of categories with which they perceive the world. I believe I agree with you on this notion! Since there is no thing as objective knowledge from a human perspective (it would require the viewpoint of a deity) not even a newborn baby is free of forms of intuition since they have to associate things they experience to either intuitions or previous experiences. However, I agree with you that there should exist objective knowledge, it is simply not (as you already stated) something we humans can conceive.
Great text and an interesting discussion, keep up the good work and I’m looking forward to reading your upcoming blog posts next week!
Hi Calle!
SvaraRaderaGreat blogpost! Always interesting to read what others have picked up from the theme. I think you had a good language and a good discussion, and it was easy to follow your text! I stoppped at the part about perceiving the world through a baby's eyes though, and started to wonder: wouldn't it be even more objective to take a person and let it grow up alone without the society's impact? Then the person would still have experience of the world, and clearly perceive it in some way, which would be different from a baby who is both new to the world but also affected by it from day 1. Just a thought, as with all philosopophy so far I don't hold any answers!
Like most of the other persons who commented already I opened my eyes when I saw the passage about our prior experiences being an obstacle while trying to be objective.
SvaraRaderaI think you are on to something here, considering how a lot of research want to find legitimacy in referencing previous studies that are already accepted, and because of that cement a view of the world we already have. I'm not sure that I 100% agree that age is the deciding factor here but rather "experience", in the sense that you get comfortable in doing your work the same way you always did rather than being a rebel who question everything. Now don't get me wrong, the older researcher most likely have more experience, but I don't think age is the primary factor.
Either way, a really interesting thought that made me think even more about the question of objectivity.
I agree with most of your conclusions of this week. The baby thing is really interesting, since yes they are not influenced by their preconceptions about the world, but they are also not capable of (as far as we understand it) complex thought. I was in another seminar group that week, and while we also had the discussion about whether there exists such a thing as objective truth, our was more focused on if it actually mattered. With what we have learned since this theme would lead me to believe that you are a realist in the same way Plato was, since you believe there to be such a thing as an objective truth.
SvaraRaderaI also find the thing you write about new borns very interesting. This is a great example of synthetic a priori knowledge, since a new born baby does not know mathematics. What I find interesting here is when you discuss if they have a more true view of the world.
SvaraRaderaWhat I think is that their view of the world is acutally LESS true. To see the world truly objectively we would need to sense and understand it fully. We cannot simply have one or the other, we need both. A new born percieves the world but does not have any knowledge of it yet and cannot make sense of it that same way a grown person would.